A&A Feedback

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

Since I am being singled out, I can tell I am no longer welcome here while other types of poster are.

You were singled out - as the post makes quite clear - because you were the most recent poster to receive an inthread warning (one of many, as it happens).

If another poster had received it instead of you, forum mods would have quoted that poster's posts instead. You will also recall that there have been multiple calls for evidence that pro-choice posters have posted outside of the charter, and bearing in mind what you have said yourself (quoted below), it is fair and proper to justify the opinion.

King Mob wrote: »

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.

King Mob wrote: »

I will no longer be visiting this forum.

You remain welcome here in A+A so long as your posting style is in line with the forum charter plus updates.

Turtwig

King Mob wrote: »

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.

I think to be fair you were just unlucky to be the poster that was last issued with an in thread warning. The hope of this thread is to provide the forum a pathway forward. One that hopefully makes posters feel even more welcome. It's intention isn't to ostracise or single out any particular individual. Rather the goal here to facilitate a pathway towards more productive discussion.

I really hope you reconsider your decision.

King Mob

Turtwig wrote: »

I think to be fair you were just unlucky to be the poster that was last issued with an in thread warning..

Unfortunately, I don't think that's true.
It's only the latest in a series of comments from Robin in particular that show I am not welcome here. (Including the honestly snide comment in the above post.)

While at the same time, you guys are bending over in loops to defend and protect certain other posters.

I'm not seeing much reason to continue to post while being thrown under the bus to justify the mods inaction and confusing policies.

So, no I don't feel welcome.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

pro-abortion posters

That's a pretty inflammatory term in itself.
I've yet to read a post on this forum which is pro-abortion, i.e. "abortions are great and everyone should have one" sort of thing.

smacl

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.

A closely related discussion here went as follows

Originally Posted by robindch View Post
Bigotry implies an irrational hatred while lying implies the intention to deceive - only the person themselves knows (or might strenuously deny) whether any of these strong emotions might be involved with why they're putting forward one view or another. So it's better to use less prejudicial terms - "irrational dislike" for 'bigotry' and 'inaccuracy' for 'lying' would be less inflammatory terms which describe essentially the same things. Accusing another poster of posting a bigoted post or a lying post isn't really good form either, since presumably only bigots would post bigoted posts, and only liars would post lying posts.

Pedantic, but I'd debate that bigotry implies irrational hatred. I'd go with obstinate hatred, prejudicial hatred, or obstinate intolerance as would any definition that I can find. The common element here is hatred. On that basis do you also ban words such as homophobic, xenophobic or transphobic, which also imply irrational hatred? I would suggest that the argument in the opening post and many subsequent posts go beyond 'dislike'. As for 'rational', once people start making and justifying arguments in an atheist forum on the basis of their religious beliefs, rational has already left the building.

I'd further disagree that by calling someone's argument bigoted you are calling them a bigot. A person is more than their stated position on a single topic.

When it comes to prejudicial discrimination against gay people, I'm strongly of the opinion it is hateful, bigoted and homophobic. Perhaps the infraction should be for the clearly incendiary opening post rather than the language in the melee that ensued? If we're talking about hateful intent, as I asked the OP, why start a thread like that in this forum?

This was from a thread entitled "Have we reached peak LGBT nonsense", started by a self proclaimed devout Christian in defense of the statement that a person should not be sanctioned by saying homosexuals and atheists will go to hell. Surely if a person takes such a clearly incendiary opening position they can expect to have their argument criticised by using all appropriate language. Words such as bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia and islamophobia exist out of necessity to describe matching prejudices.

With respect, perhaps it would be better to find a scheme where you could infract the argument from bigotry rather than the suggestion of it.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's a pretty inflammatory term in itself.

And one which was fairly obviously a typo given that I've been scrupulous, I believe, to refer to each side by their own preferred name in every other post on this topic over the seven-odd years that this thread has been open. The typo has been fixed to avoid any doubt on the issue.

.......

There have still been no other examples given that show a pro choice poster guilty of the MAIN issue at hand, ie, making an assertion of opinion as fact, refusing to substantiate it, and even when shown evidence that proves it wrong, continuing to assert it over and over again.

