Is Boards aware of the reputation it has across the web?

Wibbs

gandalf wrote: »

Boards had a reputation because it opened users to their ideas being questioned and forcing them to respond in way that wasn't telling the questioner to copulate away.

Yep. I don't particularly mind being called a wanker, cos lord knows I can be, but if that's all you have in your arsenal it's not much to work with. It's the schoolyard "you smell!" debating tactic. At least try to bring something more to the table. "you smell, because you trod in dog eggs and haven't washed your pits in a week", that I can work with.

K-9

KomradeBishop wrote: »

One thing I don't get there, is why mods with an obvious political/economic leaning/bias get chosen - is it to achieve some kind of 'balance' ala the balance fallacy? If so, that's a really terrible way to choose mods.

Things like conflicts of interest and bias should be considered when selecting mods, so that the more egregious examples (including e.g. think-tank/party/business-lobby members) get excluded from moderation, due to the potential for bias affecting mod decisions.

You left out the part of the post that said political leanings never come up in the mod forums.

Arrow in the Knee

I would like to become a Moderator but with none of the work involved☺

Boom_Bap

Arrow in the Knee wrote: »

I would like to become a Moderator but with none of the work involved☺

You'll only get a really really really small percentage of the coke and probably not get even a sniff of the hookers.

Kimbot

Boom_Bap wrote: »

You'll only get a really really really small percentage of the coke and probably not get even a sniff of the hookers.

Mods get coke and hookers???? :eek:

Wheres mine?

Arrow in the Knee

Boom_Bap wrote: »

You'll only get a really really really small percentage of the coke and probably not get even a sniff of the hookers.

If I can't get the hookers I'll forget about it

Boom_Bap

jonnycivic wrote: »

Mods get coke and hookers???? :eek:

Wheres mine?

You need to level up in Destiny and enter the secret unlock code. :pac:

Kimbot

Boom_Bap wrote: »

You need to level up in Destiny and enter the secret unlock code. :pac:

I already done that, do I wait until its delivered to my postmaster? :pac:

Omackeral

Goose81 wrote: »

Your really quite stupid, I'm going to bed.

Every single time this happens, an angel gets its wings.

sheep?

Arrow in the Knee wrote: »

I would like to become a Moderator but with none of the work involved☺

I'd look to get involved around here then if I were you, and just pray JJ Abrams doesn't get any notions in the future.

RDM_83 again

Samaris wrote: »

I dunno, a few times I've faded off Boards but it wasn't due to moderation. It was actually due to being sick of some of the nastier stuff that got posted. I stopped going to AH for a bit because I was so damned sick of the constant feminism-bashing and dole-bashing. When there's several threads in a row down the page that's basically the same **** over again it's a bit "nope, not even bothering".

Can I ask though, when did you not find After Hours like that? Like I'm not very politically correct at all and when I first opened an account I used to avoid it because it was a bit much.
The people who complain about AH changing to be much more safe and politically correct do have a really big point, its incomparable now to what it was.
Now I can understand the need for "nicer" spaces but the feeling is the entire site is turning into a very safe space, online (and media in general) is becoming more polarized by the current culture wars but the middle ground still exists, the significant numbers in the opposing fringes should be catered for but they shouldn't be allowed to shift the dynamic so much of already existing thriving forums, look at how the Politics Cafe is about the only new success on Boards, there is a lesson to be learned from that however if you take Dav's statement on the thread

We didn't suddenly start banning Right Wing opinion, Right Wing opinion has become dangerously extremist because the rest of the world has become a more tolerant place.

This thread

The lesson to be taken is that one side is to be cordoned off while the rest of the site is to become more PC/left liberal.
Incidentally on that thread I took the time to look into how threads on the refugee crisis were treated on AH and it was clear that those who's OP's were more positive to migrants/refugees stayed open and weren't moved while those that weren't were.

I'm not arguing that the site shouldn't be moderated but perhaps AH isn't for everyone and shouldn't try to be, I know sub division can spell death but why not push those that want a Nice/PC space to a different forum on the site the same way the Nasty/Right wing has been pushed to the Politics Cafe instead of trying to push the middle of the road people into some PC utopia where they don't want to be.

Hans Bricks

On the topic of locking threads, would it make more sense to quote the examples of the problem posts in the closing comment by the mod locking the thread ?

RayM

Esel wrote: »

Now, wtf is a Social Justice Warrior?

