Disappearing threads in the politics cafe?

Alf Stewart.

Recently a thread just simply vanished from the cafe without an explanation as to why it vanished, or who vanished it.

The thread was entitled "apology" (or something) and centred around the.apologies being issued from the state to Sgt McCabe.

Anyone like to shed a light on to why it was deleted (rather than merged or locked) and by whom?

Thanks

Lovely Bloke

carerful now, threads giving feedback about the caf are just being summarily locked.

loads of circled wagons, it's like the Phoeno up in here.

fudge fudge, did you PM the mods(lol) first before coming here?

keep everything nicely behind closed doors like a good chap

dudara

Knock if off LB. Be thankful I don't delete your post for being off-topic and unhelpful.

Alf, I can see that the post has indeed been deleted, but I'll need to check the why

The Hill Billy

I deleted the thread. It had been started by a re-reg troll.

tHB

Alf Stewart.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

I deleted the thread. It had been started by a re-reg troll.

tHB

I see that the OP appears on the banned list alright, probably should have looked there first.

Widdershins

I know this is an oldish thread but so many feedback threads are now closed where are you supposed to comment on the politics-religion issue now? If there's an issue with the above on the Politics forum, people make a thread in this forum to discuss, then that thread is locked, often by a moderator who seems to deem it not worth discussing, rahter than because someone's been offensive or something, and in one case users were advised to go to a different thread that already existed for discussing the issue-but that thread had been closed weeks before!

The bans and thread closures in Politics is shortsighted because politics and religion inevitable do converge when some topics come up-because they are linked in reality, not because some posters want to give out about religion. And closing the query threads in Feedback continually disrupts conversations. It's very oppressive and more than a little weird.

For Reals

As discussed in PM, the EU Immigration thread has had major problems so we have had to be more heavy handed in it. Right now two posters are discussing the power of the Ethiopian military.
Europe and immigrants is a broad topic and religion has it's place.
However news dumping articles on 'the global creep of extreme Islamism' is exactly the kind of thing we'd rather avoid. We've had youtube links to anonymous videos, like some lad having video editing software and a youtube account is a reliable source.
The popularity of which people to vilify changes with the times. It's important we discuss facts pertaining to immigration and politics in a politics forum.
We should be able to say, 'I've no time for Calvinists' and move on, or 'I don't think Scientology will mix well with our culture or way of life', and move on. Nobody disputes ISIS exists. It's been noted some immigrants break the law. We should be capable of discussing EU Immigration without hardcore pro or anti [insert ethnic group or religion] propaganda, which sadly is often what we end up with.

Widdershins

For Reals wrote: »

As discussed in PM, the EU Immigration thread has had major problems so we have had to be more heavy handed in it. Right now two posters are discussing the power of the Ethiopian military.
Europe and immigrants is a broad topic and religion has it's place.
However news dumping articles on 'the global creep of extreme Islamism' is exactly the kind of thing we'd rather avoid. We've had youtube links to anonymous videos, like some lad having video editing software and a youtube account is a reliable source.
The popularity of which people to vilify changes with the times. It's important we discuss facts pertaining to immigration and politics in a politics forum.
We should be able to say, 'I've no time for Calvinists' and move on, or 'I don't think Scientology will mix well with our culture or way of life', and move on. Nobody disputes ISIS exists. It's been noted some immigrants break the law. We should be capable of discussing EU Immigration without hardcore pro or anti [insert ethnic group or religion] propaganda, which sadly is often what we end up with.

I wasn't referring to my own thread ban. What I mean is, there's currently nowhere that I can see on Boards where it is possible to discuss both politics and religion and how they influence each other. Those who are interested in current affairs can usually see the connection, but because of the highly sensitive atmosphere and other peoples apparent past transgressions, it's not possible to discuss it. Using my own ban as an example to illustrate my point about the Feedback threads being closed, though..I was about to post on a few threads and couldn't find one that was still open, but some of the thread participants had moved on to one or two that remained open, and I think that's possibly another reason why the subjects being discussed can mingle a bit. Apart from the fact that some of us believe they are actually interconnected. A similar thing happened when trying to find an open feedback thread.

JRant

Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this and if so please feel free to move/delete as necessary but what is the stance on the garda whistleblowers threads? The last one was closed for review over a week ago and is still in out of action. Is it being closed permanently?

