A&A Feedback

Timberrrrrrrr

Farawayhome wrote: »

I don't know the history of this poster. Obviously they should be removed if they've been causing trouble. This does not excuse the gang who've formed to not only get the poster banned but also the mod who they disagree with.

Who has asked for this?

Farawayhome

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

perhaps do as others have suggested and educate yourself about posting in A&A. I'm sure you know where to find the forum charter.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Care to post some examples of this?

....... wrote: »

Sure, I totally agree.

I don't want the poster banned btw, I simply want the same rules applied to everyone equally, and for the forum charter to be upheld. Rather than discussion being shut down due to the same disruptive behaviour over and over.

I'd just like the mods to moderate.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Who has asked for this?

I've made my comments on this now and I've reported what I saw as bullying. I have no desire to get involved with what appears to be a group of very angry posters. Whether this anger is justified or not is not my issue. Those in charge will investigate it and come to their conclusions.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In the meantime - the sound of those who seek to sow discord chuckling over their success can be heard.

I agree. Surely the conclusion that you've reached that there are clear attempts to sow discord is the conclusion that the mods should also be arriving at? It seems obvious enough from where I'm sitting. Random defense from a poster who's never been seen before on A&A, thanks from another poster who's yet to even make their first post on boards. I wouldn't be surprised if this is an orchestrated attack on this forum that seems to largely have had the desired result.

I'm with Cabaal on this one and reckon the simplest most effective approach is for all concerned about the problem to simply put the poster(s) who've no interest other than disrupt on ignore and let the conversation continue without their voice. Don't feed the trolls is the generally accepted wisdom.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

There are standards around posting in A&A that are much higher than other forums on boards. their posting falls well below that standard.

to be fair from what i can see anyway, if a poster's posts fall below the standard required of the forum then they are dealt with. it may not be straight away mind as i think there are only a couple of mods here but they seem to get to them. i can accept though things may slip through but that is what the report post function is there for.o

smacl

smacl wrote: »

Hmmm, first ever post in the A&A forum to comment on the feedback on how the forum is run in support of another poster who's the subject of numerous complaints. Pardon me if I smell a rat.

methinks some far away homes can be found at the end of certain roads

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

to be fair from what i can see anyway, if a poster's posts fall below the standard required of the forum then they are dealt with. it may not be straight away mind as i think there are only a couple of mods here but they seem to get to them. i can accept though things may slip through but that is what the report post function is there for.o

well no, your posts have not been dealt with properly by the mod. that is the problem. Your posts and the mods inaction are the problem. back on ignore for you.

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

I agree. Surely the conclusion that you've reached that there are clear attempts to sow discord is the conclusion that the mods should also be arriving at? It seems obvious enough from where I'm sitting. Random defense from a poster who's never been seen before on A&A, thanks from another poster who's yet to even make their first post on boards. I wouldn't be surprised if this is an orchestrated attack on this forum that seems to largely have had the desired result.

I'm with Cabaal on this one and reckon the simplest most effective approach is for all concerned about the problem to simply put the poster(s) who've no interest other than disrupt on ignore and let the conversation continue without their voice. Don't feed the trolls is the generally accepted wisdom.

in fairness that is conspiracy theory stuff.
i know this is still the biggest discussion forum in ireland but i think those wishing to engage in an orchestrated attack against discussion platforms would just do social media where they have the biggest potential audience. i can't imagine why they would come here when in the great scheme of things it is a small audience. granted it is a big one on an irish scale, but i would think not as much as social media.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well no, your posts have not been dealt with properly by the mod. that is the problem. Your posts and the mods inaction are the problem. back on ignore for you.

in fairness the few posts of mine where i did fall below the standard were dealt with and quite quickly, upon which i learned from my specific mistakes.
where i do have a bit of concern is in relation to discussion of moderation in threads outside the feedback thread not being removed quickly enough, all though again i am mindful that there are only a couple of mods here so things take time to get done.

.......

It's literally like a black comedy at this stage.

Pherekydes

Farawayhome wrote: »

I don't know the history of this poster.

How can you decide if he is being bullied, then?

You jumped straight in from the get go with accusations of bullying, but you haven't even read any of his posts.

That is why you are being called out. That's why people are skeptical.

robindch

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Anyone know how to put a mod on ignore using mobile? Asking for a friend.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Probably best to only comment on things you understand.

Farawayhome wrote: »

It's a pack of bullies.

