Why the censorship?

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Not reported, primarily. The mods can do so much.

Reporting ? I highly doubt mods in AH needs threads reported .. They can surely see for themselves it takes no more then10 seconds to check the first page and move threads accordingly

I can test it and report the vast majority of threads for being in the wrong place, but I think you and I know nothing will happen

Overheal

From AH Charter,

"After hours is the place to come on boards where general discussion can be light-hearted. The aim here is to have a bit of a laugh, a bit of a chat and not to piss anybody off while doing so. [emphasis mine]

This forum has been variously described as a refuge for idiots, the dregs of boards.ie, the best forum on boards and the only forum on boards. As such you may find After Hours quite different to any other boards.ie forums. What's OK here may not fly elsewhere on boards. "

Mods appear to have decided that the threads in question that people are crying censorship over were antithetical to the forum.

Reporting ? I highly doubt mods in AH needs threads reported .. They can surely see for themselves it takes no more then10 seconds to check the first page and move threads accordingly

If they are not online to see that thread, it is easy to miss. Just looking back for a thread you posted in can be hit and miss, as dozens of threads are active any given day.

Of the front page,

A thread about UK Syria and Drones, falls under multiple probable headings (Politics, Military, etc)
Light court sentence (News (AH), Politics maybe)
Longford Resort (Regional, News)
Songs you hate (Music, Ranting and Raving)
Trivial Things (R&R All day, minus R&R's no-counterrant/helpful posts rules)
9/11 education (Secondary education, politics, general interest)
Random 80 games memory (PC Gaming, Gaming, All Things Retro, etc etc)
Best joke (humor, AH)

In all those cases, most importantly they aren't upsetting the ethos of the forum (the craic without pissing people off) and they fall under multiple potential categories so it is not like say, when someone posts in AH for a personal issue its clearly a PI thread, etc.

Those refugee threads while they mayhap fall under multiple categories they were evidently a headache to police.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Those refugee threads while they mayhap fall under multiple categories they were evidently a headache to police.

Ohh now i get it ... Instead of handing out bans, cards etc the consensus now is to just close a thread when discussion flares up ?

Lets see how consistent that is applied

At least its consistent that every thread with the word refugee or Syria is closed in AH

One eyed Jack

weisses wrote: »

Ohh now i get it ... Instead of handing out bans, cards etc the consensus now is to just close a thread when discussion flares up ?

Lets see how consistent that is applied

At least its consistent that every thread with the word refugee or Syria is closed in AH

Because handing out cards and bans to some people is pointless. Even moving the thread to another forum just gives them an opportunity to be uncivil in another forum a few mouse clicks away (you have to laugh at the irony, people fleeing across Europe from a country where they could be bombed and shot, and then we have people here complain because another forum is too many mouse clicks away to say those people aren't wanted here, must be people trying to silence them! :rolleyes: ).

The reason every thread, and even a well intentioned thread started last night is closed, is because it isn't long before the thread is invaded and infested by "we don't want them, we can't support them, minority in our own country, rabble rabble" nonsense.

That's not discussion, it's pointless.

weisses

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because handing out cards and bans to some people is pointless. Even moving the thread to another forum just gives them an opportunity to be uncivil in another forum a few mouse clicks away (you have to laugh at the irony, people fleeing across Europe from a country where they could be bombed and shot, and then we have people here complain because another forum is too many mouse clicks away to say those people aren't wanted here, must be people trying to silence them! :rolleyes: ).

The reason every thread, and even a well intentioned thread started last night is closed, is because it isn't long before the thread is invaded and infested by "we don't want them, we can't support them, minority in our own country, rabble rabble" nonsense.

That's not discussion, it's pointless.

Ohh so if you are in a "minority" you don't have a say in the discussion ?

You make it sound that only people who are in favor of this mass migration can post on these threads

How the hell can you even have a discussion when there is not an opposing side

If people are uncivil ban them
If people are racist site ban them

Cuban Pete

Oh come off it, you know what One eyed Jack meant: the greatest offenders when it comes to being uncivil/causing disruption in those threads are the people against immigration.

Just look at this very thread with all the cries of censorship and suggestions that there's some secret mod agenda.

Dan_Solo

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Oddly enough, I haven't noticed any censorship at all.