Stheno

Widdershins wrote: »

I wasn't referring to my own thread ban. What I mean is, there's currently nowhere that I can see on Boards where it is possible to discuss both politics and religion and how they influence each other. Those who are interested in current affairs can usually see the connection, but because of the highly sensitive atmosphere and other peoples apparent past transgressions, it's not possible to discuss it. Using my own ban as an example to illustrate my point about the Feedback threads being closed, though..I was about to post on a few threads and couldn't find one that was still open, but some of the thread participants had moved on to one or two that remained open, and I think that's possibly another reason why the subjects being discussed can mingle a bit. Apart from the fact that some of us believe they are actually interconnected. A similar thing happened when trying to find an open feedback thread.

What exactly about religion and politics do you want to discuss? A thread on Eu immigration is hardly the place for that surely?

JRant wrote: »

Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this and if so please feel free to move/delete as necessary but what is the stance on the garda whistleblowers threads? The last one was closed for review over a week ago and is still in out of action. Is it being closed permanently?

A new thread on the inquiry that has started has been opened.
The last thread and the one prior to that were closed as posters were unable to stick to the facts being reported, and there were all sorts of speculative posts in the threads which could not be upheld, and despite multiple warnings people still chose to post in that manner.

Widdershins

Stheno wrote: »

What exactly about religion and politics do you want to discuss? A thread on Eu immigration is hardly the place for that surely?

That's not something anyone can say in advance as these things naturally come up and crossover in such conversations. Religions and the law, and politics, cross over all the time.

Stheno

Widdershins wrote: »

That's not something anyone can say in advance as these things naturally come up and crossover in such conversations. Religions and the law, and politics, cross over all the time.

Hmm well if you can't be more specific then no one can help you really.

There's a world religions forum for discussing religious matters, politics and legal discussion covers politics and the law.

JRant

Stheno wrote: »

What exactly about religion and politics do you want to discuss? A thread on Eu immigration is hardly the place for that surely?



A new thread on the inquiry that has started has been opened.
The last thread and the one prior to that were closed as posters were unable to stick to the facts being reported, and there were all sorts of speculative posts in the threads which could not be upheld, and despite multiple warnings people still chose to post in that manner.

Cheers Stheno, appreciate the update.

Stheno

JRant wrote: »

Cheers Stheno, appreciate the update.

You're welcome.

Widdershins

Stheno wrote: »

Hmm well if you can't be more specific then no one can help you really.

There's a world religions forum for discussing religious matters, politics and legal discussion covers politics and the law.

In an ideal world we could talk about them when they converge, without anyone suspecting we've got an ulterior motive or we're stirring trouble. My point of view is quite a clinical one and I can easily separate my feelings on the many aspects of religions and laws and politics if and when they cross over. I know there are three separate forums but hopefully you see what I mean when I say sometimes elements of the three topics combine.
The rules are the rules though and I accept that.

Stheno

Widdershins wrote: »

In an ideal world we could talk about them when they converge, without anyone suspecting we've got an ulterior motive or we're stirring trouble. My point of view is quite a clinical one and I can easily separate my feelings on the many aspects of religions and laws and politics if and when they cross over. I know there are three separate forums but hopefully you see what I mean when I say sometimes elements of the three topics combine.
The rules are the rules though and I accept that.

I guess you can start a thread in a forum you think is suitable and see how it progresses?

If it's one which descends as the immigration thread has on numerous occasions for reasons For Reals pointed out above, it's certainly not going to survive long in the cafe though.

Lovely Bloke

Stheno wrote: »

A new thread on the inquiry that has started has been opened.
The last thread and the one prior to that were closed as posters were unable to stick to the facts being reported, and there were all sorts of speculative posts in the threads which could not be upheld, and despite multiple warnings people still chose to post in that manner.

On this.

Is it possible that the mods card, ban and delete any posts/users that don't meet the required standard?

This policy of constant closing, opening new threads, threads reviews is silly and disruptive, needlessly so.

If people are breaking the charter, or thread specific rules then sanction them, but please, stop punishing the whole forum for the transgressions of the few, it's unfair.

dudara

LB, as a former mod, you should know how threads can literally "lose the run of themselves". And it can take a lot of effort from the mod team to clean up. Plus posters will have a lot of baggage invested in the thread. Sometimes it's just more effective to start a new thread and have a clean break.

