AH thread closure on deporting Jihadists

hatrickpatrick

This thread was just closed on AH - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057625685 - which asked "what's wrong with deporting jihadists".

Now first of all, full disclosure, I'm a due process fanatic and therefore I find the idea of deporting somebody before they are found guilty of anything in a court abhorrent. So before anyone calls me out for that, yes I agree that I'm a bit biased in this instance and that part of my frustration with the closure of the thread is that I didn't get a chance to weigh in before it got closed.

But there's a wider issue here. All of the controversy lately about Boards being a hostile place for those with right wing beliefs? This is exactly the kind of thing that's fuelling such controversy. What exactly is wrong with somebody expressing this opinion, unpopular though it may be? Is Boards not supposed to be a forum for discussion, rather than just a forum for discussion which goes in the "right" direction according to those moderating it? The thread didn't actually break any rules, it would seem that the only reason for the closure is "we're done talking about this particular societal issue" - well society is not done talking about it by a long shot, and therefore it's ridiculous to suggest that Boards should somehow no longer be interested in talking about it. People were engaging in the OP's argument, and it is therefore entirely reasonable to deduce that people were, indeed, interested in talking about it.

Throughout all of this controversy I've got the feeling that those in charge of AH are happy for it to be a left-leaning space, which is fine. Many years ago, the mods of the EU forum (politics subforum) in particular were happy enough for it to be a right leaning space, so this is hardly a partisan issue or a new issue. However, full disclosure is essential if that is the case. What causes controversy and anger is when such ideologically motivated moderation is seen as being sly or clandestine in nature, or when clearly erroneous and frivolous excuses are used for thread locks which follow a distinct trend and are very obviously part of an ideological cleanse.

I'm sure this won't have much of an effect on anything, but I thought I'd give my two cents anyway, and as somebody with well known left wing views on both AH and the politics forums, I felt it might have some additional credibility - those who disagree with such arguments as in the OP of this thread are still uncomfortable with those people being locked out of discussing social issues because they don't have the "right" ideology. It makes the entire forum look bad.

KERSPLAT!

What did the mod say when you asked him why it was closed?

kneemos

Can't discuss anything muslim related.
Wouldn't worry yourself about left or right wings,purely down to being sued.

Boom_Bap

The first line of the charter:

What is After Hours?
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.

I know people think that deporting Jihadists is a bit of craic but it's a bit too deep or possibly better for a legal forum where the legalities of deportation can be discussed.

hatrickpatrick

Boom_Bap wrote: »

The first line of the charter:



I know people think that deporting Jihadists is a bit of craic but it's a bit too deep or possibly better for a legal forum where the legalities of deportation can be discussed.

The thread wasn't about the legality but the morality. If the closing mod had said "take this to the Politics Cafe" it would be less ridiculous, but instead the mod comment was "Y'know, we really don't need a new thread for every little thought you have about Islam" - despite the fact that the OP of that thread had only made one other thread even tangentially related to Islam two weeks previously, "what exactly was wrong about overthrowing Saddam". No recommendation that it would be better suited to another forum, just a condescending and inaccurate smear against the OP, which seems to be becoming par for the course.

If we're allowed to discuss the morality of other social issues on AH (controversial threads about feminism, alcohol, social welfare, parenting etc come up every week on AH) then how is discussing the morality of deportations without trial any different?

dr.bollocko

Would it be reasonable to say that at the moment AH is basically the bash all things Islam zone. So the mods probably locked that one because it was not related to a recent current event. It wouldn't be censorship because it's not shutting down discussion on the general area of everyone bashing Islam all the time - it's just one less avenue. And maybe it might get replaced by a nice light hearted thread about hating all women. Or a celebrity. Or farting or something. You know. AH stuff.

hatrickpatrick

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Would it be reasonable to say that at the moment AH is basically the bash all things Islam zone. So the mods probably locked that one because it was not related to a recent current event. It wouldn't be censorship because it's not shutting down discussion on the general area of everyone bashing Islam all the time - it's just one less avenue.

I wouldn't agree, on the front page of AH right now there's one, maybe two other threads potentially related to attacking Islam (but none outright attacking it) - one about the Munich shootings, one about Brexit (which can be assumed to have some stuff about migrants in it, but again note focused on it). Furthermore, this thread was about more than just Islam, it was about the morality of punishing suspected criminals without a trial.

