This forum is non-functional

smacl

lazybones32 wrote: »

The issue of moderation made it onto the wikipedia page about boards some time back - and it wasn't a troll edit. It is a sitewide problem so don't sit there are say that using the correct means will bring the correct solution.

Link please?

lazybones32

Archive.org

Knock yourself out.

smacl

lazybones32 wrote: »

Archive.org

Knock yourself out.

So not a troll edit, but something since removed. This would indicate it is either no longer accurate or was never accurate. Full revision history is here, I note a number of cases of unfounded allegations and opinion that have been edited out.

lazybones32

smacl wrote: »

So not a troll edit, but something since removed. This would indicate it is either no longer accurate or was never accurate. Full revision history is here, I note a number of cases of unfounded allegations and opinion that have been edited out.

And...?

smacl

lazybones32 wrote: »

And...?

Nothing in Wikipedia to back-up what you're saying regards the mods on this site, as you imply in your earlier post.

lazybones32

smacl wrote: »

Nothing in Wikipedia to back-up what you're saying regards the mods on this site, as you imply in your earlier post.

I didn't imply. I openly stated. But because i didn't have the foresight to take a screencap or boomark the page, to prove a point to some stranger in years to come, there is no wikipedia proof of moderation being an issue on boards. #mythbusted.

Peregrinus

lazybones32 wrote: »

I didn't imply. I openly stated. But because i didn't have the foresight to take a screencap or boomark the page, to prove a point to some stranger in years to come, there is no wikipedia proof of moderation being an issue on boards. #mythbusted.

Every previous version of the boards.ie wikipedia page (and every other wikipedia page) is archived, and is accessible through the "view history" tab on the page. So if the comment was ever there you should be able to recover it.

lazybones32

Feel free to do so.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Every previous version of the boards.ie wikipedia page (and every other wikipedia page) is archived, and is accessible through the "view history" tab on the page. So if the comment was ever there you should be able to recover it.

Yes indeed, link provided in my previous post (also searchable). I'm guessing lazebones32 reference is to this version from 2007 which was deleted with the following editing comment '(rv opinion, unsourced criticisms, vandalism etc to last version by Curtains99)' Wikipedia is a fantastic resource but certainly not definitive, and I for one wouldn't consider short lived edits that were deleted 10 years ago to carry much if any weight.

@lazybones32, rather than having a moan about boards.ie in general, why not come up with some constructive suggestions to correct the problems you perceive in this forum, as is the topic?

Peregrinus

I'm not the one who's saying the comment was ever there. You are.

Just to be clear, I have no horse in this race. I'm not advancing any position which relies on the comment having been there, or never having been there. I really don't mind whether you produce the comment or not. I'm just trying to be helpful, pointing out that if you feel it would strengthen your argument to be able to point to the comment, you can do so. Up to you whether you do or not and, if you decide it seems like too much work, you'll get no criticism from me on that score.

lazybones32

And i'm simply saying that whoever wants to check through the posts linked by the other lad can do so. Go nuts with your fact checking but don't expect me to do it for you.
("You" refers to anyone reading this; no one in particular.)

Samcl: i did offer suggestions on forum improvement. Maybe i should link, bookmark and reference that for you too? And if i want to moan about moderation, i will do so.

Nick Park

I think the main problem is that there have always been a number of posters who see it as their mission in life to bugger up the forum.

To limit the forum only to Christians is not an option that those who run boards.ie would countenance. And one would like to think that non-Christians could engage in respectful discussion that would promote everyone's understanding Christianity a bit better.

But I really don't see how any forum can function well when there is a history of people posting in it for no other reason than to air their dislike of, and disagreement with, the topic under discussion. Would a Manchester United forum put up with Liverpool fans continually posting how crap United are? Or would the Soccer forum allow rugby fans to keep airing their opinion that soccer is a stupid game?

Most regular Christian posters have, over the years, just given up posting here because it isn't worth the hassle. If you're just looking for an argument then there's plenty of opportunities to do that elsewhere.

uck51js9zml2yt

Nick Park wrote: »

I think the main problem is that there have always been a number of posters who see it as their mission in life to bugger up the forum.