That's my 2c. Every mod will have their own take.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

weisses

That whole "locked for review" is more and more used to steer attention away from the/A thread ... Nothing major was going on in the immigration thread .. And could be reviewed in 5 minutes ... specially considering a mod was in on the discussion as well

dudara

weisses wrote: »

That whole "locked for review" is more and more used to steer attention away from the/A thread ... Nothing major was going on in the immigration thread .. And could be reviewed in 5 minutes ...

A review can take quite a bit longer than 5 minutes, depending on the subject matter.

specially considering a mod was in on the discussion as well

Recently, mods faced criticism for moderating a thread in which they were participating. In fact, it's a general rule of thumb that mods don't moderate threads in which they're involved, unless really fast action is needed.

weisses

dudara wrote: »

A review can take quite a bit longer than 5 minutes, depending on the subject matter.

Ohh I know it can, but not at this instance ... 30 posts is what we are talking about here, Unless things happened days before no one picked up on

dudara wrote: »

Recently, mods faced criticism for moderating a thread in which they were participating. In fact, it's a general rule of thumb that mods don't moderate threads in which they're involved, unless really fast action is needed.

Well if you all of a sudden need to lock a thread again for review in the middle of a discussion I label that as fast action

point still stands that the phrase "thread locked for review" is not always about "a review"

Stheno

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

For the most part we do, but with the recent whistleblower threads, it made sense to close them rather than have people come into a thread where perhaps 500/1000 posts later we've done a major clean up, people don't see that and jump straight into posting the way prior to a clean up. Sometimes a clean break stops that.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

On this note Permabear, there wasn't a single reported post in relation to the thread you reference yesterday until 23:54, after which a mod warning was put on the thread. As you'll know from being a mod, we as mods don't read every single thread, so reporting posts is useful if you are feel users are breaching the charter.

If you've a problem with posts not being actioned, then that's something to take up with the cmods tbh.

weisses wrote: »

That whole "locked for review" is more and more used to steer attention away from the/A thread ... Nothing major was going on in the immigration thread .. And could be reviewed in 5 minutes ... specially considering a mod was in on the discussion as well

dudara wrote: »

A review can take quite a bit longer than 5 minutes, depending on the subject matter.

Recently, mods faced criticism for moderating a thread in which they were participating. In fact, it's a general rule of thumb that mods don't moderate threads in which they're involved, unless really fast action is needed.

weisses wrote: »

Ohh I know it can, but not at this instance ... 30 posts is what we are talking about here, Unless things happened days before no one picked up on

Well if you all of a sudden need to lock a thread again for review in the middle of a discussion I label that as fast action

point still stands that the phrase "thread locked for review" is not always about "a review"

I locked the thread yesterday after there were a slew of reported posts, and after looking at just the last page.

I then spent about an hour reading through the previous 6 or 7 pages or so, trying to check if posts which were potentially actionable had arisen from on topic debate which had skewed off kilter (e.g. I'd no idea why one poster was talking about the arms industry in Ethiopia, and read back to see if there was any previous reference which made it relevant). It's not a case of locking a thread for the sake of it, sometimes it's easier to lock a thread, especially with the likes of yesterday when it appeared to be going completely off topic, to give a mod/s time to go through the thread and check with other mods if there is agreement on what action to take.

The immigration thread/s have been a huge timesink since their inception, and while it's accepted that it is an important discussion that should take place, it's now getting to the point where failure to abide by the charter and the specific rules for that thread, could result in it being shut permanently.

If closing a thread to carefully review it offline, and get it back on track takes a day, then surely that is better than mods getting to the point of spending so much time moderating a discussion online that it's shut permanently?

Additionally, with how the thread was going yesterday, as I'd have gone through the 6 or 7 pages of posts I needed to, if the thread was still open, it's likely that I'd then have had another two or three pages to go through once I was finished with those so it was easier to be able to close it and review it.

It's reopened now, with another reference to the warning in the op, a request to keep on topic, stop with the sniping that went on yesterday, and to report posts if you've a problem with them.

weisses

Stheno wrote: »

I locked the thread yesterday after there were a slew of reported posts, and after looking at just the last page.

I then spent about an hour reading through the previous 6 or 7 pages or so, trying to check if posts which were potentially actionable had arisen from on topic debate which had skewed off kilter (e.g. I'd no idea why one poster was talking about the arms industry in Ethiopia, and read back to see if there was any previous reference which made it relevant). It's not a case of locking a thread for the sake of it, sometimes it's easier to lock a thread, especially with the likes of yesterday when it appeared to be going completely off topic, to give a mod/s time to go through the thread and check with other mods if there is agreement on what action to take.

