Goading of posters?

strobe

Hey, I'll keep this brief. There's been an ongoing thing of referring to posters in threads they haven't posted in.

Such as "Oh, Strobe will be along any second to say the things he normally says, the big fool. I pre-emptively laugh at him and his ways." etc.

I mainly post in and read AH, so this is where I see it, no idea if it's a common thing throughout the site.

What's the stance on this in general?

I think it's a bit of a sh1tty thing to be at, personally. Sometimes it seems reasonably good natured, just injokey kind of stuff, but a lot of the time it just seems like people taking petty swipes at people they don't like, when they aren't there to respond.

Is there any kind of general feeling on that kind of thing, charter wise etc? Seems a little like not not being a dick. Certain posters seem to get a disproportionate amount of it aimed at them, and I'd imagine it isn't very nice to be on the end of.

Thoughts?

It's not OK. Please report it when you see it.

padd b1975

It's absolutely rampant on the soccer forum, even the most casual skimming by the Mods there should pick up on it, but it seems to go largely unchecked.

Orion

padd b1975 wrote: »

It's absolutely rampant on the soccer forum, even the most casual skimming by the Mods there should pick up on it, but it seems to go largely unchecked.

On a forum as busy as Soccer never assume a mod can or will read every post. Report it and they will get a mail so they can review it. Simples.

anncoates

I'd say strobe will be along later to see if this got looked at.

padd b1975

Orion wrote: »

On a forum as busy as Soccer never assume a mod can or will read every post. Report it and they will get a mail so they can review it. Simples.

I didn't assume anything.

I specifically used the phrase 'most casual skimming'.:cool:

hullaballoo

padd b1975 wrote: »

I didn't assume anything.

I specifically used the phrase 'most casual skimming'.:cool:

You picked the wrong forum for a "casual skimming". In soccer, it would be a full-time job to casually skim every post in the forum and you still wouldn't pick everything up.

The other thing is that in Soccer, it's mainly just friendly banter between fans of the same team. It's not goading as per the OP here. Occasionally, yes it does stray into something more sinister and those posts should be reported. A moderator who is not overly familiar with the social intricacies of one team's thread won't necessarily know on a casual reading that a post is goading unless it's pointed out to them.

You're not going to biko this, are you?

:pac:

Links234

Hmm, I've had this done about me a few times and it never bothered me. In certain AH threads, people have said "In before Links234" or something similar, I thought it was just a nod or expectation to see me posting on a topic that I've often had strong opinions on.

osarusan

It will depend on context surely.

"Can't wait for Poster X to come along spouting their usual bleeding-heart PC nonsense" is the kind of thing the OP is on about.

I have a good idea who the OP had in mind, and such baiting of them has become more common recently (no idea how they feel about it though, if it is who i am thinking about).

Overheal

Links234 wrote: »

Hmm, I've had this done about me a few times and it never bothered me. In certain AH threads, people have said "In before Links234" or something similar, I thought it was just a nod or expectation to see me posting on a topic that I've often had strong opinions on.

Sometimes I've seen it light hearted, other times its downright antagonistic.

fran17

Links234 wrote: »

Hmm, I've had this done about me a few times and it never bothered me. In certain AH threads, people have said "In before Links234" or something similar, I thought it was just a nod or expectation to see me posting on a topic that I've often had strong opinions on.

I agree,if its done in a light hearted manner then its all part of the banter and is usually taken that way.However I find it quite distasteful if one is the victim of such actions and you politely ask the perpetrator to refrain from doing so again but they continue to do so.

MadsL

Absolutely rampant in AH until Super-Rush kicked some arses, it seems to be creeping back. I'd appreciate the mods taking a hard stance again.

MadsL

fran17 wrote: »

I agree,if its done in a light hearted manner then its all part of the banter and is usually taken that way.However I find it quite distasteful if one is the victim of such actions and you politely ask the perpetrator to refrain from doing so again but they continue to do so.

