Why the censorship?

RDM_83 again

nesf wrote: »

It's essentially what Slashdot/Reddit/et al do with voting on threads and posts/replies. It's got upsides and downsides. For hotly debated political issues it doesn't work very well. The bigger side basically shuts down discussion by the other one.

To be honest I think it sort of works on a site like Reddit because you have so many multiple different rooms because its easy to set them up so the defacto correct opinion is constantly changing (if you keep an open mind and browse around rather than staying safe in a certain bubble)

nesf

RDM_83 again wrote: »

To be honest I think it sort of works on a site like Reddit because you have so many multiple different rooms because its easy to set them up so the defacto correct opinion is constantly changing (if you keep an open mind and browse around rather than staying safe in a certain bubble)

Yup, but sometimes one room invades another room and internet drama ensues.

_Kaiser_

Ok, so I see there's a pretty lively discussion on this going on in Politics Cafe that seems to be being let run .. and that's a good thing I might add so thanks to the Mods for that

But.. without mentioning names or reporting a lot of posts for what may seem like a "Trivial" reason, might I suggest that the silly back and forth bickering that's going on be actioned?
I'm assuming this is what caused the other threads to be derailed and closed and frankly (as I mentioned earlier) I find these threads as a useful single point of info for the latest developments.
I've no real desire to trawl through some of the nonsense I'm reading now, and if I posted this on thread it'd seem like back-seat modding whereas I'm actually trying to be constructive

Cheers!

K-9

The Cafe is light touch moderation and I think they maybe low on mods at the minute. You could try PM's to the mod active there or the C-Mods.

Sheep Lover

An AH mod banning and carding posters due to them spouting the crazy "conspiracy" that the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims.

Says it all really.

Frank Grimes

Sheep Lover wrote: »

An AH mod banning and carding posters due to them spouting the crazy "conspiracy" that the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims.

Says it all really.

That is not what that post was saying, it was implying that the crane crashing was some sort of conspiracy. The thread was barely started and people were making a joke out of something that's left 87 people dead and lots injured more. I think that says at least something, if not "it all".

Sheep Lover

Frank Grimes wrote: »

That is not what that post was saying, it was implying that the crane crashing was some sort of conspiracy. The thread was barely started and people were making a joke out of something that's left 87 people dead and lots injured more. I think that says at least something, if not "it all".

You know the words "coincidence" and "conspiracy" mean different things right?

Frank Grimes

Sheep Lover wrote: »

You know the words "coincidence" and "conspiracy" mean different things right?

Nope, completely unaware of that. Maybe if you focus on re-reading that post, rather than trying to have a pointless dig at me, you might see what I'm talking about. Hint: I used the word implying.

Sheep Lover

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Nope, completely unaware of that. Maybe if you focus on re-reading that post, rather than trying to have a pointless dig at me, you might see what I'm talking about.

Oh I've read it, I wouldn't be here if I didn't. You're very confused altogether Frank.

If you could explain how it was implied that it was a "conspiracy" that would be great.

Frank Grimes

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Oh I've read it, I wouldn't be here if I didn't. You're very confused altogether Frank.

If you could explain how it was implied that it was a "conspiracy" that would be great.

Honestly I couldn't be bothered getting into some ridiculous discussion about this with you.

Sheep Lover

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Honestly I couldn't be bothered getting into some ridiculous discussion about this with you.

Really? So you came here explicitly to respond to me and to defend the conspiracy angle but now can't be bothered apparently, you're an odd man Frank.

Sheep Lover

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Hint: I used the word implying.

Just seen this sneaky little edit.

That's probably your problem Frank, you are making your own assumptions about posts and drawing conclusions that aren't there.

Overheal

What's the point of brining it up then? To laugh at dead people's expense from 2 different tragedies 14 years apart? Marvelous coincidence so many people died then and now eh? Isn't it funny how it happened to Muslims? What's the implication then, 'Karma lmao' ?

Sheep Lover

Overheal wrote: »

What's the point of brining it up then? To laugh at dead people's expense from 2 different tragedies 14 years apart? Marvelous coincidence so many people died then and now eh? Isn't it funny how it happened to Muslims? What's the implication then, 'Karma lmao' ?

So you think it's funny then? That's pretty sick if I'm honest.

Overheal

Obviously I don't; you've made my point that moderators doing their job just fine, that those types of implications don't belong in the thread:

Sheep Lover wrote: »

An AH mod banning and carding posters due to them spouting the crazy "conspiracy" that the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims.

Says it all really.

Sheep Lover

Overheal wrote: »

Obviously I don't; you've made my point that moderators doing their job just fine, that those types of implications don't belong in the thread:

You are making no sense, my point was about the conspiracy accusation. How is it a conspiracy that the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims?

Cold War Kid

It seemed as if people simply saying the date is a coincidence was deemed to be conspiracy theorising. It's not - it's just saying the date is a coincidence.

Lovely Bloke

Guy banned permanently from the Radio Forum, of all places, for daring to ask questions like "If your male doctor dressed in women's clothes would you think he was unprofessional" in a thread about that journalist who has said they are "gender fluid".