And maybe it might get replaced by a nice light hearted thread about hating all women. Or a celebrity. Or farting or something. You know. AH stuff.

So in other words, those repeat threads are grand, but debates about Islam are not?

Once again, I'm not actually supporting the OP's proposition, I find it abhorrent to mess around with our due process rights, but a discussion is a discussion. Censoring it in this manner is what fuels the perception that Boards moderates above and beyond the charters or terms of use, instead closing certain threads for purely ideological or speculative (this might turn into a rule breaking thread) reasons. It's not a good image for a forum to have.

Taltos

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I find it abhorrent to mess around with our due process rights, but a discussion is a discussion.

And with the greatest of respect to AH posters and mods that forum is not the right place to have such a discussion. If you want an in depth discussion, Legal or Politics might be better placed but fair warning they both have very high standards so the type of messing seen on that thread will result in bans. As you've already said there are already a few threads on Islam in AH, so right call by the mods, and as Dr B above said is really intended to be light hearted and fun with a touch of sarcasm.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Censoring it in this manner is what fuels the perception that Boards moderates above and beyond the charters or terms of use

OK I'm calling BS here and I won't brook that disingenuous argument. There was no censorship and as we've called out before even if there was there is NO freedom of speech on this site, posters still have to post in line with the Law and every single person is responsible for what they post. Now if you want to continue that line fire ahead but being blunt again any mod action taken will be your responsibility.

kneemos

Taltos wrote: »

Now if you want to continue that line fire ahead but being blunt again any mod action taken will be your responsibility.

Did you just warn him not to have an opinion we don't like?

Gordon

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The thread wasn't about the legality but the morality.

Philosophy forum may be better in that case.

Flint Fredstone

Boom_Bap wrote: »

The first line of the charter:



I know people think that deporting Jihadists is a bit of craic but it's a bit too deep or possibly better for a legal forum where the legalities of deportation can be discussed.

So why does After Hours host the Mary Boyle cover up thread, the Nice, Bastille Day thread or Gangland Shootings in Dublin thread?

Are they all a bit of craic?

hatrickpatrick

Taltos wrote: »

And with the greatest of respect to AH posters and mods that forum is not the right place to have such a discussion. If you want an in depth discussion, Legal or Politics might be better placed but fair warning they both have very high standards so the type of messing seen on that thread will result in bans. As you've already said there are already a few threads on Islam in AH, so right call by the mods, and as Dr B above said is really intended to be light hearted and fun with a touch of sarcasm.

This makes no sense - you're saying that there are already several threads related (only vaguely) to Islam on AH, yet AH is not the correct place for such discussions? Surely it's one or the other? And again, would moving the thread to the Cafe, or directing the OP to the Cafe rather than leaving a condescending message directed at the OP not have been the better course of action in that case?

OK I'm calling BS here and I won't brook that disingenuous argument. There was no censorship and as we've called out before even if there was there is NO freedom of speech on this site, posters still have to post in line with the Law and every single person is responsible for what they post.

What law was anybody breaking with that thread? O_o

Now if you want to continue that line fire ahead but being blunt again any mod action taken will be your responsibility.

So are you basically saying that even the Feedback forum isn't the appropriate forum for feedback? Or perhaps should it be renamed from Feedback to Unconditional Praise, Unicorns, and Teddy Bears? :pac:

hatrickpatrick

Gordon wrote: »

Philosophy forum may be better in that case.

You could say that a about a whole host of AH threads in that case. And again, the closing modpost did not reference a better forum, but merely mocked the OP. So it's difficult to take the "it wasn't the right forum" argument seriously - the tone of the closing modpost made it more personal than that, and directly related to the topic at hand.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

That's a common problem in AH. Many threads are more suited elsewhere - politics, legal, religion etc.

If people seriously want a proper discussion then AH is often not the place for it because it attracts extremes, arguments for arguments sake, smart ass comments, jokes...

Move the thread to a more suitable forum if you really want a proper discussion.

It was clear the minute that particular thread opened that it wouldn't last, as AH would turn it on it's head in no time and it would be about the fourth anti Islamist thread that day.

kneemos

Damon Plump Azimuth wrote: »

That's a common problem in AH. Many threads are more suited elsewhere - politics, legal, religion etc.

