A&A Feedback

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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.

Soap-boxing also includes activities like some poster obstinately demanding that another poster replies to a question, or justifies an fact-claim, or supports an opinion - when it is clear to everybody that they will not or cannot do so.

Sometimes - as the update above suggests - it's simply best to note that a question has not been answered, or not answered fully, despite a small number of polite requests - and then to move on.

eviltwin

I suppose time will tell if these new measures work. Thanks to the mods for trying to address it. I hope those responsible for the issues concerned take note.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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.

The update above notes that forum moderators and catmods have decided not to action any past conduct, regardless of poster and regardless of point of view. If you are truly interested in re-examining past misdemeanours, then please feel free to do so in your own time as no posts in the thread have been edited or deleted and it's not all that hard to find instances of poor posting style by posters on all sides of the issue.

robindch

Farawayhome wrote: »

I just want to know if the issue of bullying was investigated?

There have been two posts which you appear to have missed which addressed the unusual allegation of bullying.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110021212&postcount=1511
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110039727&postcount=1541

robarmstrong

Faith wrote: »

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.

Well it’s a discussion forum, unless you are a troll, you should be expected to defend or substantiate your statements or claims, especially if they’re labeled off as fact.

Let me use the example that robindch keeps misinterpreting (sorry robin but you do keep misunderstanding this):

Poster A: “We were asked to vote for abortion on demand in the referendum”
Poster B: “Well no, we weren’t actually, here’s exactly what we were asked to vote on - *link here containing exact ballot paper of the referendum* + *quoted text of article that clearly references that wording would be removed and replaced with “”Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies.””

So in this scenario Poster A makes a claim (note they do not refer to it as “I think/I feel”) that we were asked to vote for abortion on demand. Poster B however directly refutes this with evidence directly contradicting Poster A's statement. Now to clarify, it does not matter how you interpret what you were asked to vote on, as how you interpret it does not overrule the black and white that is on the ballot paper. If you interpret "Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies" that is your opinion/interpretation and thus should not be spouted off as fact. My interpretation of the vote is also irrelevant so I don't understand how or why this keeps getting brought up in terms of moderating the debate. Your interpretation of what we are being asked to vote on simply does not overrule what we were actually asked to vote on, down in black & white, on the ballot paper.

So I would believe that in that particular scenario, Poster A (if they aren't backing up their claim, accepted that there is no mention of the phrase "abortion on demand" on the ballot paper or have not explicitly said it is their opinion) should be sanctioned with moderator action as it is very clear they are not entertaining discussion on the matter and are not engaging in a discussion in good faith.

To moderate this I would recommend that a member of the team jump in and ask Poster A to provide some factual representation of their statement, or request Poster A to clarify whether it is their opinion or a claim they are making. If it is clarified as an opinion, then Poster A should thus address it accordingly. Any failure to do so, would result in moderator action.

A healthy discussion is always between two contrasting opinions, but should always contain facts or articles to support their position, otherwise, what's the point?

As to not being able to force anyone to reply to something, I wouldn't expect you to force someone to reply to something, however, please understand the detrimental effect behind an individual not responding to any challenges/rebuttals of any claims they make in a discussion, it then just becomes soap-boxing. Which again, is actionable under the charter.

robindch wrote: »

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.

But that is where you are wrong, neither sides "definition" of abortion on demand matters, as there is no mention of the term in the ballot paper, or in the proposed legislation or amended article, so if you look at the ballot paper and say that it asks you to vote for abortion on demand, you're simply opining, you're expressing your interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the vote, but it is not factual, it is an opinion or interpretation.

Let's say (in Ireland) Person X intentionally kills Person Y. Person Y asked Person X to do so, Person X does not see that as murder. They do not interpret what they are doing is murder, however the law dictates very clearly that they have unlawfully killed another human being (that was not in self defence - see the home defence act* think that's what it's called).

So, Person X tells the judge, "no Judge, I did not murder Person Y". What do you say, as the Judge, robin?

.......

robindch wrote: »

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.

The issue is less with the person refusing to provide an answer and more with them incessantly continuing to repeat the unsupported opinion even when it has been shown to be factually incorrect.

Im surprised at all this wordiness around what is a pretty simple premise - one poster continuously posts unsupported opinion, refuses to back it, and then continues to post it over and over.

