A&A Feedback

robindch

....... wrote: »

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?

If posters feel it would be useful, I'll be quite happy to list a few posts showing the issues I mentioned:

robindch wrote: »

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.

Regardless of that, discussion is continuing concerning the way that the abortion thread has been moderated, and the actions of the various posters concerned, and we expect a useful resolution addressing multiple issues shortly.

recedite

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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.

Actually no, I would recognise this as being only your opinion either way.
If you said "there is evidence that a 40 week old foetus is incapable of feeling pain" I would ask you to cite that evidence.

robindch

Dial Hard wrote: »

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.

While the suggestion to take a break was quite serious, the means by which this could be done certainly was not - and was specifically set so far over the top, I felt that - as in the past - it could not be interpreted seriously. As these comments never have been in the past.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

While the suggestion to take a break was quite serious, the means by which this could be done certainly was not - and was specifically set so far over the top, I felt that - as in the past - it could not be interpreted seriously. As these comments never have been in the past.

I would suggest that we lock this thread whilst the moderation discussion is ongoing, I cannot see any use to having this thread open as I feel we have all said what we have needed to say, highlighted what we felt was worth highlighting, provided examples etc.

As someone who is "spearheading" this issue with moderation and moderation standards and is more than likely part of the discussion between moderation teams, I would support the idea of locking this thread until the discussion in the background has finished, however I would expect a timeline (I know it's the weekend, I don't expect anyone to be going "all out" on their downtime), of updates consisting of:

1. Status of the back-end discussion
2. Any ideas to be shared with the userbase (this is critical as we all need to see what posting standard and style is to be expected to avail of this forum and this discussion
3. When we can expect CMods to chime in with feedback and will this feedback be a statement or an open discussion with the users

recedite

Its true that Robindch is more likely to wield the banhammer with a wordy flourish than with a display of rhetorical chasteness.
But I don't think anyone would really fault him for that

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

Actually no, I would recognise this as being only your opinion either way.
If you said "there is evidence that a 40 week old foetus is incapable of feeling pain" I would ask you to cite that evidence.

Ok so if i said that, those exact words, you would ask for evidence, if i ignored your request and simply carried on stating that as fact over many threads over many months would it not get to a point where you would be peed off?

Should users be allowed to state thier opinion over and over as fact and ignore calls for proof of thier claims?

recedite

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ok so if i said that, those exact words, you would ask for evidence, if i ignored your request and simply carried on stating that as fact over many threads over many months would it not get to a point where you would be peed off?

Should users be allowed to state thier opinion over and over as fact and ignore calls for proof of thier claims?

That could be construed as "soapboxing" which is a matter for the mod to decide on.
Soapboxing is generally defined as repeating an opinion ad nauseum.
Its not the same as trying to pass off an opinion as a fact.

Faith

Mod Note: Folks, I'm stepping in as an impartial CMod here to ask you all to remember that this thread is for feedback, not dragging other topics into it when a thread is locked. Please keep it as such. It's also not the appropriate place to criticise posters or make claims of bullying etc. Report posts that you feel are problematic rather than discussing them in here.

We have agreed that the forum needs another mod or two on board, and that the charter could do with a review. Please bear with us while this is taking place. We have taken your feedback on board, I assure you of that.

Please consider this a line in the sand. I don't want to lock the thread, but I will if it keeps going around in inappropriate circles.

Cabaal

Farawayhome wrote: »

The button is in the bottom left. Bullying is the lowest of the low. I hope this gets fully investigated and if it's shown that posters have been engaged in bullying, then they are removed.

I'd kindly ask that you formally apologise for making such a claim.

It's baseless and its no different to if you claimed the posters were trolls. If you have a concern then report the post so a mod can review your claim.

However to make such a comment in relation to posters on a thread is bang out of order and should be retracted and apologised for IMHO.

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

I'd kindly ask that you formally apologise for making such a claim. It's baseless and its no different to if you claimed the posters were trolls. If you have a concern then report the post so a mod can review your claim. However to make such a comment in relation to posters on a thread is bang out of order and should be retracted and apologised for IMHO.