The immigration thread/s have been a huge timesink since their inception, and while it's accepted that it is an important discussion that should take place, it's now getting to the point where failure to abide by the charter and the specific rules for that thread, could result in it being shut permanently.

If closing a thread to carefully review it offline, and get it back on track takes a day, then surely that is better than mods getting to the point of spending so much time moderating a discussion online that it's shut permanently?

Additionally, with how the thread was going yesterday, as I'd have gone through the 6 or 7 pages of posts I needed to, if the thread was still open, it's likely that I'd then have had another two or three pages to go through once I was finished with those so it was easier to be able to close it and review it.

It's reopened now, with another reference to the warning in the op, a request to keep on topic, stop with the sniping that went on yesterday, and to report posts if you've a problem with them.

I thought it was because of the 30 ish posts from Yesterday .. Didn't know you had to go through the whole Ethiopian debacle as well

Stheno

weisses wrote: »

I thought it was because of the 30 ish posts from Yesterday .. Didn't know you had to go through the whole Ethiopian debacle as well

Yeah, I wasn't just going to look at the posts from yesterday without trying to get some sense of how the whole thing arose, I'd not been following the thread for a few days. Then as I went back, I came across the Ethiopian debacle and had to read back further to see where that came from.

The long and short of it was one person got a day off for not backing up what they said, and I've reopened the thread asking people to keep on topic rather than the rather longwinded diversion we had which lead up to yesterday.

Hopefully that gives you a bit more insight into why these things take time, it's not a case of going in to say just yesterdays posts and doing a slash and ban/burn on them, that would be unfair and could justifiably be queried, if we didn't check back for a bit more context.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Stheno

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not being smart here, but have you got some examples? I know that's a mod reason a lot in the politics forum, but I'm not sure it would be one that's commonly used in the cafe?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Quin_Dub

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I was the one that closed all of those threads , all at least a year ago it has to be said.

Absent creating an entire editorial guideline for posters we have expect that posters have a certain amount of common sense when creating threads.

Boards is a discussion site most especially in fora like Politics or Politics Café, where people can share their opinions and look to elicit responses and counter arguments .

In the examples above -

In the 1st Thread the OP simply said , in effect "Here's some random information I found , discuss" , They offer no opinion , no personal input nothing. In my opinion that was not a post worthy of an OP and was not setting the thread up for any chance at being successful.

The 2nd Thread is just a series of questions , again without any semblance of an opinion from the OP.

In the 3rd example , the OP is clearly a troll and the thread was shut down , having said that I explained why I closed that thread in my note.

Here's a more recent example of a thread I closed for not meeting a minimum standard - I think my closing post gave sufficient detail as to why it was closed.

I take your point that clearer explanations need to be given when we close threads . I'm not sure that "posting guidelines" would really help here as they could never ever hope to cover all the possible scenarios..

As the Charter says :- "Common sense and Mod Discretion will be used, just because we don't ask you not to open the plane's door at 20,000 feet doesn't mean it's OK to do so."

So ,to sum up - We , as Mods need to improve the Mod Notes when closing threads to more explicitly outline the reasons why but equally posters need to use basic common sense about how and what they post to ensure that the forum works.

AlekSmart

Stheno wrote: »

I locked the thread yesterday after there were a slew of reported posts, and after looking at just the last page.

I then spent about an hour reading through the previous 6 or 7 pages or so, trying to check if posts which were potentially actionable had arisen from on topic debate which had skewed off kilter (e.g. I'd no idea why one poster was talking about the arms industry in Ethiopia, and read back to see if there was any previous reference which made it relevant). It's not a case of locking a thread for the sake of it, sometimes it's easier to lock a thread, especially with the likes of yesterday when it appeared to be going completely off topic, to give a mod/s time to go through the thread and check with other mods if there is agreement on what action to take.

The immigration thread/s have been a huge timesink since their inception, and while it's accepted that it is an important discussion that should take place, it's now getting to the point where failure to abide by the charter and the specific rules for that thread, could result in it being shut permanently.

If closing a thread to carefully review it offline, and get it back on track takes a day, then surely that is better than mods getting to the point of spending so much time moderating a discussion online that it's shut permanently?

Additionally, with how the thread was going yesterday, as I'd have gone through the 6 or 7 pages of posts I needed to, if the thread was still open, it's likely that I'd then have had another two or three pages to go through once I was finished with those so it was easier to be able to close it and review it.