Its not debate, its not discussion, and worse, it stifles real discussion because people start talking about the posters disruptive manner of posting rather than the subject at hand.

recedite

robarmstrong wrote: »

Let me use the example that X keeps misinterpreting (sorry X but you do keep misunderstanding this):

The above is a good example of soapboxing; repeating the same opinion ad nauseum.

As for the point you were making, an amendment whose primary effect is to remove entirely the constitutional right to life of a group which formerly enjoyed it, leads to an "open season" on that group. That could be called "abortion on demand". Then suggesting ”Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies...” means that the abortion may be limited at some subsequent stage, but in the intervening period there are no actual constitutional restrictions at all.
Its all a bit pedantic, and its a moot point at this stage anyway because the subsequent legislation setting the limits has been enacted.

robarmstrong

recedite wrote: »

The above is a good example of soapboxing; repeating the same opinion ad nauseum.

As for the point you were making, an amendment whose primary effect is to remove entirely the constitutional right to life of a group which formerly enjoyed it, leads to an "open season" on that group. That could be called "abortion on demand". Then suggesting ”Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies...” means that the abortion may be limited at some subsequent stage, but in the intervening period there are no actual constitutional restrictions at all.
Its all a bit pedantic, and its a moot point at this stage anyway because the subsequent legislation setting the limits has been enacted.

Where is the example of soapboxing, I hope you have reported it? Please point it out.

Now, let's dissect your post.

The above which is highlighted in bold, is scaremongering and nothing more than mere assumptions, which again does not turn in for a good discussion as it's just simply baseless.

If it's a moot point, why does a certain poster keep failing to address their (interpreted) factual claim? It is something that is still claimed, that there is "abortion on demand", that we voted for "abortion on demand", when there is no basis to either statement.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

Soap-boxing also includes activities like some poster obstinately demanding that another poster replies to a question, or justifies an fact-claim, or supports an opinion - when it is clear to everybody that they will not or cannot do so.

Sometimes - as the update above suggests - it's simply best to note that a question has not been answered, or not answered fully, despite a small number of polite requests - and then to move on.

According to this forums charter, soapboxing is "constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it" (part 3 in this post), so what you have described is the opposite of soap-boxing. It is ludicrous to claim it is the same when the point behind repeatedly questioning a soapboxed claim is to get some actual discussion on it.

At the end of this forums charter you state: "A+A is a discussion forum, so forum moderators will work to keep the discussion flowing as smoothly as possible."
How can that happen when you are giving carte blanche to soapboxing? What is to stop everyone from just repeating their claims and not enter discussion on them when the direction from moderators is to just ignore soapboxing?
How can this be a discussion forum if the mods will not do their jobs and moderator those who do not want to discuss?

The abortion thread is the perfect example of what will happen to the rest of the forum if this is not address properly. That thread collapsed because one side wouldn't actually discuss their claims and the other side had nothing else to do except call them out on it. If the soapboxing was dealt with in a timely manner last year, then none of this would have happened.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

The update above notes that forum moderators and catmods have decided not to action any past conduct, regardless of poster and regardless of point of view. If you are truly interested in re-examining past misdemeanours, then please feel free to do so in your own time as no posts in the thread have been edited or deleted and it's not all that hard to find instances of poor posting style by posters on all sides of the issue.

I'm not asking to action any past conduct (on either side at this stage), I'm asking for examples of poor posting styles from the pro-choice side because I can't see any. If nothing else this will only serve to stop us making the same mistakes again, so I'm not sure why you continuously bait the obvious existence of such posts but never actually link to any of them. And I'm not the only person who asked (and therefore cannot see either them) either.

robindch

One low-quality post deleted here.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

One low-quality post deleted here.

I think that particular individual might be a new poster, would it worth the while to drop them a PM do you think? Apologies for my off-topic post.

Faith

robarmstrong wrote: »

Well it’s a discussion forum, unless you are a troll, you should be expected to defend or substantiate your statements or claims, especially if they’re labeled off as fact.

Let me use the example that robindch keeps misinterpreting (sorry robin but you do keep misunderstanding this):

Poster A: “We were asked to vote for abortion on demand in the referendum”
Poster B: “Well no, we weren’t actually, here’s exactly what we were asked to vote on - *link here containing exact ballot paper of the referendum* + *quoted text of article that clearly references that wording would be removed and replaced with “”Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies.””