A throwaway slur used by dreadful people to describe basically anyone who isn't a dreadful person.

Billy86

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The lesson to be taken is that one side is to be cordoned off while the rest of the site is to become more PC/left liberal.
Incidentally on that thread I took the time to look into how threads on the refugee crisis were treated on AH and it was clear that those who's OP's were more positive to migrants/refugees stayed open and weren't moved while those that weren't were.

I'm not arguing that the site shouldn't be moderated but perhaps AH isn't for everyone and shouldn't try to be, I know sub division can spell death but why not push those that want a Nice/PC space to a different forum on the site the same way the Nasty/Right wing has been pushed to the Politics Cafe instead of trying to push the middle of the road people into some PC utopia where they don't want to be.

There is one very important point though that I would reckon plays a large role too, though - there is an ad on the top of almost every page on the website. Those advertisements pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the site amongst other things, and those advertisers like (*scrolls up on all tabs*) Richard Killen & Associates, Ford and Chevrolet probably wouldn't be too happy having their product above comments like "nuke all those allah akhbars in the middle east to the ground, women and children too, they're all terrorist vermin" or "queers are an abomination that humanity needs to eradicate."

Boards is after all, first and foremost, a business.

suicide_circus

RayM wrote: »

A throwaway slur used by dreadful people to describe basically anyone who isn't a dreadful person.

Now that's a throwaway slur!

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

maudgonner wrote: »

If Boards need to make more money they could just make the Prison forum pay per view. It's the best entertainment going.

The prison forum isn't funny at all, it used to be...but now some of the replies on it from mods make me cringe so hard.

RayM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Now that's a throwaway slur!

Nah, the term might have meant something once upon a time, but it's been reduced to "people who don't hate all [insert minority group of your choice here]"

RDM_83 again

Billy86 wrote: »

There is one very important point though that I would reckon plays a large role too, though - there is an ad on the top of almost every page on the website. Those advertisements pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the site amongst other things, and those advertisers like (*scrolls up on all tabs*) Richard Killen & Associates, Ford and Chevrolet probably wouldn't be too happy having their product above comments like "nuke all those allah akhbars in the middle east to the ground, women and children too, they're all terrorist vermin" or "queers are an abomination that humanity needs to eradicate."

Boards is after all, first and foremost, a business.

True but I'm not definitely not saying that the site should be Stormfront, the Daily Mail makes a good profit from its online Business, the Guardian Group looses money, thats not indicating which is better or what way the forum should go but rather indicating how having a (not extremist) right wing slant definitely doesn't turn off advertisers

RDM_83 again

RayM wrote: »

Nah, the term might have meant something once upon a time, but it's been reduced to "people who don't hate all [insert minority group of your choice here]"

I'm curious how do you describe the people that inhabit SRS on reddit, or people that want things like Blurred Lines Banned if not as Social Justice Warriors?

Drumpot

Billy86 wrote: »

There is one very important point though that I would reckon plays a large role too, though - there is an ad on the top of almost every page on the website. Those advertisements pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the site amongst other things, and those advertisers like (*scrolls up on all tabs*) Richard Killen & Associates, Ford and Chevrolet probably wouldn't be too happy having their product above comments like "nuke all those allah akhbars in the middle east to the ground, women and children too, they're all terrorist vermin" or "queers are an abomination that humanity needs to eradicate."

Boards is after all, first and foremost, a business.

I think Durex are missing a trick here. There are plenty of forums full of dickheads.

K-9

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Can I ask though, when did you not find After Hours like that? Like I'm not very politically correct at all and when I first opened an account I used to avoid it because it was a bit much.
The people who complain about AH changing to be much more safe and politically correct do have a really big point, its incomparable now to what it was.
Now I can understand the need for "nicer" spaces but the feeling is the entire site is turning into a very safe space, online (and media in general) is becoming more polarized by the current culture wars but the middle ground still exists, the significant numbers in the opposing fringes should be catered for but they shouldn't be allowed to shift the dynamic so much of already existing thriving forums, look at how the Politics Cafe is about the only new success on Boards, there is a lesson to be learned from that however if you take Dav's statement on the thread


This thread

The lesson to be taken is that one side is to be cordoned off while the rest of the site is to become more PC/left liberal.
Incidentally on that thread I took the time to look into how threads on the refugee crisis were treated on AH and it was clear that those who's OP's were more positive to migrants/refugees stayed open and weren't moved while those that weren't were.