It's reopened now, with another reference to the warning in the op, a request to keep on topic, stop with the sniping that went on yesterday, and to report posts if you've a problem with them.

If I am the "Ethopian Arms Industry" poster you refer to (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102834037&postcount=1508),then you may have noticed my Ethopian interest was sparked by a previous post by Loclach (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102829177&postcount=1504).

Admittedly,I could see no direct link between the Joe McHugh TD article referenced by several other posters,but since Loclach's post did reference the costs of "subsidising" Ethopia and particularly it's Coffee Production capability.

I drew some parallells between Ethopia's Coffee Industry,It's State Owned Airlines very obvious success (in Ireland also!) and the country's position as a source of significant numbers of refugee/migrant numbers into Europe.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102829177&postcount=1504

Those reaching Italy come primarily from Africa (Nigeria 20 per cent, Eritrea 12 per cent, Gambia/ Guinea/Sudan/Ivory Coast 7 per cent each).

In the Mediterranean as a whole, five nationalities — Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria and Eritrea — account for 68 per cent of all arrivals.

With the significant impact of the historic Eritreian/Ethopian conflicts and the resultant increase in non,or poorly documented people from Ethopia claiming to be Eritrean,it is of some relevance to the EU Immigration thread.

How it was introduced via the Deputy McHugh article remains to me,unclear,perhaps Loclach was sidetracked ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Taltos

I've read that thread Permabear and everything you call out For Reals for you are equally as guilty. Between the two of you that thread spun off topic and the mods (the other mods) had to step in and request it stay on point. Frankly you are both lucky you stopped when you did as had it continued cards would have been forthcoming.

Now there were many choices there, just a few from the top of my head
A) Either one of you could have just accepted the others viewpoint and moved on and stopped responding (thread would have hopefully gone back on point)
Again one of you could have accepted you disagreed with the other and moved on and stopped responding (thread would have probably gone back on point)
C) Just keep escalating until one or both of you responded in a manner that prompted mod action - either the redirect (as occurred) or a card had one of you gone that far. (Threads now on point but is on the radar for the mod team to close if it becomes too much effort to manage)

I can see why it happened. You're clearly both passionate about your views, at least that is the truth I choose to accept here as the alternative is not that nice. I'm not going to get into the specifics of your disagreement, let's just say I hear you both and can see why you both have the stance you do but that doesn't mean I agree with either of you. Ideally as the mod FR should have stepped back, but I can see they were lost in the debate (we haven't perfected the botmod just yet, still on version 0.4), it happens to all of us on topics we're passionate about sometimes. Ideally next time should a similar scenario occur they'll remember or get a nudge from a co-mod or see a report that the thread is going off topic.

As to the standards, they're there already, don't derail the thread and just like in most forums at some point someone was going to come in and tell you both to take it outside or put the other on ignore. But, standards are constantly evolving just as the posters do. Just cast your mind back 1 year, think of some of the types of posts that were allowed at that time which over time caused such a problem we had to close the cafe and restart it in safe mode to try and save it. And yes it will continue to evolve as the posters need and with the help of the mod team keeping an eye on those developments with the oversight of the cmod team. The cafe mod team is one of the most active behind the scenes and that frankly is something I am very happy over, its all too easy to mod in a vacuum, that's were mods can go off the rails or lose direction, this team though are working together even though they all have very very different outlooks on life and politics.

I had a quick look at the charter there to see if it could be tightened up for the above scenario but it's already covered. It just might mean some nudging from the mod team to posters (and mods ) who continually break some of the following

• Subjects discussed here will be contentious. That is understood. While you are discussing these subjects here we require you to do so in a civil and polite manner.
• Having a strong point of view is fine but expressing it in an aggressive or rude tone is not acceptable.
• Disagree with respect for those who have a contrary view.
• Personal abuse is not acceptable here.
• Vilification of groups will not be tolerated. If you are incapable of having a discussion without resorting to defaming others then maybe this forum, or site, is not for you.
• News dumps are not welcome. While you may link to other sites, do so only with context and as a part of a discussion.
• Personal abuse is not acceptable here.
• Repetitive or Flip Flop debating is not allowed. Nobody wants to wade through pages of the same posts being repeated ad nauseam. If your point was not heeded on the second posting why would it be on the tenth? Carrying personal disagreements or spats over to other threads is frowned on.
• Do not respond to provocation. If it’s in breach of the charter or site rules then report the post.

blanch152

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Cafe is full of tribalism and some of the mods engage in it as well.