Isn't that the way censors would prefer it though?

weisses

Cuban Pete wrote: »

Oh come off it, you know what One eyed Jack meant: the greatest offenders when it comes to being uncivil/causing disruption in those threads are the people against immigration.

Just look at this very thread with all the cries of censorship and suggestions that there's some secret mod agenda.

Yeah and aren't there tools in place to deal with people who behave that way ?

Dan_Solo

weisses wrote: »

Yeah and aren't there tools in place to deal with people who behave that way ?

Closing/moving threads does usually mean people can be let off without a ban. It's the old reset button isn't it, like ad infinitum mod warnings until one person get gets walloped.
Trying being on the unpopular side of the debate though and see if you get any chance of these beneficial mod procedures.

KomradeBishop

The problem is, the go-to argument style for disrupting a debate - relentless, unashamed straw-men - is not mod actionable, and there are several posters who are just allowed complete free reign to disrupt debate in that fashion, no matter how much that style of argument is pointed out to mods (because it's inherently not actionable).

Out of all the posters I can think of, who engage in that regularly and knowingly in debate, most of them would probably be banned long long ago, if mods had an actionable way to deal with that.

Some posters are so persistent with it that they take it to the point of trolling/soapboxing, in my view - very easy way to censor minority views, if there are enough posters piling-on with a posting style like that.


If mods on the more serious forums (e.g. AH probably isn't a good target), found a good way to nail-down the worst of the worst straw-men arguments (which is hard, because it will be easy to have false-positives, that lead to unfair mod action), and found a good way to enforce them (e.g. first an on-thread warning - the poster would have to be able to challenge this on-thread, in case the straw-man label is mistaken - then thread-ban, and if it's a pattern for a poster in new threads, warning cards then infractions) - if that could be enforced, the quality of debate across the whole site would skyrocket really.

Particularly, you wouldn't have posters with a minority-view, catching the blame (and infractions/bans), for the drop in quality of debate, caused by the more troll-like uncivil/straw-men posters; in some cases that's led to mods ignoring the real problem in debates, and effectively censoring those minority views...

It's a really hard one to enforce though, and is a bit of a minefield, because there are a lot of arguments that look a lot like a straw-man, but are legitimate - and quite a lot of normal/reasonable posters seem to be completely oblivious to recognizing straw-men, because often spotting them is nuanced (and very tedious, in debates with a lot of back and forth); this is probably why mods sometimes 'take the easy way out'.

One eyed Jack

weisses wrote: »

Ohh so if you are in a "minority" you don't have a say in the discussion ?

Nonsense, that's not what I said at all. If you have an opinion, by all means express it in a civil tone like everyone else can manage to do. Your opinion will still be in the minority, but at least people might be more amenable to taking your opinion seriously.

You make it sound that only people who are in favor of this mass migration can post on these threads

Not at all, I'm not a moderator but as far as I'm aware, anyone with an opinion can post on any thread they like, as long as they're able to express themselves in a civil manner. There's not much point in leaving a thread open if only the minority can remain civil while the rabble rousers on both sides talk over each other and ignore points being made. That's one of the reasons I avoid migrant threads, they never get beyond the first page without people losing their shìt all round.

How the hell can you even have a discussion when there is not an opposing side

Easily, when you're prepared to remain civil, even in the face of what you perceive to be constant baiting and flaming. That's what the 'report post' button is for, and if I have an issue that isn't covered by the 'report post' function, I've never had any issue PM'ing one of the moderation team for clarification or whatever else. They're people too y'know, and they've always been approachable when they're approached in a civil manner.

If people are uncivil ban them
If people are racist site ban them

How many people have to be infracted or banned before you say "OK, enough is enough, we can't handle the numbers of people who want to behave like dicks infesting the forum that we're trying to make a welcoming place for everyone"...

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

If you want to ban people from entering this country on the basis that you don't think we'll be able to cope with the numbers coming, or their culture, ethnicity or any of the rest of it, if you're of the opinion that you're going to feel uncomfortable in your own country, then why would you be surprised when moderators apply your standards in their forums?

The only difference between The State, and Boards.ie, is that Boards is a privately owned website that doesn't have to entertain your crap if they don't want to. It's not censorship, it's simply making you aware that you're not welcome if you can't adhere to their rules.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Boards is a privately owned website that doesn't have to entertain your crap if they don't want to. It's not censorship, it's simply making you aware that you're not welcome if you can't adhere to their rules.

