Over zealous, and inconsistent modding on the politics cafe forum.

Alf Stewart.

Sorry lads, but I had to start this thread.

Its becoming I increasingly confusing and mysterious as to how the modding works on the site, in particular forums, and what might get you carded or banned.

Now I am no angel, I've had a few bans or cards in my time that were totally justified (even if ii didnt think so at the time) I can assure you, most have been for pretty trivial offences in the grand scheme of things.

Any, of late I seem to have upset a few mods in the cafe or something because that's where my cards usually originate in.

Tonight I received an infraction, an infraction because I posted about my intention of buying a poster a flash light for Christmas, because that poster mentions shining a light into dark corners in about one in every five posts he ever makes on the site.

Off topic, personal dig I was told.

I firstly would like to point out that I post in the cafe as I take an interest in politics, but I do not care much for the high brow, stuffy atmosphere of the more serious politics forum, hence why I post in the cafe.

Now, I know the cafe isn't AH, but it is somewhere where you're encouraged to wonder slightly off topic, and discuss politics in a light hearted manner.

If you want to discuss something political in AH it gets shunted to the caf, if you have a laugh there you oftimes find yourself on the wrong end of a card/ban, despite posting in the manner you assumed the forum was intended.


A few of the cards I received where totally over the top.

I received a yellow for telling someone "they were careless with the truth" which they were being.

A yellow for "digging through a persons posting history" because I linked to something they had posted a few days previous.

But I suppose the jewel in the crown would have to be when I got a perma - ban (which was quickly overturned I should add) for something which I am not prepared to post about in public, but lets just say the mods made a complete and utter haimes of something, and completely jumped the gun after repeated offences against my account.

If there's a concentrated effort in pushing me out, I say just say so and go for it and do it.

Been on the site since 2006, Over three accounts, not sure if I'd bother with a fourth one if I'm totally honest.

That is all.

Zaph

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Tonight I received an infraction, an infraction because I posted about my intention of buying a poster a flash light for Christmas, because that poster mentions shining a light into dark corners in about one in every five posts he ever makes on the site.

Just for clarity, this is exactly what you posted:

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Im gettin Brenner a flesh light for the Kris Kringle this year.

Not quite the same thing.

CINCLANTFLT

I agree... I have started getting modded for the first time and quite a lot of late... I don't think I have gotten any crankier...

D0NNELLY

Zaph wrote: »

Just for clarity, this is exactly what you posted:



Not quite the same thing.

Card worthy though? Giving out cards for that nonsense just encourages spiteful reporting.

Zaph

D0NNELLY wrote: »

Card worthy though? Giving out cards for that nonsense just encourages spiteful reporting.

Well it could be read as the OP suggesting that the person he's referring to should go fcuk himself. Of course if it was a simple typo and that wasn't his intention then he's free to appeal the card in the DRF.

Alf Stewart.

Zaph wrote: »

Just for clarity, this is exactly what you posted:



Not quite the same thing.

Thanks for that Zaph, but Any one even remotely familiar with my account or posts can seen that I post 100% from my phone, and I use the app "Swype" to do so.

Its not always 100% accurate, and I'm prone to the odd misspell on the apps behalf.

Besides, Already been acknowledged by the mod that carded me that they read it as "flash light" not how it appeared, and the card was based on it being off topic and a personal dig.

Zaph

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Thanks for that Zaph, but Any one even remotely familiar with my account or posts can seen that I post 100% from my phone, and I use the app "Swype" to do so.

Its not always 100% accurate, and I'm prone to the odd misspell on the apps behalf.

Besides, Already been acknowledged by the mod that carded me that they read it as "flash light" not how it appeared, and the card was based on it being off topic and a personal dig.

I'm not entirely sure why you think that anyone can tell what device you're posting from, but I would suggest that if you feel the card was unjustified you appeal it in the DRF.

Alf Stewart.