The allegation of 'bullying' has already been addressed by yours truly here and is - so far as one of the alleged bullyees (?) is concerned - is history.

That said, your point concerning disjunctive and/or needlessly prejudicial language is well-taken and in the upcoming charter review, there may well be additional prose intended to deal with unnecessary, unwanted and - frankly - silly allegations like that.

Timberrrrrrrr

robindch wrote: »

The allegation of 'bullying' has already been addressed by yours truly here and is - so far as one of the alleged bullyees (?) is concerned - is history.

That said, your point concerning disjunctive and/or needlessly prejudicial language is well-taken and in the upcoming charter review, there may well be additional prose intended to deal with unnecessary, unwanted and - frankly - silly allegations like that.

Appreciate the update and apologies if my fickle comment has caused needless work for mods/cmods.

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

EOTR is really the only opposition left on that thread now. If he goes, what then?

Then nothing. If the thread dies because no-one can argue a pro-abortion stance to the same level of debate we hold on the other threads on this forum then that's hardly our fault or problem. Why should we lower the quality of debate to suit someone elses lack of rational argument?

recedite wrote: »

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

And that is different to soap-boxing how?
Boards is not a blog, it is a discussion forum and discussions aren't just people simply stating opinions at each other.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

If posters feel it would be useful, I'll be quite happy to list a few posts showing the issues I mentioned:

Please do.

robindch

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Appreciate the update and apologies if my fickle comment has caused needless work for mods/cmods.

No worries - a general review and consequent overhaul was well overdue and - surprisingly enough - the mod and cmod teams do appreciate feedback <snip>.

.......

robindch wrote: »

If posters feel it would be useful, I'll be quite happy to list a few posts showing the issues I mentioned:

Yes please.

Faith

Faith wrote: »

Mod Note: Folks, I'm stepping in as an impartial CMod here to ask you all to remember that this thread is for feedback, not dragging other topics into it when a thread is locked. Please keep it as such. It's also not the appropriate place to criticise posters or make claims of bullying etc. Report posts that you feel are problematic rather than discussing them in here.

We have agreed that the forum needs another mod or two on board, and that the charter could do with a review. Please bear with us while this is taking place. We have taken your feedback on board, I assure you of that.

Please consider this a line in the sand. I don't want to lock the thread, but I will if it keeps going around in inappropriate circles.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Please do.

....... wrote: »

Yes please.

Mod Note: Perhaps my last post wasn't clear enough, specifically the part where I drew a line in the sand. This thread is not the place to keep arguments going.

We thank you all for your patience while we work out what needs to be done to improve the forum for all users.

EDIT: On reflection, I think this thread is a bit of a red flag to a bull right now, so I'm going to lock it while things settle down. As always, if the forum mods believe it should be open, then it is their right to re-open the thread.

robindch

All -

Over the last long while, the standard of posting has deteriorated in the abortion-related thread to the point at which it no longer reflects the wishes of the posters and of the forum mods and the catmods and certainly doesn't reflect the frequently excellent standard of earlier times. Internal discussions over the last few days have identified clear problems and possible solutions which respect, to what we hope is the greatest possible degree, the freedom traditionally associated with the forum and the posters who make it what it is, and the broader wish to sustain peaceful discussion of controversial topics.

Moderators will therefore carry out the following actions:

• The abortion thread and the feedback threads will be re-opened, past posts there will be left as they are and no sanction will be applied to any poster for past conduct. That applies equally to all posters, regardless of point of view and regardless of conduct. That said, forum moderators acknowledge that the standard of posting was problematic, and going forward, forum moderators will be much stricter on instances of soap-boxing, backseat moderating, evidence of abusing the reported posts function, attempting to circumnavigate a poster's right to use the "Ignore" feature or anything else which forum moderators deem unhelpful.
• Forum moderators will now act as moderators do in the Trump and Brexit threads elsewhere on boards - namely, to delete, on sight, posts which they assess as below standard. Forum moderators may post indicating that a post was deleted, may note briefly why a post was deleted, but will not note whose post was deleted. We do not believe an appeals process is useful for these deletions, but may review this decision should it become necessary in the future.
• The fact-adjudication charter update from last year has made nobody happy, it has resolved nothing and on at least some occasions, was used less to adjudicate upon a point of fact, and more to point-score. It will be deleted.
• In its place, we propose that posters interact as people do in real life - if one poster posts an opinion, another poster may, politely, ask the first to justify why they believe their opinion to be accurate. An uncivil request to justify may well be deleted, as might an uncivil reply or a reply which avoids the issue in one fashion or another. If one poster chooses to refuse to justify their opinion, moderators recommend that, again as in real life, the other party should note that the opinion wasn't justified, and should then move on. Moderators will not micro-manage discussions between forum members - it's up to posters to continue the discussion themselves, once basic civility is observed.
• The charter update from last year includes some comments regarding the use of prejudicial language against other posters and these will remain in place - so posters will still not be allowed to refer to each other as "liars", "trolls", "bigots" and anything else which imputes antisocial motives to other posters, and anything else which the moderators might, from time to time, determine is detrimental to the peaceful continuance of discussion.
• The charter will also be updated to reflect the often-noted, but formally unstated, understanding that A+A is a discussion forum and not a preaching forum - a place where issues can be discussed peaceably, regardless of how passionately posters might believe in, or wish to propagate, their own points of view, or how intensely they might disagree with those of others.
• Over the next while, moderators would like to hear from forum posters, publicly here in the feedback thread, or privately via PM, whether they feel that these updates have adequately addressed the issues which gave rise to them.
• A+A is actively seeking to appoint another co-moderator.

.......

So will the behaviour of:

- stating an opinion as fact
- refusing to provide evidence

and then after it has been noted by another poster that the opinion wasnt justified

- continuing to assert the unjustified opinion as fact while ignoring requests to substantiate it

still be allowed - because that is one of the biggest issues right now and I dont see anything in your last post that specifically addressed this.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

All -

Over the last long while, the standard of posting has deteriorated in the abortion-related thread to the point at which it no longer reflects the wishes of the posters and of the forum mods and the catmods and certainly doesn't reflect the frequently excellent standard of earlier times. Internal discussions over the last few days have identified clear problems and possible solutions which respect, to what we hope is the greatest possible degree, the freedom traditionally associated with the forum and the posters who make it what it is, and the broader wish to sustain peaceful discussion of controversial topics.

Moderators will therefore carry out the following actions:

• The abortion thread and the feedback threads will be re-opened, past posts there will be left as they are and no sanction will be applied to any poster for past conduct. That applies equally to all posters, regardless of point of view and regardless of conduct. That said, forum moderators acknowledge that the standard of posting was problematic, and going forward, forum moderators will be much stricter on instances of soap-boxing, backseat moderating, evidence of abusing the reported posts function, attempting to circumnavigate a poster's right to use the "Ignore" feature or anything else which forum moderators deem unhelpful.
• Forum moderators will now act as moderators do in the Trump and Brexit threads elsewhere on boards - namely, to delete, on sight, posts which they assess as below standard. Forum moderators may post indicating that a post was deleted, may note briefly why a post was deleted, but will not note whose post was deleted. We do not believe an appeals process is useful for these deletions, but may review this decision should it become necessary in the future.
• The fact-adjudication charter update from last year has made nobody happy, it has resolved nothing and on at least some occasions, was used less to adjudicate upon a point of fact, and more to point-score. It will be deleted.
• In its place, we propose that posters interact as people do in real life - if one poster posts an opinion, another poster may, politely, ask the first to justify why they believe their opinion to be accurate. An uncivil request to justify may well be deleted, as might an uncivil reply or a reply which avoids the issue in one fashion or another. If one poster chooses to refuse to justify their opinion, moderators recommend that, again as in real life, the other party should note that the opinion wasn't justified, and should then move on. Moderators will not micro-manage discussions between forum members - it's up to posters to continue the discussion themselves, once basic civility is observed.
• The charter update from last year includes some comments regarding the use of prejudicial language against other posters and these will remain in place - so posters will still not be allowed to refer to each other as "liars", "trolls", "bigots" and anything else which imputes antisocial motives to other posters, and anything else which the moderators might, from time to time, determine is detrimental to the peaceful continuance of discussion.
• The charter will also be updated to reflect the often-noted, but formally unstated, understanding that A+A is a discussion forum and not a preaching forum - a place where issues can be discussed peaceably, regardless of how passionately posters might believe in, or wish to propagate, their own points of view, or how intensely they might disagree with those of others.
• Over the next while, moderators would like to hear from forum posters, publicly here in the feedback thread, or privately via PM, whether they feel that these updates have adequately addressed the issues which gave rise to them.
• A+A is actively seeking to appoint another co-moderator.