So in this scenario Poster A makes a claim (note they do not refer to it as “I think/I feel”) that we were asked to vote for abortion on demand. Poster B however directly refutes this with evidence directly contradicting Poster A's statement. Now to clarify, it does not matter how you interpret what you were asked to vote on, as how you interpret it does not overrule the black and white that is on the ballot paper. If you interpret "Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies" that is your opinion/interpretation and thus should not be spouted off as fact. My interpretation of the vote is also irrelevant so I don't understand how or why this keeps getting brought up in terms of moderating the debate. Your interpretation of what we are being asked to vote on simply does not overrule what we were actually asked to vote on, down in black & white, on the ballot paper.

So I would believe that in that particular scenario, Poster A (if they aren't backing up their claim, accepted that there is no mention of the phrase "abortion on demand" on the ballot paper or have not explicitly said it is their opinion) should be sanctioned with moderator action as it is very clear they are not entertaining discussion on the matter and are not engaging in a discussion in good faith.

To moderate this I would recommend that a member of the team jump in and ask Poster A to provide some factual representation of their statement, or request Poster A to clarify whether it is their opinion or a claim they are making. If it is clarified as an opinion, then Poster A should thus address it accordingly. Any failure to do so, would result in moderator action.

A healthy discussion is always between two contrasting opinions, but should always contain facts or articles to support their position, otherwise, what's the point?

As to not being able to force anyone to reply to something, I wouldn't expect you to force someone to reply to something, however, please understand the detrimental effect behind an individual not responding to any challenges/rebuttals of any claims they make in a discussion, it then just becomes soap-boxing. Which again, is actionable under the charter.



But that is where you are wrong, neither sides "definition" of abortion on demand matters, as there is no mention of the term in the ballot paper, or in the proposed legislation or amended article, so if you look at the ballot paper and say that it asks you to vote for abortion on demand, you're simply opining, you're expressing your interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the vote, but it is not factual, it is an opinion or interpretation.

Let's say (in Ireland) Person X intentionally kills Person Y. Person Y asked Person X to do so, Person X does not see that as murder. They do not interpret what they are doing is murder, however the law dictates very clearly that they have unlawfully killed another human being (that was not in self defence - see the home defence act* think that's what it's called).

So, Person X tells the judge, "no Judge, I did not murder Person Y". What do you say, as the Judge, robin?

Fine, but how would you actually word a rule for the charter that is enforceable? I’m genuinely interested. Moderating can make it difficult to see the wood for the trees at times, so it can be helpful for non-moderators to suggest wording that we may not have thought of.

The same question goes to everyone - how would you write the charter?

recedite

Faith wrote: »

The same question goes to everyone - how would you write the charter?

I'd suggest it does not really need to be rewritten, but more clarity is needed regarding the soapboxing issue.
When a problem develops, the mod would step in (possibly after a request, or maybe not) to issue an "instruction to clarify".

For example suppose the terms "murder" or "abortion on demand" or "islamophobic" were being repeated by somebody, and that caused annoyance to others. The mod would instruct the user of the term to clarify what they meant by the term.
Discussion would then focus on finding a consensus for the meaning of the term, before moving on to the substantive issue itself.
If user continued to use the term outside of its accepted meaning, that would be declared to be soapboxing.
If user is deemed to be using the term within broadly acceptable parameters, the complainers will just have cease complaining and suck it up. The discussion can then move on.


IMO a lot of the issues in the abortion thread relate to the pro and anti sides having their own separate languages, and refusing to engage with anything framed by the other side. They'll demand "evidence" and "citations" when what they really want is the other person to switch to using their own side's preferred language.

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

I think that particular individual might be a new poster, would it worth the while to drop them a PM do you think?

I'm happy that the poster who posted the now-deleted post has a) ignored previous moderator responses for no obvious reason; and b) given the user's posting history, and an unclear and splendidly asymmetric concern with "bullying" has little or nothing of use to contribute to A+A.