Zaph wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure why you think that anyone can tell what device you're posting from, but I would suggest that if you feel the card was unjustified you appeal it in the DRF.

I assumed people could tell from the rather completely randomly placed words that it was obviously spelt out by a device using predictive text, maybe not so.

I think discussions in feedback generally clear the air a lot more than the DRP, not just for me, but for other regular posters of the forum.

As i said, the random bans and cards leave posters unclear as to whats acceptable and what's not, and in my opinion, stifles the debate.

Was posting an obvious light hearted piece of banter about getting someone a flashlight (because the consistently post about shining lights in.corners) "off topic" and a personal dig?

Not in my head it wasn't.

Stheno

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

I assumed people could tell from the rather completely randomly placed words that it was obviously spelt out by a device using predictive text, maybe not so.

I think discussions in feedback generally clear the air a lot more than the DRP, not just for me, but for other regular posters of the forum.

As i said, the random bans and cards leave posters unclear as to whats acceptable and what's not, and in my opinion, stifles the debate.

Was posting an obvious light hearted piece of banter about getting someone a flashlight (because the consistently post about shining lights in.corners) "off topic" and a personal dig?

Not in my head it wasn't.

Eh no.
You were posting in a thread that wandered completely off topic, and lead to cards for multiple posters and not just yourself.

Personal swipes and personal abuse are a constant issue in the cafe, and are against the charter, that's why you got carded.

You've been a long enough poster to know that your post had nothing to do with the topic, and was just an opportunity for you to take a swipe.

Being civil is a fundamental tenet of the rules of this site

Alf Stewart.

Stheno wrote: »

Eh no.
You were posting in a thread that wandered completely off topic, and lead to cards for multiple posters and not just yourself.

Personal swipes and personal abuse are a constant issue in the cafe, and are against the charter, that's why you got carded.

You've been a long enough poster to know that your post had nothing to do with the topic, and was just an opportunity for you to take a swipe.

Being civil is a fundamental tenet of the rules of this site

The flow of discussion was (for a few posts) based on "the light being shone" hence why I assumed it was not off topic.

Modding has become a bit of a grey area in my opinion.

That infraction was completely OTT in my view. The fact that it was acknowledged that it was even read in the manner I intended it to be posted, yet got me carded regardless, was what prompted me to discuss it in feedback. And not open a DRP.

Stheno

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

The flow of discussion was (for a few posts) based on "the light being shone" hence why I assumed it was not off topic.

Modding has become a bit of a grey area in my opinion.

That infraction was completely OTT in my view. The fact that it was acknowledged that it was even read in the manner I intended it to be posted, yet got me carded regardless, was what prompted me to discuss it in feedback. And not open a DRP.

It was uncivil and a personal swipe, along with being off topic. Completely off topic.

The same poster you posted about was also sanctioned along with several others for offtopic behaviour, backseat moderation and being uncivil.

So in the context of the thread being locked for mod review and you getting a sanction, it was one of many across multiple viewpoints.

The cafe is less rigorous than the politics forum, but it's not there to be a free for all which some posters seem to think tbh.

Alf Stewart.

Stheno wrote: »

It was uncivil and a personal swipe, along with being off topic. Completely off topic.

The same poster you posted about was also sanctioned along with several others for offtopic behaviour, backseat moderation and being uncivil.

So in the context of the thread being locked for mod review and you getting a sanction, it was one of many across multiple viewpoints.

The cafe is less rigorous than the politics forum, but it's not there to be a free for all which some posters seem to think tbh.

I wasn't even aware of that, as I had been working until ten pm, and hadn't been following the flow of discussion from my infracted post.

Anyway, I'm posting about my experience alone, not anyone elses.

Stheno

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

I wasn't even aware of that, as I had been working until ten pm, and hadn't been following the flow of discussion from my infracted post.

Anyway, I'm posting about my experience alone, not anyone elses.

Well one of your complaints was that moderation was unfair.