You go from stating that mods will be harder on soap-boxing, to saying that posters should just move on if someone refuses to do more than state their opinion but then circle back to say that A&A is for discussion, not preaching.
Do you really not see the contradiction here?

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

All -

Over the last long while, the standard of posting has deteriorated in the abortion-related thread to the point at which it no longer reflects the wishes of the posters and of the forum mods and the catmods and certainly doesn't reflect the frequently excellent standard of earlier times.

For the nth time, can you please give us some examples of the poor posts from the pro-choice side? This a feedback thread, we need that feedback.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

All -
[*]The fact-adjudication charter update from last year has made nobody happy, it has resolved nothing and on at least some occasions, was used less to adjudicate upon a point of fact, and more to point-score. It will be deleted.
[*]In its place, we propose that posters interact as people do in real life - if one poster posts an opinion, another poster may, politely, ask the first to justify why they believe their opinion to be accurate. An uncivil request to justify may well be deleted, as might an uncivil reply or a reply which avoids the issue in one fashion or another. If one poster chooses to refuse to justify their opinion, moderators recommend that, again as in real life, the other party should note that the opinion wasn't justified, and should then move on. [/list]

Thanks robin, can I just clarify though, on the above -

I understand there will be no micromanaging of discussions, and that is absolutely understandable and acceptable. However, does this address the below for example:

Poster A: We were asked to vote for abortion on demand
Poster B: *provides evidence of exactly what we were asked to vote on and provides the exact ballot paper*

Does this mean Poster A has to clarify that it is their opinion rather than simply claim that's what we voted for? I think it would be beneficial to all and a good addition to the charter that if you make statements as such, if challenged on them you must either acknowledge that it is just your opinion/interpretation, or provide facts to support your statement. I still feel that there is far too much leeway for potential soap-boxing and trolling here.

If I say the sky is green, and you challenge me on it (in a friendly manner of course) then I should have to support my statement, if I just say "because I said it's green and that's what it is robin" and refuse to entertain your counter argument then that's the equivalent of trolling/soap-boxing. I don't see how the updated charter is reflecting the handling of situations like this as it is absolutely detrimental to a discussion forum for someone to be able to make a statement (with absolutely no intention on providing any ounce of proof other than "because I think/believe so") and simply walk away. It defeats the purpose of it being a discussion.

Appreciate that the mod team are encouraging pro-active feedback on the modifications to the charter though.

Farawayhome

That seemed like a reasonable post from the mod. Fair and balanced. I just want to know if the issue of bullying was investigated?

Neyite

....... wrote: »

So will the behaviour of:

- stating an opinion as fact
- refusing to provide evidence

and then after it has been noted by another poster that the opinion wasnt justified

- continuing to assert the unjustified opinion as fact while ignoring requests to substantiate it

still be allowed - because that is one of the biggest issues right now and I dont see anything in your last post that specifically addressed this.

No, it wont be allowed and will be actionable. Someone making it clear that it is their opinion is fine, presenting that opinion as a fact is problematic and below the standard we hope the thread will have from this point on. By all means ask a poster to substantiate but if they have not substantiated it and you see them continuing to post on the thread then report it.