To limit the forum only to Christians is not an option that those who run boards.ie would countenance. And one would like to think that non-Christians could engage in respectful discussion that would promote everyone's understanding Christianity a bit better.

But I really don't see how any forum can function well when there is a history of people posting in it for no other reason than to air their dislike of, and disagreement with, the topic under discussion. Would a Manchester United forum put up with Liverpool fans continually posting how crap United are? Or would the Soccer forum allow rugby fans to keep airing their opinion that soccer is a stupid game?

Most regular Christian posters have, over the years, just given up posting here because it isn't worth the hassle. If you're just looking for an argument then there's plenty of opportunities to do that elsewhere.

Nick, all you need to do is take a look in the disputes forum to see the number of people infracted or banned for slagging off the other team.
Difference is they are dealt with , unlike here.
On the whole I've given up on this forum. I'm fed up with the keyboard warriors who turn up for an argument without contributing to the forum. Never mind those who refuse to engage with anyone who would differ with them. Makes contributing to a thread pointless.

ABC101

Nick Park wrote: »

I think the main problem is that there have always been a number of posters who see it as their mission in life to bugger up the forum.

To limit the forum only to Christians is not an option that those who run boards.ie would countenance. And one would like to think that non-Christians could engage in respectful discussion that would promote everyone's understanding Christianity a bit better.

But I really don't see how any forum can function well when there is a history of people posting in it for no other reason than to air their dislike of, and disagreement with, the topic under discussion. Would a Manchester United forum put up with Liverpool fans continually posting how crap United are? Or would the Soccer forum allow rugby fans to keep airing their opinion that soccer is a stupid game?

Most regular Christian posters have, over the years, just given up posting here because it isn't worth the hassle. If you're just looking for an argument then there's plenty of opportunities to do that elsewhere.

It's been a while since I checked in here. I did not realise this thread was still going!

There are most certainly a number of "habitually condescending" posters who seem to believe they have the right to be condescending and also place their "conditions" on the thread.

As long as the discussion remains within their "certain limits" (of which only they know of) they behave somewhat civil, but when it either exceeds their limits they believe they have a licence to start insulting the other poster.

I know a number of Atheist's and I don't know why, but on mentioning religion or the RCC they do get angry. You can feel the strength of their emotions.

Some of these people even stop themselves talking about the topic, because they know they are just on the slippery slope into getting themselves worked up and even more angry. It's almost like some atheists have become a prisoner within themselves, bitterness would be one word to describe it another would be a "pathological hatred".

There are lots of things I do not believe in, but I don't spend a minute of my time slagging them off, or mocking them.

But numerous atheist's seem to spend some time mocking the thing they don't believe in.

It does seem odd that there are more images of Jesus in the "Funny haha side of religon" thread than in the entire Christianity forum. Even if it is very insulting / offensive to believers.

Absolam

Nick Park wrote: »

I think the main problem is that there have always been a number of posters who see it as their mission in life to bugger up the forum.

I'm not sure their intent is to mess up the forum, but certainly there are frequent attempts to engage Christians in justifying their faith, and to ridicule and attack religious belief. As long as that is kept within the rules of the forum there's no reason for Christianity to have further rules (or bans) to stop it; that would result, I think, in the kind of echo chamber everyone would rather avoid.

Delirium

To those posters who are feeling frustrated with the forum due to contributions of some non-Christians, what sort of change would you propose to improve the forum?

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

To those posters who are feeling frustrated with the forum due to contributions of some non-Christians, what sort of change would you propose to improve the forum?

I've no problems with people engaging in debate until it becomes disruptive.
The recent pride in the workplace thread was a perfect example.
The same people who've no interest in the forum come in to get on their soap boxes and tell us how wrong we are without listening/ignoring what's said in reply..or just plain dismissing it so they can carry on with their diatribe.
Unfortunately, that thread lacked any meaningful moderation!
If people behaved like they did in a soccer thread they would have been carded!

Delirium

Malcolm Substantial Lemonade wrote: »

I've no problems with people engaging in debate until it becomes disruptive.
The recent pride in the workplace thread was a perfect example.
The same people who've no interest in the forum come in to get on their soap boxes and tell us how wrong we are without listening/ignoring what's said in reply..or just plain dismissing it so they can carry on with their diatribe.
Unfortunately, that thread lacked any meaningful moderation!
If people behaved like they did in a soccer thread they would have been carded!