Further posts by the same poster, unless they're of a standard sufficient that they could be considered contributions to the discussion, will likewise be deleted.

robindch

A second low-quality post deleted here.

robindch

Posts related to abortion-only have been moved to the abortion thread here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057961470

Feedback-related posts will remain here in the feedback thread.

we seem to have a lot of jumping through hoops to justify not moderating (over a long period of time) an extremely troublesome and disruptive poster

it us not my experience of boards that moderators are shy to jump on posting behaviour that impact the quality of discussion on the site

in this one instance moderators are doing everything they can to defend, deflect and ignore the vexatious poster in question.

it is very strange

robarmstrong

Faith wrote: »

Fine, but how would you actually word a rule for the charter that is enforceable? I’m genuinely interested. Moderating can make it difficult to see the wood for the trees at times, so it can be helpful for non-moderators to suggest wording that we may not have thought of.

The same question goes to everyone - how would you write the charter?

If you give me a couple of days, I can send across some examples for your viewing?

It would be a rule for the charter that is enforceable, along with acceptable permutations of the rule, unacceptable debating styles and examples of basically what to do in relation of making a claim.

Would that be alright?

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not asking to action any past conduct (on either side at this stage), I'm asking for examples of poor posting styles from the pro-choice side because I can't see any.

I'm surprised that you "can't see any" breaches, since there are multiple breaches of the forum charter, some of which received inthread moderator warnings which you seem to have inadvertently missed.

As per previously, a small number of these charter breaches were reported, and without checking each instance as trying to correlate poster opinion with complained-at post could take hours, I believe that most or all of the posters who reported these forum rule breaches by pro-choice posters were all anti-abortion. Much the same goes for alleged breaches of the forum charter by anti-abortion posters - the complainants tended to be mostly, or entirely, pro-choice posters. This does not suggest unbiased reporting.

In any case, here are a few posts from just one class of repeated breach by the poster who received the most recent inthread warning. There are similar and different breaches of style and content by other posters with the same and different points of view.

King Mob wrote: »

Saying that gay people deserve any type of torture for being gay is bigotry. Equating being gay to lying and stealing is bigotry. If they are his religious beliefs, then is beliefs are bigoted.

King Mob wrote: »

"[...] We've tried lying. [...]"

King Mob wrote: »

So it's obviously some mistake and not you lying:

King Mob wrote: »

Then you are a liar.

King Mob wrote: »

You are a liar and you are not engaging on good faith.

Relevant parts from the forum charter and/or in-thread warnings:

Dades wrote: »

1. No personal insults. Attack the post not the poster.

robindch wrote: »

(Previous charter comment) "[...] one poster should not allege that another poster is lying"

robindch (having to spell it out a couple of days back) wrote: »

[...] referring to other posters as 'liars' or 'bigots', or accusing them of 'lying' or 'bigotry', or making broadly equivalent claims, is unacceptable in A+A.

robindch (old warning) wrote: »

The term "bigot" is rapidly becoming verboten in this forum as it causes much heat for very little light. Please drop the term.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If nothing else this will only serve to stop us making the same mistakes again [...]

I hope the above examples adequately demonstrate that posters used terms which are explicitly banned in the forum charter, or banned via inthread warnings - and which therefore amount to "poor posting style".

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

we seem to have a lot of jumping through hoops to justify not moderating (over a long period of time) an extremely troublesome and disruptive poster

This point has been addressed multiple times in this thread. Here is the most recent post on this topic.

robindch wrote: »

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.

robindch

More abortion-related posts moved to the abortion thread.

Any further abortion-only posts made here in the Feedback thread will be deleted.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

This point has been addressed multiple times in this thread. Here is the most recent post on this topic.

i appreciate your patience in being present and responding to all of this. i realise it cant be much fun being the public face of this kind of frustration

it is very clearly not the opinion nor experience of a majority- i would have said clearly a strong majority- of posters that the behaviours you describe above are evenly split.

you were, to be fair, asked to provide evidence of the statement and youve been evasive and avoidant and moast recently flat declined to do so. even if you chose to find examples from each side, its my experience that the behaviour is much more frequent, severe, blatant and often instigated (if it does inevitable disintegrate into a loop with both sides involved) by one single poster. youve chosen to refer to 'sides'.

its clearly my subjective opinion but you are telling us black is white and telling us to accept it.

whats so special about the poster that has been allowed make a long running farce of the place lads?

i mean im close to grabbing the tinfoil and making myself a hat only for i see manys the poster around me wondering the exact same thing and getting zero answers (even in threads like this which pretty much exist to ask this specific question)

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

i realise it cant be much fun being the public face of this kind of frustration

It's part of the position. What's most surprising is that some points have to be repeated multiple times.