This is an example of a user getting banned for not conforming to the "liberal" thoughts that are expected of boards users in general.

That is a ridiculous banning really.

We await the outcome of the appeal.

Overheal

Looks like it was reviewed fairly.

I would say though its probably more of a humanities discussion and a fairly interesting one at that (I think its one of those things that is just a matter of commonality and tolerance; 50 years ago people would have said the same thing about a Black or a Woman doctor, no cross-dressing/etc required).

RDM_83 again

Overheal wrote: »

Looks like it was reviewed fairly.

This is pretty relevant though

padd b1975 wrote: »

a permanent ban without so much as an on thread warning (as was afforded to another poster who had abused me on thread) was a bit heavy-handed.

The fact that a permanent ban is whats immediately jumped to by the mods is unusual even if the decision is overturned later.

Its also fairly standard practice but rather strange how abusing an actual poster is often considered a lesser offense than breaking one of the fuzzy discrimination/equality type posting rules

Lovely Bloke

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This is pretty relevant though


The fact that a permanent ban is whats immediately jumped to by the mods is unusual even if the decision is overturned later.

Its also fairly standard practice but rather strange how abusing an actual poster is often considered a lesser offense than breaking one of the fuzzy discrimination/equality type posting rules

yeah but mods, cmods, and admins are not accountable to anyone (nor should they be, really, they are volunteers) - but it's absolutely ridiculous that a mod with the experience of Hullaballoo's first port of call on an issue like that is a permanent ban, with no yellow, red, temp ban, perm ban chain of escalation.

To just go to BAM-permaban is kneejerk and indicitive of what the mods think they can get away with when pushing their own agendas, or the agenda of Boards.ie, Distilled Media or whoever else has the influence and wherewithall to appoint mods, cmods and admins.

Nobody is asking to be allowed to post bigoted points of view, but there are legitimate points of view out there that are being silently pushed away from this forum/website in a culture of trying to be a "please all of the minorities all of the time" (apart from people who are slightly right-of-centre, they can piss off).

I suppose it's pretty admirable that Boards.ie wants to be seen as a bastion of acceptance, right-on-ness and uber-Liberalism, but it looks like certain elements have gone so far to the left that they are hitting the right. Certainly on social issues - any criticism of any "hot social topic" is silenced, shunted around the forums or just plain deleted - it's getting pretty silly now.

It's absolutely not ok that someone who thinks a person who has identified as male for their whole professional career would suddenly want to start to wear dresses, heels and make-up is not ok would be so unceremoniously shut down.

Sure, the decision was reversed, but is that the end of it? I think we need direction from above that holding "non-liberal" views, and expressing those views on this platform, is not going to see you silenced, posts deleted or temporarily or permanently banned from a forum, or the site as a whole.

Because that seems to be the direction it's going.

And that's not ok.

looksee

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

yeah but mods, cmods, and admins are not accountable to anyone (nor should they be, really, they are volunteers) - but it's absolutely ridiculous that a mod with the experience of Hullaballoo's first port of call on an issue like that is a permanent ban, with no yellow, red, temp ban, perm ban chain of escalation.

To just go to BAM-permaban is kneejerk and indicitive of what the mods think they can get away with when pushing their own agendas, or the agenda of Boards.ie, Distilled Media or whoever else has the influence and wherewithall to appoint mods, cmods and admins.

Nobody is asking to be allowed to post bigoted points of view, but there are legitimate points of view out there that are being silently pushed away from this forum/website in a culture of trying to be a "please all of the minorities all of the time" (apart from people who are slightly right-of-centre, they can piss off).

I suppose it's pretty admirable that Boards.ie wants to be seen as a bastion of acceptance, right-on-ness and uber-Liberalism, but it looks like certain elements have gone so far to the left that they are hitting the right. Certainly on social issues - any criticism of any "hot social topic" is silenced, shunted around the forums or just plain deleted - it's getting pretty silly now.

It's absolutely not ok that someone who thinks a person who has identified as male for their whole professional career would suddenly want to start to wear dresses, heels and make-up is not ok would be so unceremoniously shut down.

Sure, the decision was reversed, but is that the end of it? I think we need direction from above that holding "non-liberal" views, and expressing those views on this platform, is not going to see you silenced, posts deleted or temporarily or permanently banned from a forum, or the site as a whole.

Because that seems to be the direction it's going.

And that's not ok.

The ban was reversed, end of discussion. Mods are volunteers, are human, are often doing a bit of modding between working, minding the kids, whatever.

I would say on balance there are fewer bad mod decisions than bad decisions made at work, at home or socially by the average person.

Individuals may have opinions but mods understand that there is a difference between having an opinion on a topic, and moderating on the basis of that opinion. Deciding that something is out of order is also an opinion, but does not/should no reflect a mod's opinion on the topic. This can be a very subtle judgment at times but generally it works. Occasionally it does not work, and another opinion can be requested. That's it. Its an internet forum, its free and its private.