We've heard this a million times at this stage. They can ban who they like for any spurious/good reason they like, sure, but this doesn't in itself make any decisions correct.

Cabaal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

We've heard this a million times at this stage. They can ban who they like for any spurious/good reason they like, sure, but this doesn't in itself make any decisions correct.

They are only incorrect if you disagree with them, of course by that logic pretty much every decision is incorrect on boards.ie because somebody always disagrees with it.

End of the day though, moving a thread etc isn't censorship...boards.ie doesn't grant rights to everyone to say what they want when they want.

KomradeBishop

Dan_Solo wrote: »

We've heard this a million times at this stage. They can ban who they like for any spurious/good reason they like, sure, but this doesn't in itself make any decisions correct.

In theory, Boards is a private company and "this is not a democracy" applies - they can ban anyone for whatever reason they like.

In practice though, this is completely untrue, because Boards know if they just started banning people for whatever reason they like, people would leave in droves in protest against that.

So in reality, Boards is directly answerable to its community, and all mod/admin action has to be explained and justified in a convincing way, to the community - because without the community, the site is nothing - and this is why Feedback/DRP/Prison exists, for accountability.

That's probably why, even when sometimes borderline/incorrect mod/admin action is taken, in rare cases you see face-saving acrobatics used to try and justify mod actions by-default - the 'defence of mod action inconsistency' being high up there; so there is, in my view, a bit of politicking/PR at play in adminning/moderating a site, to minimize the potential for disapproval from the community.

The Randy Riverbeast

If the mods infracted and banned people instead of locking threads we would still have people coming here claim there is censorship counting the number of pro and anti immigration people who have been infracted or banned.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

We've heard this a million times at this stage. They can ban who they like for any spurious/good reason they like, sure, but this doesn't in itself make any decisions correct.

It's not a question of what's right and wrong here, it's a question of either let the "minority opinion" posters ruin After Hours for everyone else, or censure them, or simply make the subject verboten for all sides as people lose the run of themselves all too quickly, as has been evidenced time and time again.

I've often had a minority opinion in a discussion and was rounded on from all sides, but I was able to maintain my composure and did my best to put my points across and was able to post away.

I found some of the opinions expressed in the SSM threads taking broad swipes at religious people were quite frankly, disgusting, but because I was able to maintain my composure and make my points in a civil manner, people eventually started realising that they were cutting off their own noses to spite their faces in tarring all religious people like they're all fundamentalist fcuknuts. I even got across the point eventually that there are plenty of people who identify as both LGBT and religious, and people's attitudes changed.

That wouldn't have happened if I'd behaved like a dick and gone in all guns blazing and pissing and moaning about "the unfairness of it all", or that "I'll be a minority in my own country if this referendum is passed" nonsense :rolleyes:

Dan_Solo

Cabaal wrote: »

They are only incorrect if you disagree with them, of course by that logic pretty much every decision is incorrect on boards.ie because somebody always disagrees with it.

But this does not refute that the absolute power of boards.ie to ban posters for any reason does not in itself make that ban "right" or "correct" either morally (whatever that might mean here I suppose) or with regards to the charter.
It's also a line that, strangely, only those who appear to agree with just about every mod decision come out with.

jackofalltrades

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because handing out cards and bans to some people is pointless. Even moving the thread to another forum just gives them an opportunity to be uncivil in another forum a few mouse clicks away (you have to laugh at the irony, people fleeing across Europe from a country where they could be bombed and shot, and then we have people here complain because another forum is too many mouse clicks away to say those people aren't wanted here, must be people trying to silence them! :rolleyes: ).

It's not irony.
It's a poor comparison, an appeal to emotion and a possible strawman in one.
Add to that the rolleyes and all you're doing is inflaming an otherwise calm thread.

The reason every thread, and even a well intentioned thread started last night is closed, is because it isn't long before the thread is invaded and infested by "we don't want them, we can't support them, minority in our own country, rabble rabble" nonsense.

So even valid concerns are considered nonsense to you.

Cuban Pete wrote: »

Oh come off it, you know what One eyed Jack meant: the greatest offenders when it comes to being uncivil/causing disruption in those threads are the people against immigration.

Proof?

Cold War Kid

Proof? Read the threads. No matter what side you're coming from this is undeniable.