Now mods may need to tweak how best an on thread post like that gets handled. Would something like "unsubstantiated" in the 'edited by' field be helpful in letting other posters know that the statement is not worth debating over? Or is it something that the poster would rebut within the debate itself? Which would work best for the thread/forum I don't really know but it's probably down to you guys along with your mods to best figure that one out.

robarmstrong

Neyite wrote: »

No, it wont be allowed and will be actionable. Someone making it clear that it is their opinion is fine, presenting that opinion as a fact is problematic and below the standard we hope the thread will have from this point on. By all means ask a poster to substantiate but if they have not substantiated it and you see them continuing to post on the thread then report it.


Now mods may need to tweak how best an on thread post like that gets handled. Would something like "unsubstantiated" in the 'edited by' field be helpful in letting other posters know that the statement is not worth debating over? Or is it something that the poster would rebut within the debate itself? Which would work best for the thread/forum I don't really know but it's probably down to you guys along with your mods to best figure that one out.

Thanks for that Neyite.

I think the problem was that when we were reporting the unsubstantiated claims, they weren't being interpreted as unsubstantiated and were allowed to continue as such.

I do however support moderator intervention in the offending posters' post along the lines of edited by:

Mod: the above claim has not been substantiated.

Then I suppose it draws the line between having an opinion (and I absolutely do not want to take that away from anyone in here regardless of "side") but I do firmly believe that nobody has the right to come onto a discussion forum, make a baseless claim/pass opinion off as fact and then avoid all attempts at addressing challenges to the statement, it's just not Boards, you go anywhere else on this website and the discussion standard is (usually) quite high and not tolerant of behavior that we have outlined initially.

Another big problem though is the ignore function.

Poster A makes a statement that is not supported by any evidence, but proclaims the statement is fact.
Poster B challenges this with evidence proving the statement to be either false or just an opinion, however Poster A has previously placed Poster B on the ignore list.

Could you let me know what happens in that particular scenario? Does Poster B report the false/unsubstantiated claim but highlight that they believe Poster A may have them on the ignore list?

.......

robarmstrong wrote: »

Could you let me know what happens in that particular scenario? Does Poster B report the false/unsubstantiated claim but highlight that they believe Poster A may have them on the ignore list?

The refusal never happens explicitly, the poster never SAYS they are refusing to substantiate the claim, they simply dodge, leave the thread, answer other bits and pieces, or just not address the poster asking them for evidence.

I think its reasonable, if someone asks for evidence and none is forthcoming and the same poster posts again, and makes the same claim again - thats enough to show that they are moving on without substantiating the claim they made. Regardless of who they have on ignore.

It would also have to be said, that this is an issue with one individual and several individuals ask for evidence. Its not credible that this person has everyone on ignore.

Neyite

robarmstrong wrote: »

Another big problem though is the ignore function.

Poster A makes a statement that is not supported by any evidence, but proclaims the statement is fact.
Poster B challenges this with evidence proving the statement to be either false or just an opinion, however Poster A has previously placed Poster B on the ignore list.

Could you let me know what happens in that particular scenario? Does Poster B report the false/unsubstantiated claim but highlight that they believe Poster A may have them on the ignore list?

Yes, the ignore function will be a tad problematic with the rule for unsubstantiated posts. If A has B on ignore then any request to substantiate will obviously not be seen. So best course of action would be to report it and mention you may be on ignore - that way a mod can request it on the thread so as to be seen.



It's important to note that the defence of 'Oh I didn't substantiate all these posts because I have A B and C on ignore' is not a defence that will be accepted by a mod or in a DRP. Also, if your ignore list is long enough to be disruptive to a discussion then a mod may have to consider whether or not you can contribute properly to the debate and may need to ask you to stop posting.



The system setup is that you can put anyone on ignore, even a mod. And also important to note that mods can't see who's on who's ignore lists - only you can see that. But someone who puts a forum mod on ignore does so at their own risk. The onus is on all posters to be able to see mod notes or guidance in a thread.