I note that moderator posts continue to address the wider charter, and wider levels of acceptable behaviour etc...

But the main problem remains conspiciously unaddressed.

I agree with and add my voice to those who have pointed out that this is an absolutely extraordinary amount of hoop jumping to go through to defend one disruptive poster.

So much so that I feel there is no choice left but to take the same action as King Mob and simply stop using the forum in its entirety. The type of posting being made welcome there is below the standard I would consider for intelligent discussion, so its probably better off if I find intelligent discussion elsewhere.

Faith

I think it has to be pointed out that moderators have a very difficult position on boards. A user is only responsible for themselves. A moderator is responsible for each user, along with potentially having to report to CMods, Admins and boards staff. Robin declined to post “evidence” of problematic posts when asked because I advised him strongly against it. The reason I advised him against it was because it would play out exactly as it has, with whoever’s posts were highlighted being offended. So he was stuck in an unwinnable situation with the users demanding one thing and a CMod suggesting another. It’s worth noting that Robin ultimately acquiesced to the demands of the forum, for which he’s now being criticized.

I think that’s very unfair.

robarmstrong

Whilst I don't agree with Robin posting those examples (note; I wouldn't have had a problem with him PM'ing the users who's posts he mentioned, I think that would have been better, no?), he couldn't have accounted for someone being offended at being highlighted. We are all adults in here at the end of the day. So whilst it was wise of you to advise him not to publicly post the "evidence", I don't think Robin would have done so (posting the "evidence") if he believed he would offend someone, hence why he may have given in to the demands of the forum.

I disagree with the criticism that is being pointed towards him due to this action and I agree that it is quite unfair, however, there are areas and actions where Robin has not been exactly meeting moderator standards and criticism towards these particular events are fair.

Let me just say, we do not want any one particular poster from any side to stop posting in the debate, but what we do want (and I think would be better for the forum as a whole) is a charter that accurately reflects and encourages a higher standard of discussion. I do strongly believe that if you make a statement (you should really clarify your post as an opinion, view or standpoint in a discussion, it's only fair!) you should have to provide evidence supporting the facts surrounding your statement. I'm working on a sample charter addition specifically for this and hope to have it to you soon.

.......

Faith wrote: »

I think that’s very unfair.

No. What is unfair is the hoop jumping that is going on to protect one disruptive poster.

The same standards are not being applied to everyone. One poster has special protections.

It makes it pointless to use the forum. You cannot engage in good faith when someone else is allowed to run roughshod over threads with soapboxing and disruptive behaviour. Worse, if you take them to task you end up with a card.

Discussion has been ruined, there is no point to a forum where discussion no longer exists.

Cabaal

Surely there is a very simple solution to the whole "making an assertion of opinion as fact, refusing to substantiate it, and even when shown evidence that proves it wrong, continuing to assert it over and over again."

If a user in a thread does this and is called out on it and refuses to provide evidence or ignores the request then a mod could very easily step in and advise that unless they support their claim further assertions of the claim as fact would result in a warning and if they continue to assert it could result in a ban. It would be a very simple solution to a issue which we've seen the same users do time and time again in this forum.

If of course the user makes a claim, is asked for evidence and either refuses to provide it and ignores the request and a mod steps in and advises them and they then withdraw the claim, then there's no issue.

We expect a good level of debate in this forum, at least thats always been my experience. But allowing any user to just continue to make false claims as fact lowers the quality of threads in this forum.

I don't envy Robin modding this forum, but I feel that its important that a minority dragging threads into the ground with false claims over and over is having a negative effect on the forum.

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

Whilst I don't agree with Robin posting those examples (note; I wouldn't have had a problem with him PM'ing the users who's posts he mentioned, I think that would have been better, no?), he couldn't have accounted for someone being offended at being highlighted. We are all adults in here at the end of the day. So whilst it was wise of you to advise him not to publicly post the "evidence", I don't think Robin would have done so if he believed he would offend someone, hence why he may have given in to the demands of the forum.

I had no wish to post any evidence publicly because it was quite obvious what was going to happen.