If people seriously want a proper discussion then AH is often not the place for it because it attracts extremes, arguments for arguments sake, smart ass comments, jokes...

Move the thread to a more suitable forum if you really want a proper discussion.

It was clear the minute that particular thread opened that it wouldn't last, as AH would turn it on it's head in no time and it would be about the fourth anti Islamist thread that day.

It wasn't anti islamist.If it went that way and it's too much effort to moderate then say as much .

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

kneemos wrote: »

It wasn't anti islamist.If it went that way and it's too much effort to moderate then say as much .

That was my point.

It got dragged to an anti Islamist thread in double gig time because it was in the wrong forum.

kneemos

Damon Plump Azimuth wrote: »

That was my point.

It got dragged to an anti Islamist thread in double gig time because it was in the wrong forum.

Make it known so that AH can't have anything in any way lslamic related.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

kneemos wrote: »

Make it known so that AH can't have anything in any way lslamic related.

But this is happening to more than Islamic issues. It could be homelessness, the actions of a politician, etc and it goes off topic or is twisted because the discussion just doesn't suit or belong in AH.

kneemos

Damon Plump Azimuth wrote: »

But this is happening to more than Islamic issues. It could be homelessness, the actions of a politician, etc and it goes off topic or is twisted because the discussion just doesn't suit or belong in AH.

Only seems to be an issue with Islamic related threads though.
Best to cut out the middle man and ban every mention of lslam or Muslim.

Pelvis Parsley

kneemos wrote: »

Only seems to be an issue with Islamic related threads though.
Best to cut out the middle man and ban every mention of lslam or Muslim.

It's a joke. And they don't even realise how biased their behaviour is.

FriendComputer

kneemos wrote: »

It wasn't anti islamist.If it went that way and it's too much effort to moderate then say as much .

"If"? It's AH, of course it was going to go that way.

And it's an issue with "Islamic related threads" because Islam is topical at the moment. The forum doesn't need yet another thread that exists as a pretext for people to cream themselves over how much they hate Muslims.

Maybe if people could discuss the topic reasonably there wouldn't be an issue but as usual, whinge and complain while not so subtly implying there's a conspiracy.

hatrickpatrick

Damon Plump Azimuth wrote: »

That's a common problem in AH. Many threads are more suited elsewhere - politics, legal, religion etc.

If people seriously want a proper discussion then AH is often not the place for it because it attracts extremes, arguments for arguments sake, smart ass comments, jokes...

And what's wrong with that? Maybe that's what the OP was looking for?

Move the thread to a more suitable forum if you really want a proper discussion.

It was clear the minute that particular thread opened that it wouldn't last, as AH would turn it on it's head in no time and it would be about the fourth anti Islamist thread that day.

Once again, can you link to a single other anti Islamist thread that day?

FriendComputer wrote: »

"If"? It's AH, of course it was going to go that way.

And it's an issue with "Islamic related threads" because Islam is topical at the moment. The forum doesn't need yet another thread that exists as a pretext for people to cream themselves over how much they hate Muslims.

Maybe if people could discuss the topic reasonably there wouldn't be an issue but as usual, whinge and complain while not so subtly implying there's a conspiracy.

Who's to say what the forum "needs"? AH is AH. Topical moderation is ridiculous on a forum whose entire ethos is not to have any particular topic as its major focus.

And for the bajillionth time, the closing modpost did not suggest reposting the thread elsewhere, it merely inaccurately accused the OP of being on an anti-Islam rampage, which given that the OP's only other thread even indirectly related to Islam was a thread about Saddam Huessein several weeks previous, it's fairly clear that this was a totally baseless assumption not backed up by any actual facts.

Taltos

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So are you basically saying that even the Feedback forum isn't the appropriate forum for feedback? Or perhaps should it be renamed from Feedback to Unconditional Praise, Unicorns, and Teddy Bears? :pac:

No. But normally first step would be to contact the mods asking why a thread was closed. In this case the mod gave a perfectly clear reason for closing the thread, unless of course you want to claim they are lying.

In terms of renaming, frankly that has some merit. Not sure about the rest of you but over the last while Feedback has seemed to veer to the critical, whiney, entitled worldview of generation snowflake. Personally what should be a forum of ideas and suggestions which adds to the enjoyment of boards seems somehow to be the one forum as an admin I'd personally prefer not to have to check into.