Dan_Solo

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Proof? Read the threads. No matter what side you're coming from this is undeniable.

Saying you're sure of something isn't actually proof.

jackofalltrades

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Proof? Read the threads. No matter what side you're coming from this is undeniable.

That's not proof, that's just a logical fallacy.

Cold War Kid

How is it not proof if it's there on the threads?

That's not to say there isn't sniping by those pro the refugees, or that any of those concerned about the influx aren't being reasonable (plenty are).

But if we're talking about the direction most of the sniping and thread-spoiling and provocation and lack of interest in discussion is coming from, well it's plain as can be.

Still concerns about censorship though, when there are numerous threads ongoing about the subject of the refugees?

One eyed Jack

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It's not irony.
It's a poor comparison, an appeal to emotion and a possible strawman in one.
Add to that the rolleyes and all you're doing is inflaming an otherwise calm thread.

This is a discussion site, not a debate site. Opinions are expressed and you can either spend your time spotting fallacies and all the rest of it, or you can counter with your own opinion and leave the fallacy spotting to someone who gives a shìt.

So even valid concerns are considered nonsense to you.

They're concerns for you, they're not concerns for me. If you want to argue their validity, then do that instead of trying to read my mind and put words in my mouth. Your concerns aren't even nonsense as far as I'm concerned, because in order for me to consider them nonsense, I'd have to consider them valid in the first place.

As it happens, I don't.

Proof?

I find it somewhat amusing that you would ask for proof of anything from other posters, when you present nothing but speculation, fearmongering, paranoia and doomsday scenarios as "proof" of anything, and expect people to take that seriously over their own experiences?

I went into the local convenience store in my local community there a few weeks back, the guy behind the counter is all suited and booted, "You're looking fresh" I said, "what's the occasion?". "We're celebrating Eid", he says, "and I didn't know whether to say 'Happy Eid' to you or not...", "Oh fcuks sake, of course you can wish me a Happy Eid, nah I'm Roman Catholic but I still appreciate the gesture! 20 Benson anyway when you're ready"...

They always greet me with a smile in there, and y'know why? Because I don't behave like an asshole. None of this "but that's a logical fallasee, fallacy fallacy fallacy!" crap, because people are too busy to give a shìt for that sort of nonsense.

I don't own this country, so this is not 'my' country, any more than it is yours or anyone elses, it's a shìtty little island in the Atlantic and I just happened to be born here, and I really don't care who else is born here, bred here, grew up here, emigrates from here, migrates to here, whatever.

All I care about is if you're here, you're contributing to society, and many more immigrants contribute to Irish society as much as indigenous Irish people, they contribute in many ways, even if it's as little as educating our children in how to treat other human beings with the same dignity and basic respect we expect for ourselves. Something that's all too often forgotten when posters try to turn discussion into a "debate".

You can't have a debate on the Internet, the same set of rules as would apply in an offline debate just don't transfer to online discussion.

KomradeBishop

*Sigh*...no actually, many of the forums on Boards are about debating, and specifically have rules referencing 'standard of debate'.

Who the fúck wants to discuss a topic with someone, who thinks logical fallacies are acceptable? That's the opposite of debate - deliberate use of logical fallacies is what destroys quality of debate, and it's arguably trolling/soapboxing when the poster is aware of their use of fallacies - and when posters know they are using fallacies, that means they inherently know they are lying/being-dishonest.

That style of debate, liberal use of logical fallacies (rather than just straw-men, one type of fallacy, like I mentioned earlier) - people who use fallacies as a guide to debate, rather than something to avoid - can be generalized as being the problem with poor quality of debate, on the whole site.


I can't actually think of how to fully and properly express, just how antithetical acceptance of logical fallacies is, to discussion itself - posters who seek to knowingly use tactics like that to control/disrupt threads, should be sanctioned and eventually banned, if they keep that up - enforcing that may not be practical though, as there are so many grey areas in debate.

K-9

Often people don't even know they are using logical fallacies, their point would seem legitimate to them and don't see what they are doing.

As for immigration, once you take out the more racist posters/posts, I wouldn't say there is that much difference in bother caused.

Its down to the users really, if any type of thread is posters just sniping and baiting, it'll have a short shelf life and can't be saved. If people are relatively civil and respectful towards each other mods will not have to do anything.