However, multiple posters demand it, frequently in an uncivil and dismissive tone, to the extent that I felt it was more damaging to withhold evidence than to present it.

Please note that the post concerned included multiple instances (to avoid accusations that contra-charter behaviour by the pro-choice side was a one-off), being careful to note that the behaviour was unambiguously contra-charter (to avoid question of moderator interpretation), being careful to note that this was just one poster and just one example of many contra-charter behaviours which took place on both sides of the discussion (to avoid question of bias).

Despite considerable care to get things right, uncivil and dismissive postings continue unabated.

Faith

....... wrote: »

No. What is unfair is the hoop jumping that is going on to protect one disruptive poster.

The same standards are not being applied to everyone. One poster has special protections.

It makes it pointless to use the forum. You cannot engage in good faith when someone else is allowed to run roughshod over threads with soapboxing and disruptive behaviour. Worse, if you take them to task you end up with a card.

Discussion has been ruined, there is no point to a forum where discussion no longer exists.

Okay, so how would you resolve it? If you were made a mod right now, what would you do to fix it all? Let’s move the discussion on from complaining about things as they stand, to making actionable suggestions on how to improve things that are within the rules.

Cabaal wrote: »

Surely there is a very simple solution to the whole "making an assertion of opinion as fact, refusing to substantiate it, and even when shown evidence that proves it wrong, continuing to assert it over and over again."

If a user in a thread does this and is called out on it and refuses to provide evidence or ignores the request then a mod could very easily step in and advise that unless they support their claim further assertions of the claim as fact would result in a warning and if they continue to assert it could result in a ban. It would be a very simple solution to a issue which we've seen the same users do time and time again in this forum.

If of course the user makes a claim, is asked for evidence and either refuses to provide it and ignores the request and a mod steps in and advises them and they then withdraw the claim, then there's no issue.

We expect a good level of debate in this forum, at least thats always been my experience. But allowing any user to just continue to make false claims as fact lowers the quality of threads in this forum.

I don't envy Robin modding this forum, but I feel that its important that a minority dragging threads into the ground with false claims over and over is having a negative effect on the forum.

Thanks for this, Cabaal. I’d agree with you. Perhaps a more hands-on moderating style for a bit might help, rather than the light touch approach that has been successful in the past.

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

Surely there is a very simple solution to the whole "making an assertion of opinion as fact, refusing to substantiate it, and even when shown evidence that proves it wrong, continuing to assert it over and over again." If a user in a thread does this and is called out on it and refuses to provide evidence or ignores the request then a mod could very easily step in and advise that unless they support their claim further assertions of the claim as fact would result in a warning and if they continue to assert it could result in a ban. It would be a very simple solution to a issue which we've seen the same users do time and time again in this forum.

That's what the forum had with a carefully-written charter update to do exactly that.

Unfortunately, it didn't work out for reasons as stated before - being misused procedure-wise, being used to point-score, adding enormously to moderator's workload, and ultimately, making nobody happy.

That's why the recent charter update from a couple of days back asks that posters accept that other posters are going to avoid questions, use slippery language and so on, and that it's hard for a moderating team can do to stop this, especially in an emotive topic, as last night's postings concerning the phrase "abortion is murder" demonstrates all too well.

robindch wrote: »

• If one poster posts a statement of fact or opinion or any mixture of the two, another poster may, politely, ask the first to justify that statement. An uncivil request to justify may well be edited or 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 statement, moderators recommend that, as in real life, the other party should note that the statement 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.

Bannasidhe

Faith wrote: »

I think it has to be pointed out that moderators have a very difficult position on boards. A user is only responsible for themselves. A moderator is responsible for each user, along with potentially having to report to CMods, Admins and boards staff. Robin declined to post “evidence” of problematic posts when asked because I advised him strongly against it. The reason I advised him against it was because it would play out exactly as it has, with whoever’s posts were highlighted being offended. So he was stuck in an unwinnable situation with the users demanding one thing and a CMod suggesting another. It’s worth noting that Robin ultimately acquiesced to the demands of the forum, for which he’s now being criticized.

I think that’s very unfair.