The example you give is a pertinent one, but it is not the only example of differing standards. Currently, you can post in any thread you like that FF and FG are the same party (example: see the AAA renaming thread) but if you dare mention SF's links with the IRA (as evidenced in a PSNI report) you risk a ban.

I am not sure that there is a solution without sanitising the debate. It got to the ridiculous stage that I got a card recently for saying that Varadkar would campaign on the basis of "same old reckless FF in league with criminal SF", clearly showing them as Varadkar's opinions, not mine. I can produce a link where Varadkar says "Oh come off it, where’s my party’s past or legacy of people who were murdered, bodies buried in bogs, or people still living today who were maimed, who are still carrying the scars and burns?", which is far more provocative than "criminal SF", yet the phrase is banned.

Stheno

blanch152 wrote: »

The Cafe is full of tribalism and some of the mods engage in it as well.

The example you give is a pertinent one, but it is not the only example of differing standards. Currently, you can post in any thread you like that FF and FG are the same party (example: see the AAA renaming thread) but if you dare mention SF's links with the IRA (as evidenced in a PSNI report) you risk a ban.

I am not sure that there is a solution without sanitising the debate. It got to the ridiculous stage that I got a card recently for saying that Varadkar would campaign on the basis of "same old reckless FF in league with criminal SF", clearly showing them as Varadkar's opinions, not mine. I can produce a link where Varadkar says "Oh come off it, where’s my party’s past or legacy of people who were murdered, bodies buried in bogs, or people still living today who were maimed, who are still carrying the scars and burns?", which is far more provocative than "criminal SF", yet the phrase is banned.

There are two problems with discussion in relation to the North, politics, and the political parties in the North:
1. Posters who deliberately post the likes of "Criminal SF"/Bigoted DUP/Murdering SF terrorists, to wind up posters on the "other side" as was discussed and agreed by posters in the last big feedback thread.
2. Posters who are incapable of discussing the situation in the North NOW without harking back to the past and referencing something that happened in the seventies/eighties/making false claims that cannot be backed up about the actions of individuals who are now in the public eye.

This then leads to absolute warfare in threads about the North, and so now there is a zero tolerance in relation to this. ZERO, on both sides.

Now as for your warning, in the middle of the IW discussion thread you posted

blanch152 wrote: »

So?

FF abstained, yet they are prepared to bring the Government down on water charges.

Things change

Varadkar is cleverer than that, he doesn't want a majority, he wants to increase the vote past 30%. Painting the abolition of water charges as same old reckless FF in league with the criminal SF and the irresponsible AAA/PBP will be his gameplan, will be interesting to watch and see can he do it.

No proof/no link as you claim in the post, so it came across as namecalling, you could just have said "SF" but chose to add in criminal.

As you are new to the forum, you may not be aware, but the charter changed recently to include no namecalling/nicknames/etc, after discussion in the last feedback thread.

blanch152

Stheno wrote: »

There are two problems with discussion in relation to the North, politics, and the political parties in the North:
1. Posters who deliberately post the likes of "Criminal SF"/Bigoted DUP/Murdering SF terrorists, to wind up posters on the "other side" as was discussed and agreed by posters in the last big feedback thread.
2. Posters who are incapable of discussing the situation in the North NOW without harking back to the past and referencing something that happened in the seventies/eighties/making false claims that cannot be backed up about the actions of individuals who are now in the public eye.

This then leads to absolute warfare in threads about the North, and so now there is a zero tolerance in relation to this. ZERO, on both sides.

Now as for your warning, in the middle of the IW discussion thread you posted



No proof/no link as you claim in the post, so it came across as namecalling, you could just have said "SF" but chose to add in criminal.

As you are new to the forum, you may not be aware, but the charter changed recently to include no namecalling/nicknames/etc, after discussion in the last feedback thread.

The irony is I deliberately didn't quote Varadkar's comments as I felt they were too incendiary and toned them down because they wouldn't be allowed.

It is certainly something to think about that you can't paraphrase what a mainstream politician like Varadkar says about SF, yet as pointed out above by Permabear, mods can post as much unsubstantiated allegations about Noonan as they like - I have seen him accused of criminality without a sanction. They are also allowed accuse him of criminal corruption on Cerebus. Yet, on the other hand, if I was to taint Adams with tax evasion by association with the good republican Slab Murphy, I would get a card.