No need for any of these comments, folks. I suggested last evening that some people should step away from their keyboards for a little stretch - maybe take in a film, a nice cup of cocoa, perhaps a walk by the sea.

If this level of conversation continues, then this thread might also need to be locked to give a chance for frayed nerves to recover to their usual affable vibe.

robindch

eviltwin wrote: »

It's not the mods fault, it's a certain poster. I'm not angry but I am frustrated that it's not addressed. It's a well established pattern now flagged by numerous people. Similar behavior on other forums is dealt with promptly and effectively, why not here?

For the reason which I have repeatedly pointed out - which reason I fail to recall anybody actually addressing in any substantial way - namely, that the two sides arguing about abortion in the abortion thread are behaving, very often, to a greater or lesser degree, and allowing for differences in style, tone and content, in the same way.

Both sides use slippery, loaded and prejudicial language, both routinely avoid addressing questions and relevant issues, neither side seems interested in seeking out common ground, and in many cases, fails to be noticeably civil towards their opposite numbers particularly when it comes to assuming the freedom to impute uncivil motivations. Neither can I help but notice that the posters on both sides who complain about poor posting style in others are, quite often, the ones most likely to be guilty of similar breaches of good style themselves.

There are solutions to this general issue which various people, including myself, have put forward elsewhere and given the general frustration which now abounds so freely, it's likely that one of more of these will be rolled out shortly.

.......

Can you please show examples of other posters who state opinion as fact, never provide evidence for assertions, contradict their own posts and continuously state that they have said something that they haven't please?

Hotblack Desiato

Great. Which thread is next for locking after that?

robindch

robindch wrote: »

For the reason which I have repeatedly pointed out - which reason I fail to recall anybody actually addressing in any substantial way - namely, that the two sides arguing about abortion in the abortion thread are behaving, very often, to a greater or lesser degree, and allowing for differences in style, tone and content, in the same way.

Both sides use slippery, loaded and prejudicial language, both routinely avoid addressing questions and relevant issues, neither side seems interested in seeking out common ground, and in many cases, fails to be noticeably civil towards their opposite numbers particularly when it comes to assuming the freedom to impute uncivil motivations. Neither can I help but notice that the posters on both sides who complain about poor posting style in others are, quite often, the ones most likely to be guilty of similar breaches of good style themselves.

There are solutions to this general issue which various people, including myself, have put forward elsewhere and given the general frustration which now abounds so freely, it's likely that one of more of these will be rolled out shortly.

i think thats you and eotr that feel this way.

i think everyone else feels the other way.

basically i dont think you can back the above up at all

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

For the reason which I have repeatedly pointed out - which reason I fail to recall anybody actually addressing in any substantial way - namely, that the two sides arguing about abortion in the abortion thread are behaving, very often, to a greater or lesser degree, and allowing for differences in style, tone and content, in the same way.

Both sides use slippery, loaded and prejudicial language, both routinely avoid addressing questions and relevant issues, neither side seems interested in seeking out common ground, and in many cases, fails to be noticeably civil towards their opposite numbers particularly when it comes to assuming the freedom to impute uncivil motivations. Neither can I help but notice that the posters on both sides who complain about poor posting style in others are, quite often, the ones most likely to be guilty of similar breaches of good style themselves.

There are solutions to this general issue which various people, including myself, have put forward elsewhere and given the general frustration which now abounds so freely, it's likely that one of more of these will be rolled out shortly.

Can you substantiate the above coming from BOTH sides? As per the forum charter. Can you add to that posters denying saying things despite the same words being quoted back to them. In particular the two posts i reported last night on which no action was taken? It seems acceptable for one side to tell barefaced lies.

Hotblack Desiato

The both sides thing sounds decidedly Trumpian!

I see a certain poster on one side of the debate repeatedly soapboxing, and refusing to engage with questions/rebuttals from other posters.

I'm not seeing any posters on the other side of the debate doing similar.

As for this bullying talk - utterly ridiculous.

Timberrrrrrrr

robindch wrote: »

No need for any of these comments, folks. I suggested last evening that some people should step away from their keyboards for a little stretch - maybe take in a film, a nice cup of cocoa, perhaps a walk by the sea.

So people shouldn't follow the advice you yourself gave?

If this level of conversation continues, then this thread might also need to be locked to give a chance for frayed nerves to recover to their usual affable vibe.