I agree it is unfair but I also understand the level of frustration, I share it to some extent. Unfortunately, and unfairly, Rob is taking the hit.

The issue is that the lines are unclear. While I agree it is not acceptable to call a poster a liar or a bigot - I am unclear if we are allowed to describe a post as lies or bigoted even when they patently are.
A&A always was, to my mind, the forum where posters were expected either make it clear they were posting opinion or to provide evidence for their posts that appeared to be 'facts' - it was also the forum where soapboxing was quickly and effectively dealt with by the mods -and Rob was always on the ball in this regard.

Having 'been away' from A&A for a while, I was aghast on my return to see posts that were like the worst days for the run up to the Mar Ref (I joked at the time was it still 2015...) and the dodging and weaving around the topic of abortion was still being played out. It's murder. No, it isn't. I never said it was. Yes, you did. On and on and on... go unremarked by the mods. I had to check I wasn't in AH.

For example, the fact is abortion is not murder. Murder is a legal term with a specific meaning. It may be murder in the opinion of the poster but legally it is not - and so a bickerfest erupts and derails the whole thread - and is now threatening the forum.
We are told that different groups have different meaning for words and use them according to their viewpoint - I'm sorry but no.
Words have specific meanings. Murder being one example. Bigotry is another - an aversion or hatred toward xxx group. If a poster is displaying an aversion toward a group of people because they are members of xxxgroup than that is bigoted and should be out called for what it is. If they continue to post in that vein they should be sanctioned.

I think most people here are seeking clarity and consistancy - and a return to the high standards of discussion A&A was famed for.

On a personal note - Rob, I am sorry you are becoming the focus of ire.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

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

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.

I appreciate that I am a new poster here. Apologies if this is out of turn. I have had an account here previously.

Just wanted to point out that Robinch did say that they were happy to list these examples. This is just for the benefit of people saying it was unfair to ask them to do so.

.......

Faith wrote: »

Okay, so how would you resolve it? If you were made a mod right now, what would you do to fix it all? Let’s move the discussion on from complaining about things as they stand, to making actionable suggestions on how to improve things that are within the rules.

I would moderate the poster who continues to ruin the forum (and the site) with their continued behaviour that we have all been complaining about on this thread.

I am not asking the poster be banned. I am asking that they are subject to the same rules as the rest of us.

Id also throw out this rubbish that you cannot point out lies, bigotry etc... on the basis that you do not know someones intention when they are posting. Some posters quite clearly lie.

Oh, and I would throw out the hoop jumping.

Finally - if I was made a moderator the very first thing I would do would be ask other moderators why one poster has been offered special protections across the site despite being disruptive and troublesome for well over a year now. I an absolutely baffled by it.

Timberrrrrrrr

Faith wrote: »

Okay, so how would you resolve it? If you were made a mod right now, what would you do to fix it all? Let’s move the discussion on from complaining about things as they stand, to making actionable suggestions on how to improve things that are within the rules.



Thanks for this, Cabaal. I’d agree with you. Perhaps a more hands-on moderating style for a bit might help, rather than the light touch approach that has been successful in the past.

This is the only abortion thread that the poster in question is still allowed to post in due to the fact they were soapboxing in every other one.

Why not do the same as the mods in politics, AH etc did? When the poster made claims and stated opinion as fact they were not banned from the thread, they were told not to post in the thread again unless they were willing to back up their claims with facts/links/evidence. Guess what? As soon as those warnings were put on thread that poster avoided them like the plague because they knew they couldnt provide the evidence for their claims.

It was a simple but effective stance to take and the issue was sorted straight away. Why can this not be implemented here?

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

[...] the dodging and weaving around the topic of abortion was still being played out. It's murder. No, it isn't. I never said it was. Yes, you did. On and on and on... go unremarked by the mods.

Remarked alright, but generally unactioned to avoid accusations of bias which continue, as above, unabated. Yes, the light touch was not the right approach in retrospect and the thread should have been much more tightly moderated, on both sides, and particularly in respect of emotive language, question-dodging, slippery language and so on.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

For example, the fact is abortion is not murder. Murder is a legal term with a specific meaning.