"banter" covers a lot of bullying behaviour and thanks-whoring.

Turtyturd

Seems to be dependent on who the recipient is. Look at the 'bootcut jeans' thread in AH and posters seem to have free reign to have a go at the OP, yet there was one comment about one of the regular prominent posters which was instantly carded.

Similarly the soccer forum seems to have a 'who said it/who was the recipient/do they support a team I like/dislike?' approach despite a specific rule being brought in the address it.

Canis Lupus

Turtyturd wrote: »

Seems to be dependent on who the recipient is. Look at the 'bootcut jeans' thread in AH and posters seem to have free reign to have a go at the OP, yet there was one comment about one of the regular prominent posters which was instantly carded.

Similarly the soccer forum seems to have a 'who said it/who was the recipient/do they support a team I like/dislike?' approach despite a specific rule being brought in the address it.

Well, isn't Aongus just a joke account? It's like Alan Partridge posting rather than Steve Coogan and as such you can't really insult a character can you. The chap just wants material for his blog.

MrWalsh

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Well, isn't Aongus just a joke account?

I thought we were supposed to take posts on this website at face value.

I'd no idea of the existence of "joke accounts".

Canis Lupus

MrWalsh wrote: »

I thought we were supposed to take posts on this website at face value.

I'd no idea of the existence of "joke accounts".

Well I guess now you know. :rolleyes:

tritium

MadsL wrote: »

Absolutely rampant in AH until Super-Rush kicked some arses, it seems to be creeping back. I'd appreciate the mods taking a hard stance again.

Tbh there's a whole host of distasteful posting styles in AH at the moment that there appears to be no appetite to address. This is one, another is the linking anyone you don't agree with to being a shinnerbot/MRA/blueshirt etc. Id even add deliberately antagonising posters. Petty little cheap shots that seem to be let slide often from posters with enough experience to expect better. I don't know if its possible to do it effectively but a feedback session on what kind of behaviour should be rejected in AH would be really useful as part of a charter spring clean there

fran17

tritium wrote: »

Tbh there's a whole host of distasteful posting styles in AH at the moment that there appears to be no appetite to address. This is one, another is the linking anyone you don't agree with to being a shinnerbot/MRA/blueshirt etc. Id even add deliberately antagonising posters. Petty little cheap shots that seem to be let slide often from posters with enough experience to expect better. I don't know if its possible to do it effectively but a feedback session on what kind of behaviour should be rejected in AH would be really useful as part of a charter spring clean there

I found that the debate,or lack there of,regarding the SSM referendum absolutely stunk of double standards.If you were in the yes camp it appeared,to me anyway,that you had an out of jail free card.However if you opposed it you were,in my opinion,walking on egg shells constantly regarding what you said as cards seemed to be issued for very little in this regard.
It became very clear from very early on what the opinion of boards.ie on this topic was,which turned out to be in line with the majority of the country,and that's fine but I felt that the stifling of opinions and debate only served to diminish the forum as a whole.

GreatDefector

strobe wrote: »

Hey, I'll keep this brief. There's been an ongoing thing of referring to posters in threads they haven't posted in.

Thoughts?

Facekicker will be here any minute


.... Yup.... Any minute now.....

RDM_83 again

fran17 wrote: »

I found that the debate,or lack there of,regarding the SSM referendum absolutely stunk of double standards.If you were in the yes camp it appeared,to me anyway,that you had an out of jail free card.However if you opposed it you were,in my opinion,walking on egg shells constantly regarding what you said as cards seemed to be issued for very little in this regard.
It became very clear from very early on what the opinion of boards.ie on this topic was,which turned out to be in line with the majority of the country,and that's fine but I felt that the stifling of opinions and debate only served to diminish the forum as a whole.