Also i see re the bolded parts that you have slipped back into full on condescending mode, would.it be wrong for me to suggest you follow your own advice and maybe "take in a film, a nice cup of cocoa, perhaps a walk by the sea"?

recedite

smacl wrote: »

I agree. Surely the conclusion that you've reached that there are clear attempts to sow discord is the conclusion that the mods should also be arriving at?

What do you mean by "discord"? Is that a reference to people refusing to take up their pitchforks?

smacl

recedite wrote: »

What do you mean by "discord"? Is that a reference to people refusing to take up their pitchforks?

Not sure where you're getting pitchforks from there Rec. To "sow discord" was originally a biblical term used to unwind a three-fold cord, though my meaning was the common usage one as borrowed here from Quora

quora wrote:

To sow discord is to say and do things which cause a group as a whole to distrust one another, and begin to argue and then to fight. Usually the 'sower' is acting AS IF he is not trying to cause arguments. Sowing discord is something done in secret, by deceit and subterfuge (sneakiness, gossip and lies).

recedite

smacl wrote: »

To "sow discord" was originally a biblical term used to unwind a three-fold cord, though my meaning was the common usage one as borrowed here from Quora

It just seems a bit odd to use what I would call "loaded" religious terminology on this particular forum. From your link....

The unity of believers is likened to a cord woven together. Like a threefold cord, unified believers are stronger and better able to endure the attacks from their enemies.

IMO the abortion thread was far more interesting before the bullying and the hounding of dissenters started.
EOTR is really the only opposition left on that thread now. If he goes, what then?

Will you declare the argument to be finally won? Pro-abortion as the official atheist position? You are only kidding yourself.

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

It just seems a bit odd to use what I would call "loaded" religious terminology on this particular forum. From your link....
IMO the abortion thread was far more interesting before the bullying and the hounding of dissenters started.
EOTR is really the only opposition left on that thread now. If he goes, what then?

Will you declare the argument to be finally won? Pro-abortion as the official atheist position? You are only kidding yourself.

So asking someone to back up thier claims is now considered bullying? :rolleyes:

amcalester

recedite wrote: »

It just seems a bit odd to use what I would call "loaded" religious terminology on this particular forum. From your link....
IMO the abortion thread was far more interesting before the bullying and the hounding of dissenters started.
EOTR is really the only opposition left on that thread now. If he goes, what then?

Will you declare the argument to be finally won? Pro-abortion as the official atheist position? You are only kidding yourself.

There is no bullying, if there was then the mods would have dealt with it but as they didn’t then that’s proof that there is no bullying.

I have full confidence in the mods ability to deal with bullying.

Sometimes a person might think they are being bullied but they are wrong as no bullying was meant and even if it was then as the mods didn’t act there was no bullying.

recedite

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So asking someone to back up thier claims is now considered bullying? :rolleyes:

In an open discussion people are not required to cite evidence every time they give their opinion on something.

recedite

robarmstrong wrote: »

I’ll give you an example.

The poster said they never ever stated abortion was murder.

I posted about a dozen examples of the poster declaring that abortion was indeed murder.

The poster declined to comment or acknowledge their falsehood.

Example 2:

The poster declared the public was asked to vote for abortion on demand in the referendum.

I posted the exact ballot paper, with the electoral definition of what we were asked to vote for, and there was absolutely no mention of “abortion on demand”. Instead, the poster declared his opinion/interpretation of the vote to be fact, when challenged on this, he refused to engage or elaborate further. He also failed to provide proof to support his claim that we were directly asked to vote for/against abortion on demand.

Example 1 is just a matter of semantics which I attempted to explain here in a post thanked by EOTR.


In Example 2 EOTR's point is also valid because the referendum was intended to remove the constitutional right to life which the unborn previously enjoyed. That is a fact. The result of it is that the current (or any future govt.) is free to bring in any kind of legislation for abortion.
The fact that some restrictions (including a 3 day waiting period) were included in the subsequent legislation is irrelevant to the fact that there are now no constitutional restrictions at all.

"We" do not get to vote on legislation, that is only done in the Dail.
Therefore if EOTR said "we were directly asked to vote for/against abortion on demand" that is indeed one way of looking at it.
Another person might look at it differently of course, but neither person would be objectively wrong.

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

In an open discussion people are not required to cite evidence every time they give their opinion on something.

Opinion is not fact.
Saying it's "just my opinion" on something that is a matter of fact is not a cover to avoid having to give evidence.
Saying it's opinion doesn't mean that it trumps evidence that points in the other direction.