As I mentioned in last night's discussion on this exact topic - there's a little more to this issue than that. In the context of law in Ireland, yes, you are correct - legal abortion is not legal murder. However, the anti-abortion side disagree about when life begins, and in so doing, make the case that it is murder.

I'm not posting in approval of the anti-abortion side doing this, but I am suggesting that this is the very core of the whole abortion debate to start with - when does life begin?

It's also the reason why I don't usually take part in this debate, as I find that the two sides make little effort to seek common ground and instead resort, too often, to emotive/slippery language to make their points.

I suggest moving any further discussion concerning abortion to the abortion thread.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

On a personal note - Rob, I am sorry you are becoming the focus of ire.

Goes with the territory unfortunately.

robindch

Ward J. Littell wrote: »

Just wanted to point out that Robinch did say that they were happy to list these examples. This is just for the benefit of people saying it was unfair to ask them to do so.

It's possible - if one wishes to avoid accusations of bias - to state in public that one can provide evidence, while privately being concerned about the likely consequences of making that evidence public.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

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".

Leaving aside that they are all from only one poster, these are examples of the pro-choice sides frustrated responses to the poor posting styles of the likes of eotr (they are all from 2019, bar one from Oct2018, while discussion about eotr in this thread has been since July2018). I do agree that these posts themselves are breaches of the charter and deserved moderation. But they are not a style that the poster regularly uses, they did not post that way since first entering that thread. They are a reaction to the soapboxing style that eotr was/is allowed to get away with.

I said a few posts ago:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

[The abortion thread] 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.

And I even said it months ago:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The Abortion thread Part 3 was recently closed because it broke 10,000 posts. How many of those 10,000 posts were about this issue? Not about abortion and it's issue, but to a particular poster repeatedly requesting back up for his claims, repeatedly pointing out that they don't back up claims and disagreements with mods about whether they do or not?
How many posts would there be if it was just treated as the soap-boxing it is and the poster was quickly moderated to give a clear rebuttal/retract their claim?

Your links are examples of how eotr dragged the thread down with their soapboxing. If you had moderated eotr in the first place, then that would not have happened.

Faith

....... wrote: »

I would moderate the poster who continues to ruin the forum (and the site) with their continued behaviour that we have all been complaining about on this thread.

I am not asking the poster be banned. I am asking that they are subject to the same rules as the rest of us.

Id also throw out this rubbish that you cannot point out lies, bigotry etc... on the basis that you do not know someones intention when they are posting. Some posters quite clearly lie.

Oh, and I would throw out the hoop jumping.

Finally - if I was made a moderator the very first thing I would do would be ask other moderators why one poster has been offered special protections across the site despite being disruptive and troublesome for well over a year now. I an absolutely baffled by it.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

This is the only abortion thread that the poster in question is still allowed to post in due to the fact they were soapboxing in every other one.

Why not do the same as the mods in politics, AH etc did? When the poster made claims and stated opinion as fact they were not banned from the thread, they were told not to post in the thread again unless they were willing to back up their claims with facts/links/evidence. Guess what? As soon as those warnings were put on thread that poster avoided them like the plague because they knew they couldnt provide the evidence for their claims.

It was a simple but effective stance to take and the issue was sorted straight away. Why can this not be implemented here?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

This is my recollection of what happened in AH in particular. The AH mods were able to do this but for some reason this has not happened in A&A despute the numerous compaints about their posting.

Great, thanks. So it sounds like you’d all be in favour of a more heavy-handed approach on the specific issue of soap-boxing?

If we had something in the charter like

“Soapboxing:

When posting in A&A, you are expected to adhere to a high quality of discourse. This means being willing to back up your claims when asked. If a poster is asked to back up a claim, and fails to do so, posters are asked to report this to alert moderators to this issue. If appropriate, the moderator will post on-thread to ask the poster to back up their claim before making any further posts to the thread. In the event that the poster ignores this instruction, further moderator action (including, but not limited to) such as warning, infractions or thread bans may be handed out.”