You posted on thing that breached the charter, the poster you directed at that responded in a manner that also breached the charter and got the same sanction, how is that unfair?

The thread involved was locked for review as it became a train wreck and there were multiple sanctions handed out.

So you've not even read the thread to see the cards, but instead are claiming some sort of personal bias on my part against you?

Despite my interacting with you regularly in terms of your behaviour in the cafe via pm rather than carding you which I can prove?

Alf Stewart.

Stheno wrote: »

Well one of your complaints was that moderation was unfair.

You posted on thing that breached the charter, the poster you directed at that responded in a manner that also breached the charter and got the same sanction, how is that unfair?

what part of the charter did I breach?

Cafe Charter wrote:

A certain amount of light hearted banter is allowed but this is not to be confused with derogatory comments

It wasn't a personal dig. If we're now being subjected to red cards because someone veers off subject, that will end badly for all.


I said the moderation is over zealous and inconsistent. The other poster got carded because they posted something about batteries, which in hindsight probably stemmed from the subsequent typo to begin with, if we're being honest.

The thread involved was locked for review as it became a train wreck and there were multiple sanctions handed out.

I had no way of even being aware it was locked for review, the first I learnt of my card was when I opened boards while waiting on security letting me out of a locked premises.

So you've not even read the thread to see the cards, but instead are claiming some sort of personal bias on my part against you?

No I absolutely did not, I deliberately mentioned two questionable yellows, and a perma-ban that was put on my account, none of which came from you.

As for the other poster, if there's one thing I've learned from boards, its to paddle your own canoe, and not get bogged down in what sanctions others are subjected to.

It is my opinion that in relation to my post this evening, it was an OTT reaction.

Despite my interacting with you regularly in terms of your behaviour in the cafe via pm rather than carding you which I can prove?

No need to prove anything, I would never deny I get the odd pm

Perhaps one maybe asking me to clarify the typo wouldn't have led to this thread.

Besides, the point of this thread is how random mods actions can be.

Your opinion is my post was uncivil, a personal swipe and off topic. My opinion is, it was keeping in the flow of discussion, and nothing more than a bit of banter. Your opinion and mine differ.

I have already stated three cases of complete overreaction by mods in the forum.

You can go on about my behaviour, but if the cards were ott (not to mention the permaban) were way ott to begin with, we may not have found ourselves in this thread now.

Stheno

Take it to DRP Alf tbh, you are now obfuscating, I've no interest in debating this further.

Alf Stewart.

Stheno wrote: »

Take it to DRP Alf tbh, you are now obfuscating, I've no interest in debating this further.

I made conscientious, and very valid, and factual points.

If you consider it "obfuscating" and aren't interested in discussing it further, I don't really hold much hope for any DRP tbh.

The obfuscation insinuation speaks for itself.

Thanks anyway.

hullaballoo

Tbf, Alf, this thread is about one or two (at the outside) individual instances of what you perceive as OTT modding in one forum.

There is nothing here to indicate inconsistency nor that whatever qualms you have pertain to the whole site.

It's a little bit disingenuous starting a thread here ostensibly to make a wide-ranging complaint about moderation on the site when the fact is that you have a narrow forum-specific issue with one or two (at the outside) moderator actions.

jameorahiely

Stheno wrote: »

Eh no.
You were posting in a thread that wandered completely off topic, and lead to cards for multiple posters and not just yourself.

Personal swipes and personal abuse are a constant issue in the cafe, and are against the charter, that's why you got carded.

You've been a long enough poster to know that your post had nothing to do with the topic, and was just an opportunity for you to take a swipe.

Being civil is a fundamental tenet of the rules of this site

Stheno wrote: »

It was uncivil and a personal swipe, along with being off topic. Completely off topic.

The same poster you posted about was also sanctioned along with several others for offtopic behaviour, backseat moderation and being uncivil.

So in the context of the thread being locked for mod review and you getting a sanction, it was one of many across multiple viewpoints.