In this case, just to repeat so it isn't lost in the claims of an underground movement to silence folk, the mod called out that there were already multiple threads on Islam. Even checking now between the first two pages I stopped counting at 6 distinct threads on Islam, terrorism, right-wing claims. AH is at risk of drowning under the similar threads on a topic.

So there's a few things the mods could do, assuming they will continue to close threads on a theme to keep the forum balanced.
A) link to one or more of the other threads on their closing post.
Just merge the threads with a redirect
C) Move the threads to a more appropriate forum, in this case it really did seem to me to be more Legal/Politics, though as has been called out the moral aspect puts it in Phil. What's sometimes done here is to close it before moving to allow the recipient forum mods a chance to remove any posts that are in breach of their forum.
Leaving the threads as is isn't a good option as above it will just suffocate all other discussions and chats.

In terms of Islam being protected. I am again going to call BS on that. Islam is no more protected than Christianity. Where we all should draw the line though is equating ALL Islamic followers to terrorists, something that was openly done in that thread, and yet despite the claims above of Islam being protected no card or ban was issued for that. Like it or not guys such talk is hate speech and falls under incitement to hatred. You can agree or not with this till the cows come home but if it quacks like a duck fairly good chance it's a flamin duck unless it's a hamster on a mission to infiltrate and destroy.

What I care about though is the blanket and targetted approach by some groups and posters to demonise a religious group based on the actions of some mad as f*** loo-lahs. Reminds me too much of the 80s when an Irish person abroad could be accused of being a terrorist just because of some nuts with guns and Semtex.

Fr_Dougal

Agree with Taltos. Comparing Islam to terrorism is like comparing Catholism to the IRA.

We've had Muslims/Islam in Ireland for as long as I can remember, and I haven't heard of one terrorist attack by any of them. Having worked with Muslims in work, can honestly say they are some of the most decent people you can meet.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Elliott S

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

So why does After Hours host the Mary Boyle cover up thread, the Nice, Bastille Day thread or Gangland Shootings in Dublin thread?

I have no problem myself with threads being moved to more appropriate forums but the above post highlights an undeniable inconsistency. None of the above are lighthearted threads.

Why some non-lighthearted threads are allowed to remain in AH does need to be addressed because otherwise, it just causes confusion. There needs to be consistency.

Samaris

I'm posting right now as a poster, not a mod, please note that! I'm not representing any mod view here.

Going into AH at the moment, I know -I- like to see a mix of threads and hells, I get my news from AH first half the time! I do groan at the quantity of Islam threads at the moment though, because most of them go around in circles around the same subjects. You can pretty much set your watch by what posts will come out where (and I'm guilty of it too!).

In the last few days, there was the Munich shooter (who was Shia Muslim (not ISIS, who are Sunni)), which was something akin to a school shooting with elements of right-wing extremism, nothing to do with Islam. There was the beheading (which was again nothing to do with Islam, it was a mad nutter with a machete and an obsession with a very unfortunate woman who was brutally murdered. Both of those threads descended immediately into Islam, despite being unconnected. They're still being used in the latest thread, the explosion outside a concert, as a stick to beat the same immigration/anti-Muslim camel with.

There are threads for every terrorist attack, which is justifiable, it is news, people have interest in it, and they all (reasonably fairly in those cases as it's relevant) dives for Islam. Thank god the Dublin gangland thread hasn't gone there yet! :P

It does get tiring after a while. It's the same thing, over and over, and (imo as a poster) it is eating the forum. Especially when it gets to the stage that every awful crime committed by a Muslim (when it is unrelated to their religion) is starting to get its own thread that immediately falls into the spiral.

There should be a mix, with a leaning towards light-hearted threads, but there's no issue with heavier topics being discussed which, in my opinion, is as it should be, so long as people don't take advantage of it to act the nitwit. Trying to keep the balance off multiple threads being not only heavy topics, but heavy, strongly emotive, strongly divisive and -the same- topics is no bad thing so far as I'm concerned.

Again, these are my views as a user of AH, not as a mod.

Boom_Bap

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

So why does After Hours host the Mary Boyle cover up thread, the Nice, Bastille Day thread or Gangland Shootings in Dublin thread?

Are they all a bit of craic?