In action, what that would look like is:

Poster A: [claim]
Poster B: “Poster A, please provide evidence for that claim”
Poster A: [new post ignoring or dismissing request for evidence]
Poster B: [Reports post, citing soapboxing as a reason]
Moderator: “Poster A, please provide evidence for that claim or do not post on thread again”
Poster A: [Either does not post again, provides evidence, or posts without evidence, at which point further moderator action will be taken]

Does that cover it?

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

That's what the forum had with a carefully-written charter update to do exactly that.

Unfortunately, it didn't work out for reasons as stated before - being misused procedure-wise, being used to point-score, adding enormously to moderator's workload, and ultimately, making nobody happy.

It didn't work because it was a request for a frankly bizarre level of busy work from users that no other forum on this sites needs when reporting soapboxing. It also didn't help then when someone actually went through all of the work, the mod (who has long been at pains trying to convince everyone that you can never attribute lying motives to anyone as you can never 100% know their motives) decided that all uses of the the method were disingenuous i.e. some form of a lie.

Faith wrote: »

Okay, so how would you resolve it? If you were made a mod right now, what would you do to fix it all? Let’s move the discussion on from complaining about things as they stand, to making actionable suggestions on how to improve things that are within the rules.

I made a suggestion to fix this issue nearly two months ago, repeatedly asked for moderator feedback and none was ever given.
Basically, someone reports a post for soapboxing, the mod (even if they have not kept up with the thread) just tells the poster to justify their post. The possible outcomes are:
1) They do and discussion continues (nothing needs to happen)
2) They show they clearly already had, (the mod can then act on the reporter for wasting time).
3) They don't (the mod can act on the soapboxer).

This is largely what happens everywhere else. It requires no busy work, discussions continue and the last, what, 500 posts in this thread never happen because everyone is happy.

robarmstrong

Faith wrote: »

“Soapboxing:

When posting in A&A, you are expected to adhere to a high quality of discourse. This means being willing to back up your claims when asked. If a poster is asked to back up a claim, and fails to do so, posters are asked to report this to alert moderators to this issue. If appropriate, the moderator will post on-thread to ask the poster to back up their claim before making any further posts to the thread. In the event that the poster ignores this instruction, further moderator action (including, but not limited to) such as warning, infractions or thread bans may be handed out.”

In action, what that would look like is:

Poster A: [claim]
Poster B: “Poster A, please provide evidence for that claim”
Poster A: [new post ignoring or dismissing request for evidence]
Poster B: [Reports post, citing soapboxing as a reason]
Moderator: “Poster A, please provide evidence for that claim or do not post on thread again”
Poster A: [Either does not post again, provides evidence, or posts without evidence, at which point further moderator action will be taken]

Does that cover it?

I would support and encourage that Faith, that's pretty much the same as what I've put in earlier.

I don't mean to make matters more awkward, but what if Poster A responds with "sorry Mod X, I don't have evidence to support that claim, as it is just my opinion", what happens there? Also - as Robin mentioned before, what if they don't want to answer? There are very clear examples of soap-boxing that have been reported a lot earlier but were not actioned because they did not fit the "truth adjudication process" but definitely met the soap-boxing element. Though to be fair to Robin, the "truth adjudication process" did push soap-boxing to the side.

smacl

robarmstrong wrote: »

I would support and encourage that Faith, that's pretty much the same as what I've put in earlier.

I don't mean to make matters more awkward, but what if Poster A responds with "sorry Mod X, I don't have evidence to support that claim, as it is just my opinion", what happens there? Also - as Robin mentioned before, what if they don't want to answer? There are very clear examples of soap-boxing that have been reported a lot earlier but were not actioned because they did not fit the "truth adjudication process" but definitely met the soap-boxing element. Though to be fair to Robin, the "truth adjudication process" did push soap-boxing to the side.

Surely repeating an opinion as a rebuttal to supported assertion is soap-boxing and should be dealt with as such.

robarmstrong

smacl wrote: »

Surely repeating an opinion as a rebuttal to supported assertion is soap-boxing and should be dealt with as such.

That's the thing, it is soap-boxing, but due to the previous process it was not being addressed as such, from a moderator standpoint it would appear that it was being highlighted as a breach of the "truth adjudication process" rather than the soap-boxing element of the charter.