The cafe is less rigorous than the politics forum, but it's not there to be a free for all which some posters seem to think tbh.

It's very strange that you say this. In AH, I was told if I didn't like the personal abuse being posted aimed at me, I should stop posting.

Alf Stewart.

hullaballoo wrote: »

Tbf, Alf, this thread is about one or two (at the outside) individual instances of what you perceive as OTT modding in one forum.

There is nothing here to indicate inconsistency nor that whatever qualms you have pertain to the whole site.

It's a little bit disingenuous starting a thread here ostensibly to make a wide-ranging complaint about moderation on the site when the fact is that you have a narrow forum-specific issue with one or two (at the outside) moderator actions.

Actually, this is correct, I worded the thread subject wrongly, and have now edited.

130Kph

The nature of politics IRL is frequently boisterous. Therefore the serious politics forum is a good concept with easily understood rules of posting and modding. I think this version of a less rigorous politics forum concept is muddled, hence the not infrequent complaints.

Imagine a serious running / athletics forum supplemented with a less rigorous running / athletics forum? Likewise, for starting your own business or Economics or Dieting?

However, a suggested remedy for - the current member complaints versus mods saying people are treating it as a free for all - is a few charter changes:-

Replace
This forum is for discussion of Politics in a less formal manner than in the Politics Forum. A certain amount of light hearted banter is allowed but this is not to be confused with derogatory comments.
with
This forum is for serious discussion of Politics in a less rigorous manner than in the Politics Forum. This means you may lean slightly more towards your opinion than full provision of evidence, sources or reasoning than in main Politics. This is not the place to have any craic or fun.

Replace
Finally, remember to have fun but not at the expense of others please.
with
Finally, remember this is a serious forum, if you want to have fun or banter about politics then go to some other website.



Less confusion all round

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KERSPLAT!

jameorahiely wrote: »

It's very strange that you say this. In AH, I was told if I didn't like the personal abuse being posted aimed at me, I should stop posting.

Can you fire up a link to that. It would make for interesting reading.

jameorahiely

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Can you fire up a link to that. It would make for interesting reading.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102260913&postcount=512


Here's a link to the mod warning. You have to read back approx. The previous 10? Pages to see where the gang enter the thread, post personal abuse, drag dispute resolution threads in to the discussion and the rest. Reporting posts was futile, action was only taken when I pm'd the mod to ask what the craic was.

KERSPLAT!

jameorahiely wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102260913&postcount=512


Here's a link to the mod warning. You have to read back approx. The previous 10? Pages to see where the gang enter the thread, post personal abuse, drag dispute resolution threads in to the discussion and the rest. Reporting posts was futile, action was only taken when I pm'd the mod to ask what the craic was.

jameorahiely wrote: »

It's very strange that you say this. In AH, I was told if I didn't like the personal abuse being posted aimed at me, I should stop posting.

Where is the part where "I was told if I didn't like the personal abuse being posted aimed at me, I should stop posting"?

jameorahiely

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Where is the part where "I was told if I didn't like the personal abuse being posted aimed at me, I should stop posting"?

It's there.


"derision" is seemingly the new term for personal abuse.


Tell me, why were no posts dishing out the personal abuse actioned? Nor the posters who drag dispute resolution threads in to AH. Nor the posters who misrepresent what rhe drp thread wad about? Nor the poster who decided to give out about me (like they think thier the threads mammy or something)


Biased moderation is biased.


But they have suceeded in stopping discussion, as was their aim. Maybe they weren't interested in the topic at all? It certainly seems that way.

Alf Stewart.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I strongly disagree with most of this post tbh, firstly the manner in which the shuttering down, for the overall clean up was a disaster, and I think even the cmods/admins etc would agree with that.

Secondly, with politics being banned from being discussed on AH, regular posters need some alternative overflow area, with some middle ground.