AH has become the defacto place for news and viral stuff, that's grand.
The problem is when the forum is over saturated with threads on Islam at the moment. There are threads open with a new topic which is fine, but the same rhetoric is very quickly introduced to the thread and the same roads are travelled in the thread. You can copy and paste comments from one thread on Islam into any other thread on Islam and there will be nothing new added to the thread.

I think that we need to be more verbose in our reasoning for closing/moving threads and that is something that we can definitely work on.

And to be clear, we are not in any way anti anything, in this case, we are not anti Islam. If we are anti something, it's the same topic repeated on different threads which are dominating the front page....and the fun bit seems to be forgotten.

Lovely Bloke

Boom_Bap wrote: »

The problem is when the forum is over saturated with threads on Islam at the moment.

Well that's because people of the Muslim faith keep on doing attacks in Europe.

That's not me saying ALL Muslims are attacking people, or that being Islamic makes one prone to carry out attacks, but the fact is that the perpetrators of all of these acts that have happened in quick succession have been Muslim.

Maybe one solution would be to create an "Attack by Muslims" superthread?

That's fecetiousness, of course.

Skylinehead

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Well that's because people of the Muslim faith keep on doing attacks in Europe.

That's not me saying ALL Muslims are attacking people, or that being Islamic makes one prone to carry out attacks, but the fact is that the perpetrators of all of these acts that have happened in quick succession have been Muslim.

Maybe one solution would be to create an "Attack by Muslims" superthread?

That's fecetiousness, of course.

I'm not against it, having 10 threads saying the same thing takes up way too much time.

LoLth

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Well that's because people of the Muslim faith keep on doing attacks in Europe.

That's not me saying ALL Muslims are attacking people, or that being Islamic makes one prone to carry out attacks, but the fact is that the perpetrators of all of these acts that have happened in quick succession have been Muslim.

Maybe one solution would be to create an "Attack by Muslims" superthread?

That's fecetiousness, of course.

The've also been male. They've also been less than 80 years old and I believe all of them had hair.

I think part of the problem is some posters read "muslim" and stop there. that is then seen as a green light to post comparisons to other attacks and to blanket denounce all followers of a religion as dangerous / evil / etc

a thread on the news topic about each incident is ok because its current events and is what users want to discuss but to have the same posters post the same generalisations in every thread is not right. Worse when they take the opportunity to post the same ****e, denouncing the same gorup, pointing out the same perceived imperfections and how their solution to the problem is the only acceptable solution yet again with no evidence of being interested in discussion and instead diverting the thread to use it as a soapbox for their own personal bugbear just because it is vaguely related.

It gets repetitive with the same arguments being made and the same people posting objection. Thing is, opposition is never as fervent (rabid?) as the soapboxers or as prolonged so eventually the forum gets overwhelmed with what appears to be a majority of anti-X threads with every thread becoming anti-X until thats all the forum is.

"look at the cute puppy!"

"you know who would not like that puppy? Xs, their evil! evil and of course only morons dont agree with me right now! you're not a puppy hating moron are you?"

"ah ffs we just wanted to discuss puppies"

"NO! You're ignoring the real issue or are you covering it up? is the puppy pic a front? Its a puppy shaped bomb isnt it? you evil sicko! this is typical of how X behave, no humanity, no decency, they need to be exterminated without mercy and their families must be purged in the name of calm and reason!"

Lovely Bloke

LoLth wrote: »

The've also been male. They've also been less than 80 years old and I believe all of them had hair.

Yeah, sure.

I've not seen Atheist males under 80 with hair carrying out atrocities in Europe over the summer though.

But nice attempt at the "their religion had nothing to do with it" editorial diktat.

seamus

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

editorial diktat.

There you go.

All of this nonsense summed up in one hyperbolic phrase.

If you don't conform to the "Islam is the source of everything evil" groupthink then you must be part of the liberal anti-free-speech brigade trying to shut down discussion.

LoLth apparently isn't allowed to disagree with you without being accused of suppressing the discussion.

It's not just boards, all across the internet not toeing the "Islam is evil, mmkay" line is instantly attacked as being part of some grand conspiracy to cover up some huge Muslim plot to destroy the world.

It is possible to have a reasonable discussion on these matters without being an outright racist or fascist. But there seems to be a severe shortage of reason across the world this year.

Lovely Bloke

I don't hate muslims, I just hate religion. I hate all religions. I think they are evil attempts to control human beings. I think religion is the source of most bad things in the world. Not just Islam, on that you are mistaken.