To give another example, if Noonan (unproven) can be guilty of corruption having once met someone from Cerebus, surely Adams (unproven) can be guilty of terrorism having once met the person responsible for killing Brian Stack?

My only problem is with the double standards.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Taltos

And it's OK that we disagree.

For Reals though was not posting as a mod, he was giving his opinion as a poster, something the mods are actively encouraged to do in the forums they moderate.

Mods are allowed to do that, we even discussed it on a recent feedback thread. As to his opinions on Noonan that's OK, they're his opinions but I'm not getting dragged off topic here arguing for or against if Noonan was impacted by austerity, its all a matter of scale after all. But that thread was not the place for either of you to drag it off topic like that. And yes in my mind you are both as guilty as each other in dragging that thread off topic, mod vs former mod (as called out earlier), you both should know better. The nature of the cafe is that threads are allowed to go a little off topic as in the chat in the bar once they get back on topic, but between you both there that was not going to happen without another mod stepping in, which frankly shouldn't have to happen.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

blanch152

Taltos wrote: »

And it's OK that we disagree.

For Reals though was not posting as a mod, he was giving his opinion as a poster, something the mods are actively encouraged to do in the forums they moderate.

Mods are allowed to do that, we even discussed it on a recent feedback thread. As to his opinions on Noonan that's OK, they're his opinions but I'm not getting dragged off topic here arguing for or against if Noonan was impacted by austerity, its all a matter of scale after all. But that thread was not the place for either of you to drag it off topic like that. And yes in my mind you are both as guilty as each other in dragging that thread off topic, mod vs former mod (as called out earlier), you both should know better. The nature of the cafe is that threads are allowed to go a little off topic as in the chat in the bar once they get back on topic, but between you both there that was not going to happen without another mod stepping in, which frankly shouldn't have to happen.

It is not a matter of scale as to whether Noonan was impacted by austerity, it is a matter of fact, but the falsehood is allowed as it is propagated by a mod.

By contrast, a matter of opinion that SF are still controlled by the IRA (even though it is an opinion shared by Micheal Martin and the PSNI) is not allowed.

Lovely Bloke

Taltos wrote: »

And it's OK that we disagree.

For Reals though was not posting as a mod, he was giving his opinion as a poster, something the mods are actively encouraged to do in the forums they moderate.

Mods are allowed to do that, we even discussed it on a recent feedback thread. As to his opinions on Noonan that's OK, they're his opinions but I'm not getting dragged off topic here arguing for or against if Noonan was impacted by austerity, its all a matter of scale after all. But that thread was not the place for either of you to drag it off topic like that. And yes in my mind you are both as guilty as each other in dragging that thread off topic, mod vs former mod (as called out earlier), you both should know better. The nature of the cafe is that threads are allowed to go a little off topic as in the chat in the bar once they get back on topic, but between you both there that was not going to happen without another mod stepping in, which frankly shouldn't have to happen.

Wagon circling of the highest degree.

If any other poster was soapboxing to the degree that particular poster does there'd be sanctions.

But nope. It's the mod, so nobody from the upper echelons can be seen to criticise.

In fact, let's excuse the behaviour.

One rule for some, different rule for the plebs.

It's very transparent that this is where the line is in relation to the Caf, and frankly it's disturbing. It's ruining the forum.

Wheeliebin30

Stheno wrote: »

There are two problems with discussion in relation to the North, politics, and the political parties in the North:
1. Posters who deliberately post the likes of "Criminal SF"/Bigoted DUP/Murdering SF terrorists, to wind up posters on the "other side" as was discussed and agreed by posters in the last big feedback thread.
2. Posters who are incapable of discussing the situation in the North NOW without harking back to the past and referencing something that happened in the seventies/eighties/making false claims that cannot be backed up about the actions of individuals who are now in the public eye.

This then leads to absolute warfare in threads about the North, and so now there is a zero tolerance in relation to this. ZERO, on both sides.

Now as for your warning, in the middle of the IW discussion thread you posted



No proof/no link as you claim in the post, so it came across as namecalling, you could just have said "SF" but chose to add in criminal.

As you are new to the forum, you may not be aware, but the charter changed recently to include no namecalling/nicknames/etc, after discussion in the last feedback thread.

I have seen certain posters refer to enda kenny and fg having links to Michael Collins and the old IRA.

I have never seen these posters get carded for making these comparisons.

One poster always refers to Maria cahill and her links and then enda and Joan putting her up in the seanad.

Once again never any warnings.