After hours original concept was that it was based on a what you and your mates might be discussing if you where down the local on a Fri evening. That's why you'll see things in AH being discussed that might range from your favourite post pub takeaway, to attractive looking females, to something taking place in our political scene.

It was plain to see that AH was becoming chock full of political type discussion, but tbf the country has went through a lot of political turmoil this last decade or so, and what with various political decisions and policies, tax changes etc, It was inevitable that some people would be discussing it in AH (as it was in pubs up and down the country too, I have no doubt)

Now you have a situation where any political related new thread (more or less) will, after a few replies see the thread getting shunted across to the cafe.

If the cafe doesn't exist, and the posters who want to discuss something in a more light hearted manner get forced over to the main politics forum, where posting standards are much more stringent, the infractions, bans and warnings will be flying around all over the place, and a lot of disgruntled posters with them, in the process.

We already have several of the more serious politics forums for the more serious stuffy political discussions.

If we're not to discuss politics in a light hearted manner, with a bit of craic thrown in, in AH, then the need for an over flow area exists.

If a policy of only being allowed to discuss politics on the site, in one of the high brow, serious forums, was introduced, I think it would be a disastrous policy.

KERSPLAT!

jameorahiely wrote: »

It's there.


"derision" is seemingly the new term for personal abuse.


Tell me, why were no posts dishing out the personal abuse actioned? Nor the posters who drag dispute resolution threads in to AH. Nor the posters who misrepresent what rhe drp thread wad about? Nor the poster who decided to give out about me (like they think thier the threads mammy or something)


Biased moderation is biased.


But they have suceeded in stopping discussion, as was their aim. Maybe they weren't interested in the topic at all? It certainly seems that way.

From the post you linked to it would seem that everyone was given a thread warning, including those who dragged a DRP into the thread.

I don't know if personal abuse in the thread was actioned or not. I would suggest reporting the posts you have issue with, if you don't feel they were dealt with correctly you could PM a mod and ask for clarification as to why they weren't dealt with.

Satriale

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

I strongly disagree with most of this post tbh, firstly the manner in which the shuttering down, for the overall clean up was a disaster, and I think even the cmods/admins etc would agree with that.

Secondly, with politics being banned from being discussed on AH, regular posters need some alternative overflow area, with some middle ground.

After hours original concept was that it was based on a what you and your mates might be discussing if you where down the local on a Fri evening. That's why you'll see things in AH being discussed that might range from your favourite post pub takeaway, to attractive looking females, to something taking place in our political scene.

It was plain to see that AH was becoming chock full of political type discussion, but tbf the country has went through a lot of political turmoil this last decade or so, and what with various political decisions and policies, tax changes etc, It was inevitable that some people would be discussing it in AH (as it was in pubs up and down the country too, I have no doubt)

Now you have a situation where any political related new thread (more or less) will, after a few replies see the thread getting shunted across to the cafe.

If the cafe doesn't exist, and the posters who want to discuss something in a more light hearted manner get forced over to the main politics forum, where posting standards are much more stringent, the infractions, bans and warnings will be flying around all over the place, and a lot of disgruntled posters with them, in the process.

We already have several of the more serious politics forums for the more serious stuffy political discussions.

If we're not to discuss politics in a light hearted manner, with a bit of craic thrown in, in AH, then the need for an over flow area exists.

If a policy of only being allowed to discuss politics on the site, in one of the high brow, serious forums, was introduced, I think it would be a disastrous policy.

Soft politics was a lot more crack in AH. The problem with Politics Cafe is posters who think they are too 'igh-brow to be posting in there, then loathe themselves and everyone else for doing it. At least no one in AH gave a hoohah cause "tis a silly place".

PC has become a little inbred, maybe there should be a few political threads left in AH for longer to widen the genepool a bit.

jameorahiely

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

From the post you linked to it would seem that everyone was given a thread warning, including those who dragged a DRP into the thread.

I don't know if personal abuse in the thread was actioned or not. I would suggest reporting the posts you have issue with, if you don't feel they were dealt with correctly you could PM a mod and ask for clarification as to why they weren't dealt with.