And yes, when the Community Manager states that right-wing thinking is dangerous, that is an editorial diktat. Now we have an admin and an ex-admin with user specialpowers doing their utmost to adhere to that.

Good job.

Still though, show me an atheist carrying out an atrocity in the name of atheism.

Oh wait.

seamus

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

I don't hate muslims, I just hate religion. I hate all religions. I think they are evil attempts to control human beings. I think religion is the source of most bad things in the world. Not just Islam, on that you are mistaken.

No way, you and I agreeing on something.

But you're an intelligent guy, you know that religion is the vehicle, not the driver. If all religions disappeared tomorrow, you would still have psychos and lunatics killing others under some banner or another; be that the country they come from or the football team they support, or whether they hang the toilet paper over or under.
Because things are far more complex than "your religion said so". Religion just happens to contain many messages of hate, so they're convenient places for hateful people to hide and not appear to be psychopaths.

And yes, when the Community Manager states that right-wing thinking is dangerous, that is an editorial diktat. Now we have an admin and an ex-admin with user specialpowers doing their utmost to adhere to that.

Adhere to what? Since when is a discussion a diktat? Surely the admin would just delete your posts if they wanted to control what you post?

LoLth

edit: removed because I got distracted and took too long posting. conversation moved on.

Baldy, as Seamus said, if I was adhering to some policy to enforce some diktat or silence a poster then I would have just removed their post not engaged with them in discussion. Your response though, attributing ulterior motives without evidence and accusing someone who disagrees with you of being complicit just goes to prove that my point was more accurate than I thought it was in the first place. (fwiw I somewhat agree on your view of religion but I know a lot of religious people that are genuinely good and are reasonable and welcoming, despite any differences so I dont denounce religious people as wrong despite my own opinion of the more extreme contents of their religious texts)

my point was that some people see the one item they disagree with and act as if nothing else matters. To properly engage in discussion posters should engage in the topic being discussed and not just go off on one on what they think *should* be discussed. AH has been compared to a chat in a pub , how would you react if every time you mentioned drink of any kind someone in that conversation started shouting at everyone that all drinkers are alcoholics and that its all the fault of Alcopops ? Same ****e, different initial topic over and over. It would get monotonous and boring and eventually people would just not bother starting any conversations.

hatrickpatrick

Boom_Bap wrote: »

The problem is when the forum is over saturated with threads on Islam at the moment.

This is my fundamental disagreement - can you link to all the threads from the front page - or even, to be generous, from the first two pages of AH which contain discussions related to Islam?

Here are all the ones I can find:

The explosion in Germany (which was only made today, long after I had made my argument here)

The shooting in Munich (which is now known to have not been an Islamist attack to begin with)

A different attack in Germany (a thread which has now been locked)

That's three threads. Hardly "saturated". One of the three threads has been locked, so that leaves two others, one of which was literally only made this morning, and the second of which concerns a non-Islamist attack so the debate is now over why that conclusion was jumped to.

The thread I cited in my OP was the only thread related to Islam on the front page of AH at the time it was locked. So any suggestion that it was locked because it was one of too many related threads is demonstrably absurd.

EDIT: For clarity, Boards by default shows 20 threads per page, not counting stickies. So that's three threads out of forty.

Elliott S

Boom_Bap wrote: »

AH has become the defacto place for news and viral stuff, that's grand.

I know, but none of the threads I quoted in my first post here fit into the very first line of the charter:

What is After Hours?
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.

They are news, but they are not lighthearted. It's just inconsistent. Actually, a lot of threads on AH are anything but lighthearted. The forum seems to fail about what its charter says it's supposed to be.

So when it's said that a thread is moved because it's not light-hearted enough and so doesn't fit the ethos, it seems selective usually.

Shouldn't there be more clarity?

LoLth

It would need clarification by the AH mods but I always took that line to mean that topics are discussed in a "pub conversation" manner - ie: that the rules surrounding the manner in which the discussion is conducted are lighthearted - threads can go slightly more off topic, more leeway given (within reason), joking is not interpreted as trolling by the users and topics are not expected to be discussed technically or seriously.

I used to think it meant all AH topics were to be funny or a laugh but as it became less "random funny things" and more "current affairs" I needed to re-adjust my opinion.

as for clarity, possibly. I'll bring it to the mods attention (assuming they dont see it here).

darced

This post has been deleted.