So to say it's zero tolerated on both sides is a lie.

Wheeliebin30

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

Wagon circling of the highest degree.

If any other poster was soapboxing to the degree that particular poster does there'd be sanctions.

But nope. It's the mod, so nobody from the upper echelons can be seen to criticise.

In fact, let's excuse the behaviour.

One rule for some, different rule for the plebs.

It's very transparent that this is where the line is in relation to the Caf, and frankly it's disturbing. It's ruining the forum.

Have to agree here and I have been banned twice for giving my opinion about this. This certain mod gets away with so much other posters don't.

Was always question marks from the start about this and it has proved true.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Little CuChulainn

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The issue between you and For Reals was not the absence of proof from either of you, it was your disagreement of what it meant to suffer austerity. You believed that a pay cut constituted suffering austerity whereas For Reals believed that a simply pay cut was not sufficient to be considered suffering austerity if you were still paid a lot. Differing opinions don't necessarily mean one is right and one is wrong.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tokyo

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Threads like this one are important, as it gives us a direction to move in, in terms of making the forum a better place for everyone. Unfortunately Lovely Bloke, it's responses like this that undermine any discussion of potential issues. Despite what you might think, we have been looking hard at whether there is an issue, and if there is, how to maintain a forum that allows for an equal balance of view on all sides, without every thread descending into trench warfare. Comments like that above serve no function other than to provoke a response or rally the masses, and are certainly not constructive in a feedback thread.

I do need to clarify that I don't see any examples of mods abusing their position, as certain posters have claimed. As a rule of thumb, moderators don't action posters in threads they are actively part of - instead they report it (as any user can also do) to make the remainder of the mod team aware of a potential situation. While that's not always possible in fast moving threads, that's the reality for 99% of actioned posts across Boards, and I don't see anything in the Café that even remotely suggests that a moderator infracted another poster in order to strengthen their argument. I'd like that to be clear.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I believe Permabear's point is worth discussing, and I have to be honest and say that I agree with parts of it. Reading through the more contentious threads, I am seeing entrenched viewpoints and a certain amount of baiting from various parties in all camps. Such is the nature of debate sometimes, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that, if it doesn't dominate the core nature of the thread - to debate and discuss a point. In a forum like the Politics Cafe, you're always going to have strong and sometimes polarising opinions, mods and posters alike, and there's no getting away from that.

We have always held the position that moderators are perfectly entitled to post as regular members (it's why they were chosen to be moderators), but with that comes an expectation of a higher standard than might be applied to the masses. So in that we are in agreement. However, I don't agree that moderators are solely responsible for setting that bar - that duty falls on all participants in the forum, moderators and posters alike - as it should. And 225 reported posts in the Café in the last month alone lends much support to the fact that theres a much larger factor in play when it comes to the standards of posting in the Café. Provocation is taking place in all camps, and I'd like to see that nipped in the bud.

Modding the Café can be quite a thankless job at times, and mods are going to draw flak no matter what they do. But for my part, I've discussed this with the CMod team, who has in turn spoken to the moderator team in the Café, to remind us all that like it or not, we as moderators set the bar for what is an acceptable style of posting and what is not through the content of our own posts. On that end, moderators in the Café will strive to consider how they post, and to try and take a step back and see if a point of view holds water or not. We'll also strive to keep the playing field level for everyone posting in the Café. I would hope that with turnabout being fair play, that posters in this thread might consider the same, and play their own part in setting the standard for the forum.

Lovely Bloke

mike_ie, instead of pretending I posted something I didn't, how about you address the issues in my post.

Are you stating that no moderator in that forum is soapboxing?

If you are then your claims are absolutely incredulous, and tantamount to more wagon circling.

Feedback you don't want to hear or accept is still Feedback.

Look pal, I'm well used to being attacked round these parts in some kind of effort to discredit my Feedback, you're not the first to try it, and likely won't be the last.

Lovely Bloke

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The issue between you and For Reals was not the absence of proof from either of you, it was your disagreement of what it meant to suffer austerity. You believed that a pay cut constituted suffering austerity whereas For Reals believed that a simply pay cut was not sufficient to be considered suffering austerity if you were still paid a lot. Differing opinions don't necessarily mean one is right and one is wrong.

Absolutely nothing in this post reflects the actuality of what went on in that thread over the last few days, nothing.

Another wagon in the circle.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lovely Bloke

I stopped reading his post when his opening gambit was to try to discredit my feedback with a personal attack.