No, 2 other posters were mentioned but there was more than that breaking the charter. I reported posts No they were not actioned. I did email the mod to ask for clarification, I got no reply.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

_Kaiser_

I'd agree that the Cafe serves a valuable purpose and I'd also agree that there are those (on all sides) who take it far too seriously in regards supposed standards and so on.

At the end of the day it's just a forum on a website. Is it really so outrageous if a thread deviates off course into a related side issue (this could be levelled at the site as a whole really) so long as points are well made and no abuse is given?

However, I've noticed a definite trend in certain Cafe topics where particular users will arrive, post something inflammatory and clearly intended to stir up shyte, then proclaim ignorance when called on it. It's this sort of nonsense that causes many of the issues in the Cafe in my opinion and it's always the same crowd.

I reported such a post yesterday as it seemed obvious to me that rather than counter the points raised in an adult manner, the intent was clearly to disrupt the thread, prompt mod intervention and have other users sanctioned or maybe the thread locked.

And yep, I catch up this morning and one of those posters who called the user in question out on the nonsense has been carded and no visible repercussions or warning for the individual who caused the issue in the first place..

It's that sort of inconsistent modding that feeds into the "problems" there too.

jackofalltrades

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

For every political thread in AH, I'd estimate that there would be about 2/3 that are moved out of it into Politics Cafe.
That and posters will start up threads in the Cafe, knowing that the thread would be closed or moved in they did the same in AH.

As long as the above is going on your going to need a forum where people can discuss what is mostly news in a casual setting.
I'd think AH would be a better fit for a lot of the threads in PC.
Posters tend to get called out if they're acting the muppet in AH.
That said there are posters in AH who don't want political threads/want very few and would oppose this idea.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hotblack Desiato

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies thread must have escaped your notice.

Right wing politics is very much on point in A&A, there's a strong correlation with religious fundamentalism especially in the USA.

Left wing intolerance of free speech very much is on point there, also.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hotblack Desiato

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes over 2 years (and almost 2000 posts) ago so your point is long moot at this stage.

It seems to me you need to look closer to home for lack of tolerance of opposing views.

I find it humorous that an A&A mod hates the right so much that he even starts threads attacking Ayn Rand, who is one of the most important women atheists of the 20th century.

So was Mao, but I wouldn't regard either of them as sane or any type of a role model. So Rand should be on some sort of criticism-free pedestal just because she was an atheist? Are you being remotely serious?

Special Circumstances

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'd agree that the Cafe serves a valuable purpose and I'd also agree that there are those (on all sides) who take it far too seriously in regards supposed standards and so on.

At the end of the day it's just a forum on a website. Is it really so outrageous if a thread deviates off course into a related side issue (this could be levelled at the site as a whole really) so long as points are well made and no abuse is given?

However, I've noticed a definite trend in certain Cafe topics where particular users will arrive, post something inflammatory and clearly intended to stir up shyte, then proclaim ignorance when called on it. It's this sort of nonsense that causes many of the issues in the Cafe in my opinion and it's always the same crowd.

I reported such a post yesterday as it seemed obvious to me that rather than counter the points raised in an adult manner, the intent was clearly to disrupt the thread, prompt mod intervention and have other users sanctioned or maybe the thread locked.

And yep, I catch up this morning and one of those posters who called the user in question out on the nonsense has been carded and no visible repercussions or warning for the individual who caused the issue in the first place..

It's that sort of inconsistent modding that feeds into the "problems" there too.

Add moderators "revising" threads to flatter a certain agenda by removing only certain posts and you have the perfect description of the mess boards modding is in.

jackofalltrades

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I haven't and wouldn't say that political discussion is banned in AH, but it is deliberately restricted.
The threads that you talked about are busy but still small in number.
Closing PC, as you propose, would dump a lot of political threads into AH.
Including threads that are seen as an "embarrassment" or have the wrong viewpoint winning the argument.