I'm not arguing that the site shouldn't be moderated but perhaps AH isn't for everyone and shouldn't try to be, I know sub division can spell death but why not push those that want a Nice/PC space to a different forum on the site the same way the Nasty/Right wing has been pushed to the Politics Cafe instead of trying to push the middle of the road people into some PC utopia where they don't want to be.

It's unfortunate right wing encompasses racism on its outer verge, it should be separate but so long as people continue to view politics as either left or right, that's what we have. Right wing people shouldn't be lumped in with racists/extremists, same as left wing means ultra right on liberals.

That's just my view, there's a noisy chunk of people who wouldn't adhere to that at all.

Lurkio

RDM_83 again wrote: »

True but I'm not definitely not saying that the site should be Stormfront, the Daily Mail makes a good profit from its online Business, the Guardian Group looses money, thats not indicating which is better or what way the forum should go but rather indicating how having a (not extremist) right wing slant definitely doesn't turn off advertisers

Presumably he meant the "don't breed with the brown ones" right wing types rather than the "get a job hippy" crowd.

Billy86

RDM_83 again wrote: »

True but I'm not definitely not saying that the site should be Stormfront, the Daily Mail makes a good profit from its online Business, the Guardian Group looses money, thats not indicating which is better or what way the forum should go but rather indicating how having a (not extremist) right wing slant definitely doesn't turn off advertisers

The Daily Mail generates enough traffic to not have to worry about attracting advertisers I would imagine, it has the 137th most traffic on the entire internet. Boards by comparison generates the 8,894th most.

Which still has it ahead of The Journal (12,414th) and politics.ie (57,763rd) to relate back to the OP.

sheep?

Billy86 wrote: »

The Daily Mail generates enough traffic to not have to worry about attracting advertisers I would imagine, it has the 137th most traffic on the entire internet. Boards by comparison generates the 8,894th most.

Which still has it ahead of The Journal (12,414th) and politics.ie (57,763rd) to relate back to the OP.

That is so bloody depressing.

RDM_83 again

K-9 wrote: »

It's unfortunate right wing encompasses racism on its outer verge, it should be separate but so long as people continue to view politics as either left or right, that's what we have. Right wing people shouldn't be lumped in with racists/extremists, same as left wing means ultra right on liberals.

That's just my view, there's a noisy chunk of people who wouldn't adhere to that at all.

Racist posts are a good reason to ban posters, they aren't a good reason to treat threads themselves differently.
If somebody is going to come out with something actually racist (as in something that would you get banned in the Cafe) isn;t it probably better that they get banned.
The socially "Right" are definitely the red headed child on Boards, look at the Politics Cafe, by far the most popular new forum (probably one of the busiest on site), it closes without warning to posters or asking for feedback properly from its users.

Agree about the left/right thing though, I think thats why SJW/PC have became so common, you can be a SF union member and give out about SJW or the "liberal left" while someone can give out about the right wingers but vote for Hillary Clinton because she talks about identity politics more rather than the person who's actually economically left.

Billy86

sheep? wrote: »

That is so bloody depressing.

To be fair, and I can't stand them, they absolutely mastered clickbait and got there early. They do also act as a 'safe place' for bigots to be bigots and fuel their bigotry quite a bit, but seem to have somewhat shifted that off to the likes of Breitbart from what I have seen, as they've gone from UK tabloid to global megasite on the back of how they have managed their transition to online. From a bottom-line perspective, it's been pretty masterful from what I can see.

K-9

Ah now, don't get all conspiracy theory about the cafe closure, there's a good mod team there. While I wouldn't disagree on the notice point, a day off might do no harm! Says he with 40k posts. Joke btw, not to be taken seriously.

Lurkio

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Racist posts are a good reason to ban posters, they aren't a good reason to treat threads themselves differently.
If somebody is going to come out with something actually racist (as in something that would you get banned in the Cafe) isn;t it probably better that they get banned.
...........

Yep.

RayM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm curious how do you describe the people that inhabit SRS on reddit, or people that want things like Blurred Lines Banned if not as Social Justice Warriors?

Too often, the term is used to describe anyone who isn't right-wing.

MRnotlob606

I like Boards but what annoys me is the collective punishment of locking threads after some idiots go off point. Some mods should take note because their is a lot of injustice.