This is the problem with the invisible/inconsistent moderation, a lower post count user on the "wrong" side will get a card a valued contributer posting antagonistically will get either ignored or an in thread warning by mod post that X topic or stance is not relevant or required in the thread. This is important because these actions don't show up on the users infraction record, so a "correct poster" will appear to have a much cleaner record than the latter, this will be countered by the but mods know the posters idea which if its true for a forum like AH brings in the bias thing again.

Another thing is that when a comparison/topic on thread is considered off topic (which is happening an awful lot these days, even with comparisons that can be found in major mainstream media articles like the Guardian). Its apparently ok to keep bringing up the topic tangentially as long as you agree with the moderator stance.
Here's part of a reply I got about this from one of the mods

"XXX post is not actually discussing XXX issues - it's about people who are discussing XXX issues. A small distinction perhaps, but a distinction none the less"

biko

Are we moving from goading posters topic to addressing poster's moderator issues?

fran17

biko wrote: »

Are we moving from goading posters topic to addressing poster's moderator issues?

Fair point,the feedback is on the topic of goading posters.Is it permissible to discuss it if you find yourself goaded by moderators?

eviltwin

fran17 wrote: »

Fair point,the feedback is on the topic of goading posters.Is it permissible to discuss it if you find yourself goaded by moderators?

Fran has a point, there has been a lot of goading on AH in particular lately and it is often ignored if the "victim" is not on the right side of the argument. And it is sometimes coming from mods. I would be polar opposite to Fran here on most issues but I have to agree with him on this one.

fran17

eviltwin wrote: »

Fran has a point, there has been a lot of goading on AH in particular lately and it is often ignored if the "victim" is not on the right side of the argument. And it is sometimes coming from mods. I would be polar opposite to Fran here on most issues but I have to agree with him on this one.

Absolutely,its the trickle down effect.If its accepted as a tactic in an attempt to belittle and silence others at the highest levels then its a green light for all who share the same opinion.Its endemic in AH in particular and will remain so as the standard procedure to any complaints or reported postings a user makes is to circle the wagons.

I'll send you the friend request now eviltwin :pac:

eviltwin

fran17 wrote: »

Absolutely,its the trickle down effect.If its accepted as a tactic in an attempt to belittle and silence others at the highest levels then its a green light for all who share the same opinion.Its endemic in AH in particular and will remain so as the standard procedure to any complaints or reported postings a user makes is to circle the wagons.

I'll send you the friend request now eviltwin :pac:

Its ruining threads. I know that these issues are emotive so tend to bring out the worst comments on both sides but similar debates have been taking place in the religious forums for years now and have always been handled in a very respectful and responsible way.

AH is slowly going back to teenage humour and smart arse one liners and its ruining it.

RDM_83 again

eviltwin wrote: »

Its ruining threads. I know that these issues are emotive so tend to bring out the worst comments on both sides but similar debates have been taking place in the religious forums for years now and have always been handled in a very respectful and responsible way.

AH is slowly going back to teenage humour and smart arse one liners and its ruining it.

The thing is its not turning back into the AH that was either, I didn't really post much in the old AH because it wasn't great for debate but at least it was occasionally funny and mildly risqué now its heavily moderated which kills humour (e.g poster gets a red card for saying in the domestic abuse thread that the guy (who's black) has two black eyes, its a ****ty joke but I doubt it had a Stormfront style motive behind it) but on the other hand the moderation is even which sort of kills the controversial threads.

(and yes I know there is no internet/AH "golden age" but the current trend is the worst of both worlds.)

ps obviously I meant UNeven!

Robsweezie

What can often happen is poster A makes a dig at poster B mid argument, poster B is frustrated and fires back with their own dig, and from there it quickly becomes more and more personal. The key thing is how the word "you" is used. That's when it gets personal as it relates to the individual being "targeted".

MrWalsh

Robsweezie wrote: »

What can often happen is poster A makes a dig at poster B mid argument, poster B is frustrated and fires back with their own dig, and from there it quickly becomes more and more personal. The key thing is how the word "you" is used. That's when it gets personal as it relates to the individual being "targeted".