You are under no obligation to respond to someone you have on ignore and it may be considered aggressive behaviour if a poster continues to attempt to interact with another knowing they are on that persons' ignore list. If you suspect that you are on an ignore list then any interaction with them is wasted really - you are best to return the favour and put them on your own ignore list.

uptherebels

So what is the point that differentiates something that is opinion and fact?
Is saying something and then posting IMO at the end enough?
Is it the wording of the post in general?
Even opinions are usually formed by some information.

smacl

uptherebels wrote: »

So what is the point that differentiates something that is opinion and fact?

That it can be supported by some reasonably trustworthy and objective reference material. So for example, I challenged a poster on something I found dubious here, they came back and supported their comments here My point of view remains diametrically opposed to their's, be as it turns out their point was well made and well supported.

Faith

robarmstrong wrote: »

Thanks robin, can I just clarify though, on the above -

I understand there will be no micromanaging of discussions, and that is absolutely understandable and acceptable. However, does this address the below for example:

Poster A: We were asked to vote for abortion on demand
Poster B: *provides evidence of exactly what we were asked to vote on and provides the exact ballot paper*

Does this mean Poster A has to clarify that it is their opinion rather than simply claim that's what we voted for? I think it would be beneficial to all and a good addition to the charter that if you make statements as such, if challenged on them you must either acknowledge that it is just your opinion/interpretation, or provide facts to support your statement. I still feel that there is far too much leeway for potential soap-boxing and trolling here.

If I say the sky is green, and you challenge me on it (in a friendly manner of course) then I should have to support my statement, if I just say "because I said it's green and that's what it is robin" and refuse to entertain your counter argument then that's the equivalent of trolling/soap-boxing. I don't see how the updated charter is reflecting the handling of situations like this as it is absolutely detrimental to a discussion forum for someone to be able to make a statement (with absolutely no intention on providing any ounce of proof other than "because I think/believe so") and simply walk away. It defeats the purpose of it being a discussion.

Appreciate that the mod team are encouraging pro-active feedback on the modifications to the charter though.

I’m curious, how would you (or anyone reading this) draft an update to the charter that covers that? Bearing in mind that we can’t force anyone to reply to anything. I think if there’s a fair way to moderate that, then we’d be all ears.

robindch

uptherebels wrote: »

So what is the point that differentiates something that is opinion and fact?

There's no English language feature which allows a speaker, without making one's prose inexcusably cumbersome or legalistic anyway, to differentiate a sentence intended as an opinion from a sentence intended as fact. Fewer adjectives and an absence of vague terms like "believe", "seem", "appear" etc lean in the direction of more precise prose, while flowerly or wandering prose, an abundance of waffly modifiers and belief- or appearance-based framing verbs suggest imprecision.

Intractable problems arose, for example, with this very issue in the fact adjudication procedure (now deceased) because posters used - intentionally or otherwise - imprecise language which makes it hard or impossible to figure out not only exactly what was being said, but also whether it was being stated as fact or opinion.

To pick robarmstrong's example above concerning an alleged fact-claim of "Poster A: We were asked to vote for abortion on demand" - which I discussed in some detail here - I still have no idea what either of the two posters means by "abortion on demand", so in the absence of agreed definitions, any claims regarding whether or not a public vote was "abortion on demand", or amounted to "abortion on demand" or indeed, anything else, are meaningless, so there's no point in arguing about them - that applies to both sides of the discussion.

The following image indicates some of the issues which arise (from here):



In summary, posters are free to make claims, or state opinions, or anything in between, and should these be ambiguous or otherwise imprecise, moderators are going to assume in general, that other posters are smart enough firstly to see that, and secondly, to know that there's no point in pursuing some poster to prove a rhetorical flourish any more than one should ask a poster to prove a joke.

Also, as Faith points out above, nobody can force somebody else to answer a question. A polite question might elicit a polite answer, or it might elicit evasion or nothing at all and it's assumed that the poster who posed the question can figure out which one it is. Moderators cannot, in the general case, be called in to adjudicate on that, nor to force somebody who does not wish to provide an answer, to do so.