That thread is actually the most moderated thread in recent times.

Multiple warnings issued, multiple cards and a forum ban.

The majority of reported posts were acted upon, so I a bit unsure what more was required for ther to be 'any meaningful moderation'?

Not having a go, just looking for a bit more elaboration as to what was lacking there (and possibly the forum in general).

Peregrinus

Malcolm Substantial Lemonade wrote: »

I've no problems with people engaging in debate until it becomes disruptive.
The recent pride in the workplace thread was a perfect example . . .

I'd have to say that what sank the "Pride" threat was a wholly off-topic spat between Christians about which version of the scriptures is normative.

There's a definite parallel between interventions by non-believers who come along just to decree that It's All Rubbish And I Don't Believe Any Of It, and interventions by Christians who come along just to assert that the particular tradition of Christianity to which they adhere is True and all others are In Error To The Extent To Which They Diverge From The Truth. In both cases the views offered are not novel, they are not enlightening or productive, and they do not foster a culture of respect and exchange in the forum.

(And, for the Christians, they are an absolutely appalling example of witness that can only serve to alienate people from the faith. Which, you know, in a "Christianity" forum is maybe something we should be trying to avoid.)

c_man

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not sure their intent is to mess up the forum, but certainly there are frequent attempts to engage Christians in justifying their faith, and to ridicule and attack religious belief. As long as that is kept within the rules of the forum there's no reason for Christianity to have further rules (or bans) to stop it; that would result, I think, in the kind of echo chamber everyone would rather avoid.

Can you imagine the horror of having an "echo chamber" like well, pretty much all the Sports fora, all the Gaming ones, 90% of the hobby ones... *shudder*

Nah, the current approach of

1 - thread_opened
2 - usual crowd in with the attacks, alleging mental illness, soap boxing etc etc
3 - Thanks brigade
4 - Couple of back and forths, topic totally gone
5 - mod politely reminds people not to call people mentally ill, cards anyone who cursed
6 - thread dead

works just fine.

Delirium

c_man wrote: »

Can you imagine the horror of having an "echo chamber" like well, pretty much all the Sports fora, all the Gaming ones, 90% of the hobby ones... *shudder*

Nah, the current approach of

1 - thread_opened
2 - usual crowd in with the attacks, alleging mental illness, soap boxing etc etc
3 - Thanks brigade
4 - Couple of back and forths, topic totally gone
5 - mod politely reminds people not to call people mentally ill, cards anyone who cursed
6 - thread dead

works just fine.

couple of questions:

1. do you report any of the posts mentioned in point 2?
2. regarding item 3, do you think the forum would work better without the Thanks function?
3. In pretty much all cases, a polite warning has the desired effect. The one instance I can remember where it didn't, the poster was ended up being forum banned for a period of weeks. Am I to understand that your preference would be to escalate to cards quicker when dealing with problematic posts instead of attempting to resolve via on-thread warnings?

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

couple of questions:

1. do you report any of the posts mentioned in point 2?
2. regarding item 3, do you think the forum would work better without the Thanks function?
3. In pretty much all cases, a polite warning has the desired effect. The one instance I can remember where it didn't, the poster was ended up being forum banned for a period of weeks. Am I to understand that your preference would be to escalate to cards quicker when dealing with problematic posts instead of attempting to resolve via on-thread warnings?

Removing thanks is an interesting idea. It might work.
What I'd like to see if the removing of the ignore function as it stifles debate.
I know you've banned people but we now have some serial bannees which says to me it's not having the desired effect.
Maybe a card system like in the soccer forum! While gentle warnings is nice, I'm not sure they are having a long term positive effect.

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

couple of questions:

1. do you report any of the posts mentioned in point 2?
2. regarding item 3, do you think the forum would work better without the Thanks function?
3. In pretty much all cases, a polite warning has the desired effect. The one instance I can remember where it didn't, the poster was ended up being forum banned for a period of weeks. Am I to understand that your preference would be to escalate to cards quicker when dealing with problematic posts instead of attempting to resolve via on-thread warnings?