LoLth

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wasnt as active at the time but I do recall several threads being merged into the running Same sex marriage megathread because of the number of threads being created to discuss the same topic.

dont know if threads were deleted or if all were merged.

Tombi!

JT26 wrote: »

If the mod wants to they can send the thread over to Politics Cafe.I'll open it and you can have your discussion there.

That's great. I've contacted the OP of the thread and asked if they'll accept it being moved to the PC in order to have their discussion.

hatrickpatrick

Tombi! wrote: »

That's great. I've contacted the OP of the thread and asked if they'll accept it being moved to the PC in order to have their discussion.

That's certainly satisfy my own qualms. Remember my objection wasn't specifically to the thread not being allowed on AH, it was with the manner of its closing and the closing modpost, which implied that the subject wasn't welcome at all, and erroneously implied that the OP was persistently starting threads related to Islam when in fact he or she had not started another thread even related to an Islamic country for two full weeks, the previous thread having asked whether forcing regime change in Iraq was really a bad thing - tangentially related to Islam at best. Totally disingenuous to suggest that the OP was part of some broad anti-Islam coalition on Boards, or as I've demonstrated, that AH was at that time full of Islam threads (there were three out of the first forty threads that indirectly related to Islam, and none which directly related to it).

osmiumartist

seamus wrote: »

There you go.

All of this nonsense summed up in one hyperbolic phrase.

If you don't conform to the "Islam is the source of everything evil" groupthink then you must be part of the liberal anti-free-speech brigade trying to shut down discussion.

A bit hilarious you pull the piss out of his "hyperbolic" post and then flat out lie about what he said in the very next line.

DeadHand

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Agree with Taltos. Comparing Islam to terrorism is like comparing Catholism to the IRA.

We've had Muslims/Islam in Ireland for as long as I can remember, and I haven't heard of one terrorist attack by any of them. Having worked with Muslims in work, can honestly say they are some of the most decent people you can meet.

That isn't because we're a wonderfully tolerant country or we're blessed with a uniquely clement Muslim community.

It's simply because the Muslim population hasn't reached critical mass yet. Once it gets to the 5-10% mark (as it will through birth rate and immigration) expect the kind of chaos we are seeing in France and Germany.

What Europe faces now is infinitely greater in scale, existential threat, intensity and probable longevity to anything the IRA "achieved". The IRA had a limited, political goal and, ultimately, could be reasoned with. Islamists will not stop until European culture has been erased and the nations of Europe subjugated to Islam.

The IRA were a republican group- not religious zealots. They did not fight under the banner of Catholicism. Their actions betrayed republican ideals- the actions of the Islamic State, on the other hand, have strong doctrinal justification in Islam.

DeadHand

Taltos wrote: »

In terms of Islam being protected. I am again going to call BS on that. Islam is no more protected than Christianity

Horsesh*t.

http://http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=98138756

oscarBravo

Fair warning: anyone thinking about turning this into an anti-Islam rant (and I'm looking very specifically at you, DeadHand) - think twice.

Penny Tration

I think JT accepting it being moved to PC is good.

It's a political or humanitarian topic that was up for discussion, so possibly not suited to AH, but IMO that was no reason to lock it instead of moving it to an appropriate forum.


There are idiots on both sides of the Islam debate (those who hate all Muslims and those who believe all Muslims do no wrong), and they're the ones who shout loudest, so of course mods are going to be sick of it. I am and I'm not even a mod :pac:


Looking at each thread on its own merit and moving to appropriate fora, rather than assuming something is anti-Islam and locking it is, IMO, the best way to deal with it.

The Hill Billy

Feedback charter wrote:

Users under a ban from a forum
Users currently serving a ban from a forum with a duration over 1 month are not allowed to post on feedback threads concerning that forum.

@DeadHand - As you are permanently banned from both AH & PC - you may no longer participate in this thread.

Thanks,

tHB

Tombi!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057625685
I've moved it to the café and the mods there will open it as stated.

padd b1975

darced wrote: »

I cant remember to be honest but were threads closed when AH was saturated with Gay marriage,Gay adoption,Gay pride, Gay cakes etc. or did I miss that?

Very little done when the Catholic Church bashing threads were in full swing either.