I didn't even know there was an immigration thread in the European Union forum because there was no reported posts at all, there was no need for mod intervention for ages. That's the way it should be really.

KomradeBishop

K-9 wrote: »

Often people don't even know they are using logical fallacies, their point would seem legitimate to them and don't see what they are doing.

As for immigration, once you take out the more racist posters/posts, I wouldn't say there is that much difference in bother caused.

Its down to the users really, if any type of thread is posters just sniping and baiting, it'll have a short shelf life and can't be saved. If people are relatively civil and respectful towards each other mods will not have to do anything.

I didn't even know there was an immigration thread in the European Union forum because there was no reported posts at all, there was no need for mod intervention for ages. That's the way it should be really.

People can not miss that they are using logical fallacies, when those fallacies are pointed out to them - a dozen or more times in some cases - but invariably the posters that are the worst for using logical fallacies (particularly straw-men), just ignore repeated fallacies being pointed out to them, and continue using the same fallacy again and again and again.

It should have more attention paid to it, because straw-men in particular, are the bane of many debates on Boards, and it is unmistakable that many posters who use them all the time, are fully aware how it is fallacious, and are deliberately being dishonest or even outright lying - which makes it as good as trolling/soapboxing.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I find it somewhat amusing that you would ask for proof of anything from other posters, when you present nothing but speculation, fearmongering, paranoia and doomsday scenarios as "proof" of anything, and expect people to take that seriously over their own experiences?

It's somewhat hilarious that you demand each post be taken on its own merit and simultaneously insist one poster isn't permitted to ask for proof of an allegation because you perceive they themselves have made an unproven allegation.

One eyed Jack

KomradeBishop wrote: »

*Sigh*...no actually, many of the forums on Boards are about debating, and specifically have rules referencing 'standard of debate'.

There's a Debate forum if you'd prefer all migrant threads, threads of any contentious nature really, were moved there, so you could organise a proper debate?

Otherwise, the closest thread should resemble a debate in After Hours is "Daddy or chips?"

Who the fúck wants to discuss a topic with someone, who thinks logical fallacies are acceptable?

Plenty of people do, judging by the popularity and variety of topics being discussed in After Hours right now, and that's hundreds of posters, as opposed to the one or two that want 'debate' in After Hours, of all 800 odd public forums!

Is there a fallacy that applies to playing to the crowd? After Hours is a popular forum, because it's light-hearted at it's core, and if you want that to change, that may require another, separate thread, from this one about censorship.

That's a suggestion btw, not trying to introduce a strawman.

K-9

KomradeBishop wrote: »

People can not miss that they are using logical fallacies, when those fallacies are pointed out to them - a dozen or more times in some cases - but invariably the posters that are the worst for using logical fallacies (particularly straw-men), just ignore repeated fallacies being pointed out to them, and continue using the same fallacy again and again and again.

It should have more attention paid to it, because straw-men in particular, are the bane of many debates on Boards, and it is unmistakable that many posters who use them all the time, are fully aware how it is fallacious, and are deliberately being dishonest or even outright lying - which makes it as good as trolling/soapboxing.

Or the standard of debate isn't what it used to be.

Soap boxing is a hard one to prove, hell, a fair percentage of posters in political discussions could be accused of it often enough, blind to failings in their particular party or ideology. That usually doesn't mean soap boxing or trolling, they just often blindly follow whatever their brand of politics with little or no self criticism. Look at US political debate in particular to see what I mean.

KomradeBishop

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Plenty of people do, judging by the popularity and variety of topics being discussed in After Hours right now, and that's hundreds of posters, as opposed to the one or two that want 'debate' in After Hours, of all 800 odd public forums!

Is there a fallacy that applies to playing to the crowd? After Hours is a popular forum, because it's light-hearted at it's core, and if you want that to change, that may require another, separate thread, from this one about censorship.

That's a suggestion btw, not trying to introduce a strawman.

Actually, the debate about logical fallacies, is inherently intertwined with the debate about censorship:
Allowing posters free-reign to e.g. throw endless straw-men, without any standard of debate, means that if enough posters start doing the same and grouping up (happens often) those posters can effectively censor minority views on the forum.

I don't think you have anything to show that, outside of pisstaking topics, anyone likes debating with someone who uses logical fallacies as guide to argument - there are quite a lot of debates that happen on AH really, and that doesn't mean posters there have a preference for having no standard of debate.