No-one has told me, as a mod, at any stage, what attitude I should take to any topic. There is no agenda. I am expected to be fair, rational and balanced in moderation, and apply the published rules for posting, which is easy for me as I do not mod any contentious forums. I am in awe of the mods who deal with some of the stuff that gets posted, and manage to follow rambling/ technical/ contentious discussions about a whole range of topics.

tl/dr mods are not out to get you

Lovely Bloke

Yes I used to be a mod here, so chill the jets.

You may never have been told to mod in a certain way (I'm sure you weren't, I never was), but those who have the power and wherewithall to appoint mods are going to appoint people who they think will mod in a certain way, people who have demonstrated that they lean a certain way on topics of interest to the powers-that-be.

I'm reasonably certain that if a mod position for, say, AH came up that yer man there in that instance would be dismissed out of hand by the Cmods/Admin/Staff for holding that particular viewpoint on a thread discussing a "gender fluid" individual. His viewpoints are not congruent with the viewpoint that is being championed by the site as a whole, and therefore that non-appointment is going to shape the discussions on this website in a direction of a certain agenda.

You don't have to be told to mod in a certain way, or stick to some agenda, those are how you will just naturally approach things. They way you do things falls into the way Boards.ie/Distilled Media wants it's mods to do things - they pick the people they think will best shape the direction of the discussions.

If you suddenly found yourself at odds with how the higher-ups want things done, you'd have a choice - either change your own ways, or hang up your mod stick and let someone else do the modding, someone who is willing to mod the way those people want the site modded.

osarusan

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

You don't have to be told to mod in a certain way, or stick to some agenda, those are how you will just naturally approach things. They way you do things falls into the way Boards.ie/Distilled Media wants it's mods to do things - they pick the people they think will best shape the direction of the discussions.

Overturning the ban is a pretty cunning way to throw us off the scent, isn't it?

The devious rascals.

Penn

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Yes I used to be a mod here, so chill the jets.

You may never have been told to mod in a certain way (I'm sure you weren't, I never was), but those who have the power and wherewithall to appoint mods are going to appoint people who they think will mod in a certain way, people who have demonstrated that they lean a certain way on topics of interest to the powers-that-be.

I'm reasonably certain that if a mod position for, say, AH came up that yer man there in that instance would be dismissed out of hand by the Cmods/Admin/Staff for holding that particular viewpoint on a thread discussing a "gender fluid" individual. His viewpoints are not congruent with the viewpoint that is being championed by the site as a whole, and therefore that non-appointment is going to shape the discussions on this website in a direction of a certain agenda.

You don't have to be told to mod in a certain way, or stick to some agenda, those are how you will just naturally approach things. They way you do things falls into the way Boards.ie/Distilled Media wants it's mods to do things - they pick the people they think will best shape the direction of the discussions.

If you suddenly found yourself at odds with how the higher-ups want things done, you'd have a choice - either change your own ways, or hang up your mod stick and let someone else do the modding, someone who is willing to mod the way those people want the site modded.

Pure nonsense. I've come across plenty of mods who I strongly disagree with on issues such as gender, sexuality etc. They're still mods, and from what I can see, haven't had to change their views.

Mods aren't chosen for their beliefs on certain topics, and they're not left out of being picked because of them either. Mods are chosen for how well it's believed they can mod the forum. That's it. A poster who goes against the consensus of the majority but posts in a respectful way, reports those who don't, and engages in a good manner is far more useful as a mod than someone who goes with the consensus but is needlessly argumentative about it.

I say this as a mod of about 5 years, and a former CMod of 2 years. None of what you said above is reflected in reality.

Nodin

Seeing as its being mentioned, why are there no category mods listed in the for a anymore?

Dan_Solo

Also, why are mods listed as such with the bold name and all when they post in forums they do not mod? Shouldn't this be changed to avoid confusion or having to look up who the mod in the forum really is (since not all mod announcements require bold apparently).

Penn

Nodin wrote: »

Seeing as its being mentioned, why are there no category mods listed in the for a anymore?

Since the category reshuffle, with the way forums changed categories or categories were renamed, I think CMods names are now included just under Moderators.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Also, why are mods listed as such with the bold name and all when they post in forums they do not mod? Shouldn't this be changed to avoid confusion or having to look up who the mod in the forum really is (since not all mod announcements require bold apparently).

I believe it's to do with the setup of the site itself. Mods are under a particular "group", which means they show up like that in every forum. It can't be changed on a forum by forum basis. Once you're under that group (same with CMod group, Admin group, Subscribers group, Staff group), you show up as being of that group everywhere.

Dan_Solo

Penn wrote: »

I believe it's to do with the setup of the site itself. Mods are under a particular "group", which means they show up like that in every forum. It can't be changed on a forum by forum basis. Once you're under that group (same with CMod group, Admin group, Subscribers group, Staff group), you show up as being of that group everywhere.

I know it's a technical thing yes, but you can see the problem? For instance, on this page I have no idea who is a moderator here without going back out into the forum, and since there is no requirement for mods to make "mod hat" announcements in bold, how can anybody know for certain when a mod announcement is made? Leaving it for people to interpret by context isn't a great idea really.

Mr E

Back on topic guys.... the mod list has no bearing on "censorship".