I see more generalised goading tbh, such as described in the OP here, a randomer popping up and posting "Oh such and such will be along shortly with his bleeding heart liberal policies" or some such. No exchange (although there may well have been in other threads).

biko

fran17 wrote: »

Fair point,the feedback is on the topic of goading posters.Is it permissible to discuss it if you find yourself goaded by moderators?

Anything is permissible for me in this forum (I'm just another poster here)

As I read this OP they discuss the mention of posters that have not posted in thread yet.
"I can't wait for P0st3R to get here with his bullcrap"

If two posters are arguing in a thread it's not goading as described in this thread.

eviltwin

What I have seen is X and Y are active on a thread. X posts some stuff, stats or whatnot and then ends with a smart comment where Y is named and invited to respond but usually in a very passive aggressive way and with an eye roll or two. Then if Y ignores it X comes back on with "you didn't respond to my post, you lost the argument" type response. That's not a debate.

MrWalsh

Some examples of what people are talking about would be useful.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

MrWalsh wrote: »

Some examples of what people are talking about would be useful.

probably any of the mega threads in the Politics café, or any thread that goes over 10 pages say, with arguments about arguments, and nothing being said.

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not OK. Please report it when you see it.

I reported a recent example a week ago and PM'd the AH mods. No action nor any response by PM from the mods.

I also reported and PM'd another incident repeated use of the 'merica meme in a recent thread where it was specifically used to troll, which I thought was something AH mods were going to action. Nothing done.

These type of silences to reports of behaviour which the AH mods say are unacceptable and then don't action are exactly the reason why users are asking for greater transparancy on what has been actioned or ignored.

It's quite a turn-off from using boards when having to deal with incessant goading that is not actioned.

MadsL

MadsL wrote: »

I reported a recent example a week ago and PM'd the AH mods. No action nor any response by PM from the mods.

You reported the post, you then PMd all of the mods, and you posted in feedback before any of us had a chance to catch up on RPs.

And the post was actioned the following day. And it has been "visibly" modded if you care to actually go back and check.

osarusan

MadsL wrote: »

It's quite a turn-off from using boards when having to deal with incessant goading that is not actioned.

Are there posts goading you specifically, or are you just talking about 'Murica' posts?

MadsL

osarusan wrote: »

Are there posts goading you specifically, or are you just talking about 'Murica' posts?

Both.

Regarding the 'merica posts, AH mods a while ago agreed that single word posts of 'merica were trollish and done to death and would be actioned. However in that thread a poster repeated used it in a hostile manner with no attempt to actually discuss facts. If that's viewed as not trolling/goading then I guess that's why I'm not a mod.

The Hill Billy

MadsL wrote: »

Both.

Regarding the 'merica posts, AH mods a while ago agreed that single word posts of 'merica were trollish and done to death and would be actioned. However in that thread a poster repeated used it in a hostile manner with no attempt to actually discuss facts. If that's viewed as not trolling/goading then I guess that's why I'm not a mod.

As whoopsa pointed out - the post was actioned by the mods. The fact that you are choosing to ignore the information being clearly given to you is a more likely reason why you are not a mod.

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

You reported the post, you then PMd all of the mods, and you posted in feedback before any of us had a chance to catch up on RPs.

And the post was actioned the following day. And it has been "visibly" modded if you care to actually go back and check.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

As whoopsa pointed out - the post was actioned by the mods. The fact that you are choosing to ignore the information being clearly given to you is a more likely reason why you are not a mod.

My sincere apologies to the AH mods.

In my (weak) defence I only posted today in feedback about that specific issue, my post on the 7th of July was intended to be general in tone. My apologies for any perceived badgering of the mods.

...crawls off to die of embarrassment

The Hill Billy

Thank you. Apology accepted.