Removing thanks is an interesting idea. It might work.
What I'd like to see if the removing of the ignore function as it stifles debate.
I know you've banned people but we now have some serial bannees which says to me it's not having the desired effect.
Maybe a card system like in the soccer forum! While gentle warnings is nice, I'm not sure they are having a long term positive effect.

Absolam

c_man wrote: »

Can you imagine the horror of having an "echo chamber" like well, pretty much all the Sports fora, all the Gaming ones, 90% of the hobby ones... *shudder*

I don't think I'd consider them echo chambers; opinions are still up for dispute, but there are baselines for all of them which are beyond discussion. You can't attack XB1 or PS4 in the XBOX or Playstation fora, just as you can't attack Christian faith (or argue that there is no God) in the Christianity forum. I think more use of the report post function when this happens might quieten those kind of problems, though it wouldn't help with intra-faith disputes. Those, to my mind, are more what the forum is for though, as long as they're civil.

Malcolm Substantial Lemonade wrote: »

Removing thanks is an interesting idea. It might work.
What I'd like to see if the removing of the ignore function as it stifles debate.

I would totally disagree with removing the ignore function. If a poster doesn't want to get involved in a debate with someone else, they shouldn't have to. If you want to peruse the forum and participate without seeing posts you know will infuriate you, the ignore function is a perfect way of being involved without getting into rows you know you don't want.

Delirium

Just on the ignore function, AFAIK it's a user based system not forum based. I.e if someone adds me to ignore list then my posts are hidden from them in every forum.

It wouldn't be possible to disable it for this forum only.

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

Just on the ignore function, AFAIK it's a user based system not forum based. I.e if someone adds me to ignore list then my posts are hidden from them in every forum.

It wouldn't be possible to disable it for this forum only.

thats a pity, particularly on the rare event I agree with those who ignore me:D

J C

Delirium wrote: »

To those posters who are feeling frustrated with the forum due to contributions of some non-Christians, what sort of change would you propose to improve the forum?

I think that a good rule for all posters is to ask themselves if they would be proud for their children and grandchildren to read their posts in say, 20 years time ... because everything you post on the Boards is retained indefinitely.

There is a convention that when somebody starts calling their opponents names and badmouthing them ... they have lost the argument.

This is certainly something that a Christian shouldn't do.

If everyone stops calling their opponents names and badmouthing them or if and when it occurs, it is simply pointed out that they have lost the debate, it might discourage this rude, un-parliamentary behaviour ... and make this forum a more enjoyable place to post.

J C

Another idea could be to ban atheists and anti-christians to a single thread ... on the christianity forum ... like has happened to me over on the A & A.

The idea would be to ask them to only post in a special thread, on the Christianity Forum, where all of the Christian forum members don't have to listen to them, if they don't want to.

It could apparently be allowed under a rule for providing 'a bit of civic-minded ear-protection' (against views that Christians wouldn't want to hear).

It's probably not a bad idea, actually. I have accepted the logic of it over on the A & A ... and presumably it will improve discussion amongst Atheists, without having a strong Christian perspective given on every thread there.

The same logic could apply to improving the Chrisitanity thread ... by reversing the process.

Delirium

how would the moderators patrol such a policy (which incidentally would bar them also from all but the 'non-Christian' megathread you propose)?

Currently no poster is required to state their religious identity. Your policy would require it if it was to work.

I honestly can't see it being allowed to go ahead as a Christian only forum was already proposed and denied.

Your proposal is essentially a Christian only forum with a token megathread for non-Christians.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

how would the moderators patrol such a policy (which incidentally would bar them also from all but the 'non-Christian' megathread you propose)?

Currently no poster is required to state their religious identity. Your policy would require it if it was to work.

I honestly can't see it being allowed to go ahead as a Christian only forum was already proposed and denied.

Your proposal is essentially a Christian only forum with a token megathread for non-Christians.

They wouldn't have to state their beliefs ... just challenge Christianity strongly.
It seems to work over on the A & A.

It provides a kind of 'safe space' for atheism on the A & A ... it might be worth a try on the Christianity forum.

I can see why people with a common interest would like to develop their thinking amongst each other ... and have another thread for any strident opposing views to have their say.