Special Circumstances

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Including threads that are seen as an "embarrassment" or have the wrong viewpoint winning the argument.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a thread where the anti agenda posters were not modhunted out of there with their posts selectively deleted, or the thread was shutdown as a "train wreck " before too much damage could be done to "insert boards sponsored agenda here"!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Special Circumstances

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's run as the moderators personal fiefdom. Policitics Café itself is the trainwreck not the inconvenient truth threads that get mod revised in there. Some of the worst "dick" behaviour I've seen on boards.ie is evident in agendas are enforced on AH and PC whether it be smug "appeal it you like" warnings, selective depleting or infractions. All delivered in a completely biased way.

bucketybuck

If the mod responses in this thread are any indication then I can see why people are getting fed up.

Special Circumstances

bucketybuck wrote: »

If the mod responses in this thread are any indication then I can see why people are getting fed up.

Some serious "smug clique" buzz off the whole thing.

Lovely Bloke

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

yep.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As at least one other poster has pointed out, there are two threads on the forum - one for discussion of "right-wing" silliness" and one for discussion of "left-wing" silliness. Please feel free to contribute to either one, as you feel is appropriate.

Permabear wrote: »

I find it humorous that an A&A mod hates the right so much that he even starts threads attacking Ayn Rand, who is one of the most important women atheists of the 20th century.

I am thrilled, and a little humbled, that a thread which I started almost seven years ago, which has attracted perhaps four posts a week until it went quiet last May - still has the power to move you!

More seriously, if you're unhappy to see right-wing frauds openly discussed, or third-rate pseudo-religious economists ridiculed along with the many other flavours of silliness which the forum posterhood discusses from time to time, well, you seem to have judged correctly that A+A isn't the right place for you.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As above, "right-wing" views and people with "right-wing" views are entirely welcome throughout the forum.

In fact, just checking briefly, I see that the "Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes" thread has reached 3,520 posts in around 80 months, while the "Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies" thread has reached 1,900 posts in 25 months.

Stats directly from the forum, therefore, show that the anti-"left-wing" thread is almost exactly twice as popular as the anti-"right-wing" thread.

I hope this puts your thoughts into some reality-based perspective

Have a great weekend!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, you should make up your mind - you seem to be finding this much funnier than somebody with a genuine grievance would

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not only on account of her "right-wing views" as you seem to think so very energetically.

But also significantly, as you can see here and here, because of her truly abundant, and atrocious lack of writing talent. The fact that she seems to have been a monumental hypocrite almost fades into insignificance in comparison. Almost.

Permabear wrote: »

One would expect the focus of an atheism forum to be more on someone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) than on her economic views, but in its present incarnation A&A functions as a right-bashing forum that specifically targets right-wing atheists like myself and prevents us from contributing to a forum that would otherwise be of interest. In reality, A&A is welcoming only to left-wing atheists.

If you addressed the issues with clarity and wit, rather than taking offence at some perceived sleight against some "right-wing" hero and stomping off waving your umbrella in the air, you'd find A+A a much more welcoming and entertaining place, regardless of your views and regardless of how peculiar they might or might not be.

Robineen

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How can you know that? There are thousands of boards.ie members and I doubt you know all the right-wing active members to declare that they no longer post there. There is a currently active "Anti left-wing" thread in A&A. Maybe you have PMed with some other fellow right-wing posters who are disgruntled with A&A and deduced the bolded above from that. You would need to have been in contact with probably hundreds of users to be able to declare that A&A is a no-go area for right wing posters and that seems doubtful.

As well as that, isn't the site quietening down a lot in general? So posts by members of all political affiliations are likely falling in numbers. So noticing that there are less right wing posters there than a few years back doesn't mean they are dissuaded from posting in the forum. There could also be a drop in numbers of left wing posters but you might not have noticed because you wouldn't be sensitive to that and so wouldn't take notice.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.