Deleted User wrote: »

you were, to be fair, asked to provide evidence of the statement and youve been evasive and avoidant and moast recently flat declined to do so.

You seem to have missed this post - posted 15 minutes, and two posts, before yours - which documents exactly what you said has been "flat declined":

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110066691&postcount=1583

robindch

robindch wrote: »

It's part of the position. What's most surprising is that some points have to be repeated multiple times.You seem to have missed this post - posted 15 minutes, and two posts, before yours - which documents exactly what you said has been "flat declined":

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110066691&postcount=1583

i did in fairness note youd find what you needed to if seeking it

out of interest, and we're not going to agree on it, but if a poster is demonstrably a liar and demonstrably a bigot it ill-behoves a moderation system to claim to deal with them by......banning the use of the terms.

moderation purely to ensure a draw/standstill regardless of quality of foundation or substance of argument seems not to serve any purpose.

im sorry you had to repeat yourself though.

Turtwig

There's a very important distinction to be made here:

While posting in an active discussion thread: you CANNOT accuse a poster of being a liar/bigot/troll etc. Such accusations, whether true or false, only serve to act as incendiary devices within a given thread.

You can most certainly make the accusation with details to the mods via reported posts or PMs.

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

[...] if a poster is demonstrably a liar and demonstrably a bigot it ill-behoves a moderation system to claim to deal with them by......banning the use of the terms.

Please see point (4) of the recent charter update:

robindch wrote: »

[*]Posters are not allowed to refer to each other, directly or indirectly, as "liars", "trolls", "bigots", "bullies", "soap-boxers" or any other terms which impute antisocial motives to other posters.

Posters are assumed to be honest, and to be posting honestly in public, until judged otherwise by moderators.

You could think of it as the boards equivalent of "innocent until proven guilty" which - if memory still serves - still has some currency in our judicial system.

robarmstrong

Turtwig wrote: »

There's a very important distinction to be made here:

While posting in an active discussion thread: you CANNOT accuse a poster of being a liar/bigot/troll etc. Such accusations, whether true or false, only serve to act as incendiary devices within a given thread.

You can most certainly make the accusation with details to the mods via reported posts or PMs.

That’s absolutely fine Turtwig, just to clarify as well you forget to mention soapboxing accusations.

Our problem is (and continues to be) whilst a poster might not be lying (as we’d have to prove they are intending to deceive) they will consistently make contradictory remarks and flat out deny any challenges or rebuttals made to their contradictory remarks or statements, flat out refuse to acknowledge the contradictions and still continue to spout out nonsense.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Please see point (4) of the recent charter update:Posters are assumed to be honest, and to be posting honestly in public, until judged otherwise by moderators.

You could think of it as the boards equivalent of "innocent until proven guilty" which - if memory still serves - still has some currency in our judicial system.

troll posters are flourishing in the gaps between moderator judgement and user experience

but i am aware that 'user experience' above is easily written off as subjective bias.

this does not address why this thread is so busy with so many posters with fair-to-good bonafides making a very similar, very specific complaint.

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

I'm surprised that you "can't see any" breaches, since there are multiple breaches of the forum charter, some of which received inthread moderator warnings which you seem to have inadvertently missed.

As per previously, a small number of these charter breaches were reported, and without checking each instance as trying to correlate poster opinion with complained-at post could take hours, I believe that most or all of the posters who reported these forum rule breaches by pro-choice posters were all anti-abortion. Much the same goes for alleged breaches of the forum charter by anti-abortion posters - the complainants tended to be mostly, or entirely, pro-choice posters. This does not suggest unbiased reporting.

In any case, here are a few posts from just one class of repeated breach by the poster who received the most recent inthread warning. There are similar and different breaches of style and content by other posters with the same and different points of view.Relevant parts from the forum charter and/or in-thread warnings:I hope the above examples adequately demonstrate that posters used terms which are explicitly banned in the forum charter, or banned via inthread warnings - and which therefore amount to "poor posting style".

Since I am being singled out, I can tell I am no longer welcome here while other types of poster are.
I will no longer be visiting this forum.
So long.