Sure, you can state that it's your opinion or whatever, but if you can't back it up, then it's going to be dismissed for that it is, unsupported opinion.

If it just opinion and you have no evidence, I don't see why there's reluctance to just say: "I have no evidence, it's an unsupported opinion".
i don't get why there's so much dodging or why people have to invent giant conspiracies to avoid that.

Dial Hard

robindch wrote:

No need for any of these comments, folks. I suggested last evening that some people should step away from their keyboards for a little stretch - maybe take in a film, a nice cup of cocoa, perhaps a walk by the sea.

I say this a neutral observer of the various goings-on in A&A recently: that is one of the most patronising, condescending comments I've seen from a mod in a long time.

I have absolutely no vested interest in this forum but from what I've seen over the past week or so, I think robindch has gotten too close to the issue to mod it effectively and could perhaps do with taking a step back and letting a more detached mod take the reins for a while. Just my 2c.

robindch

Dial Hard wrote: »

I say this a neutral observer of the various goings-on in A&A recently: that is one of the most patronising, condescending comments I've seen from a mod in a long time.

I'm sorry to read that you view that comment - meant well - as incorrigibly insulting for reasons you don't mention.

The flareup the other day was not characteristic of the forum and history has shown that peacefully asking posters in this, or very similar ways, to step back into the real world for a break has helped the usual forum balance to reassert itself.

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

In an open discussion people are not required to cite evidence every time they give their opinion on something.

Correct, but when a poster consistently posts thier opinion as fact then evidence is required.

If i said abortion at 40 weeks is fine because there would be no pain involved then you would obviously expect me to have evidence for this claim. If i said the above but added "in my opinion" then obviously there wouldn't be evidence as it's not fact.

The pister consistently soap boxes opinion as fact and then runs away when asked for evidence, refuses to answer follow up questions and indeed even flip flops from thread to thread on actions that should be taken

Garth brookes posters should bebbaton charged

People who pass strikers should be beaten

Anti abortion people outside of doctor surgeries should be allowed to do as they please.

If you cannot see the contradictions and the way the poster plays the game then that's your problem, there's a reason this is the only abortion thread EOTR hasn't been banned from for soap boxing.

robarmstrong

recedite wrote: »

Example 1 is just a matter of semantics which I attempted to explain here in a post thanked by EOTR.


In Example 2 EOTR's point is also valid because the referendum was intended to remove the constitutional right to life which the unborn previously enjoyed. That is a fact. The result of it is that the current (or any future govt.) is free to bring in any kind of legislation for abortion.
The fact that some restrictions (including a 3 day waiting period) were included in the subsequent legislation is irrelevant to the fact that there are now no constitutional restrictions at all.

"We" do not get to vote on legislation, that is only done in the Dail.
Therefore if EOTR said "we were directly asked to vote for/against abortion on demand" that is indeed one way of looking at it.
Another person might look at it differently of course, but neither person would be objectively wrong.

Peoples interpretation of a term does not overrule the actual definition of the term itself. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being, given that abortion is “legal”, where is the murder taking place? Your interpretation of something does not give you grounds to spout it as fact, not in any circumstance.

The issue with example 1 you seem to have gotten completely off, eotr said they never stated abortion was murder, I posted numerous examples where they actually DID say that abortion was murder. So eotr said something then denied (with the proof of all his previous posts right there) ever saying it.

Example 2 is again irrelevant. I was not asked to vote for abortion on demand, you were not asked to vote for abortion on demand. I have already outlined exactly what we were requested to vote for, not my interpretation of what we were to vote for, not your interpretation, not eotrs interpretation. Nowhere on the ballot paper were the terms abortion on demand.

Any answer to “what were we asked to vote on/for” that does not reference exactly what the ballot paper said and exactly what article was to be amended is incorrect and simply an opinion.

Dial Hard

robindch wrote:

I'm sorry to read that you view that comment - meant well - as incorrigibly insulting for reasons you don't mention.

It came across as the way someone would speak to an overtired toddler - a patronising pat on the head and go-and-lie-down-now-mummy-knows-best edict. You say you didn't mean it that way, but it certainly read that way. Following it up with a threat to lock yet another thread if things didn't go the way you dictated didn't exactly help the tone of the message either, to be fair.

I don't doubt that similar actions have worked in the past - it's a common modding tool across Boards for a reason. But words and delivery matter and you fell short in that regard, imo. It was all very "I told all you to run along and play, did I not?"