Timberrrrrrrr

Faith wrote: »

Great, thanks. So it sounds like you’d all be in favour of a more heavy-handed approach on the specific issue of soap-boxing?

If we had something in the charter like

“Soapboxing:

When posting in A&A, you are expected to adhere to a high quality of discourse. This means being willing to back up your claims when asked. If a poster is asked to back up a claim, and fails to do so, posters are asked to report this to alert moderators to this issue. If appropriate, the moderator will post on-thread to ask the poster to back up their claim before making any further posts to the thread. In the event that the poster ignores this instruction, further moderator action (including, but not limited to) such as warning, infractions or thread bans may be handed out.”

In action, what that would look like is:

Poster A: [claim]
Poster B: “Poster A, please provide evidence for that claim”
Poster A: [new post ignoring or dismissing request for evidence]
Poster B: [Reports post, citing soapboxing as a reason]
Moderator: “Poster A, please provide evidence for that claim or do not post on thread again”
Poster A: [Either does not post again, provides evidence, or posts without evidence, at which point further moderator action will be taken]

Does that cover it?

That would work perfectly well as it did on other threads. The only other issue i woukd have is the poster in question will use a well known tactic of theirs where they will claim to have a poster on ignore and claim not to have seen the request for evidence.

I would suggest that moderators along with the on thread request to provide evidence also quote the question so there is no claims of "i have the poster on ignore soi did not see the request for evidence".

I can honestly say with certainty that if this process is bought in it will never be needed simply because the poster in question will no longer post here due to thenneed for evidence to back up opinion stated as fact.

Faith

robarmstrong wrote: »

I would support and encourage that Faith, that's pretty much the same as what I've put in earlier.

I don't mean to make matters more awkward, but what if Poster A responds with "sorry Mod X, I don't have evidence to support that claim, as it is just my opinion", what happens there? Also - as Robin mentioned before, what if they don't want to answer? There are very clear examples of soap-boxing that have been reported a lot earlier but were not actioned because they did not fit the "truth adjudication process" but definitely met the soap-boxing element. Though to be fair to Robin, the "truth adjudication process" did push soap-boxing to the side.

Again, just spitballing, but in the event of that happening, would it work if the moderator replied with a stock reply like “Thank you for confirming that it is an opinion you hold. Please edit your original claim to reflect this before posting on the thread again”?

robarmstrong

Faith wrote: »

Again, just spitballing, but in the event of that happening, would it work if the moderator replied with a stock reply like “Thank you for confirming that it is an opinion you hold. Please edit your original claim to reflect this before posting on the thread again”?

Absolutely, that would be acceptable, yes.

If they revert back into spouting it as fact well then it falls into soap-boxing and is therefore actionable.

It also encourages these .. "individuals" .. to engage in discussion in good faith and actually have coherent debates.

recedite

Faith wrote: »

Again, just spitballing, but in the event of that happening, would it work if the moderator replied with a stock reply like “Thank you for confirming that it is an opinion you hold. Please edit your original claim to reflect this before posting on the thread again”?

Yes, but having established that it is an opinion and not a statement of fact, the mod can then issue a "soapboxing" warning, if warranted.


The problem with the "truth adjudication process" is that it focused on trying to prove that an opinion was factually incorrect. This at the behest of the baying mob who would assert that somebody was a liar, bigot etc. and should be banned.

A similar thing happened to me in this thread where it was alleged that I was making "a false claim" but nobody ever produced the specific "false claim" I was alleged to have made.
There is obviously a lower burden of proof required when somebody gives their opinion, or even asks a rhetorical question, as opposed to when they assert the truth of a specific "claim".

However if somebody continues to post the same opinion it could be considered either "ongoing discussion" or "soapboxing", depending on the context (and frequency).
That's a call only the mod can make.



Either way, its unhelpful when the baying mob demands that one poster be banned and/or declared to be a liar or a bigot because "everybody" agrees it is so. Such behaviour can amount to bullying. Such demands by the mob can create a certain pressure on the moderator, and to his credit robindch has usually been able to remain impartial.