Can we talk about AH?

dulpit

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What if you are born a white male and take pride in being so?

Not sure how that addresses the original point. If you are super proud of your white maleness - off with you. If, however, your pride in being in the majority results in you posting rubbish in AH regarding how yours is better than somebody else on something they cannot control (e.g. the colour of their skin, the country they are born in, their ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc), that should be nipped in the bud.

klaaaz

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Honestly it’s very hard not to get caught up in it and be civilized to someone when they are consistently posting anti-women, anti-traveller, anti-Muslim threads.

It’s not a side of myself I like but it’s very difficult not to bite back sometimes.

So now you see what it's like dealing with that bunch in AH The same bunch who have a problem with women also have a special vitriol for trans people, specifically trans women, not trans men. Spot the trend!

Omackeral

Blueshoe wrote: »

Why does there need to be moderation?

Look at YouTube comments and you'll see. For example, on a video of someone un-boxing a blender you'll see the N-word.

Pawwed Rig

Omackeral wrote: »

Look at YouTube comments and you'll see. For example, on a video of someone un-boxing a blender you'll see the N-word.

This exactly. Unmoderated forums are hellholes.

Reati

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

About 50% of people are reregs at this stage.

Its amazing how much of the abusive posting in AH are from accounts that where recently registered in the last few months. It's at the pint where I just look at the created date now and don't bother replying if it's a newer account with a massive postcount.

Apogee

Reati wrote: »

Its amazing how much of the abusive posting in AH are from accounts that where recently registered in the last few months. It's at the pint where I just look at the created date now and don't bother replying if it's a newer account with a massive postcount.

I will repeat a suggestion I made previously regarding AH and trolling by re-regs. Put a 3 or 6 month quarantine on any new user before they can post in AH - you could also stipulate a minimum number of posts in other forums.

It won't stop them entirely, but it will slow down the most egregious behaviour.

klaaaz

To be fair, i've noticed a few re-regs of the "alt-right" or the "Irish version of it" persuasion today and the mods quickly acted to remove them. They were posters who were out to attack vulnerable groups rather than to engage in discussion.

Sweetemotion

I don't think it's fair to use "these" re-regs as a sign of a rise of the far right on boards. It's more than likely just one sad individual getting his jollys from it and the mods on the most part are quick to deal with it. It's impossible for them to read every post and be here 24/7.

Pawwed Rig

Apogee wrote: »

I will repeat a suggestion I made previously regarding AH and trolling by re-regs. Put a 3 or 6 month quarantine on any new user before they can post in AH - you could also stipulate a minimum number of posts in .

It would solve the AH problem alright but most likely destroy the site. I don't know what percentage of posts on the site are AH posts but I would guess at 30% +. AH definitely has the most reported posts (being about 90% of the rpm in the fora that I am charged with).

Sweetemotion

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It would solve the AH problem alright but most likely destroy the site. I don't know what percentage of posts on the site are AH posts but I would guess at 30% +. AH definitely has the most reported posts (being about 90% of the rpm in the fora that I am charged with).

At a guess, how many would be reported for someone simply holding a different opinion from the reporter?

Pawwed Rig

Sweetemotion wrote: »

At a guess, how many would be reported for someone simply holding a different opinion from the reporter?

I wouldn't know tbh. One of the AH mods could probably say. I get notifications of reported posts from all of the fora I cmod. There wouldn't be enough hours in the day to look at them all.

end of the road

Sweetemotion wrote: »

At a guess, how many would be reported for someone simply holding a different opinion from the reporter?

a good question to be fair. all though i think realistically it's probably not possible to give a difinitive answer, given that only the person reporting the post is likely to be the only one who would know if they are reporting it because they simply disagree with someone. i would imagine they don't put in the box that they are reporting it because they disagree with someone, or maybe some actually have done that?
my personal opinion is that reporting for such reasons happens quite a bit.

Sweetemotion

end of the road wrote: »

a good question to be fair. all though i think realistically it's probably not possible to give a difinitive answer, given that only the person reporting the post is likely to be the only one who would know if they are reporting it because they simply disagree with someone. i would imagine they don't put in the box that they are reporting it because they disagree with someone, or maybe some actually have done that?
my personal opinion is that reporting for such reasons happens quite a bit.

I get carded for being a dick and uncivil to other posters. Some on this thread think they shouldn't and find it an insult. It has to work both ways.

You yourself take a lot crap from other posters but I bet you have never reported anyone.

klaaaz

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to use "these" re-regs as a sign of a rise of the far right on boards. It's more than likely just one sad individual getting his jollys from it and the mods on the most part are quick to deal with it. It's impossible for them to read every post and be here 24/7.

They often do. There are two types, the first do reg and spout their nonsense to get a reaction for a small number of months and then disappear after closing their accounts and then come back under a different username.(the cycle continues)
Then the 2nd type, they get extremely upset like a baby throwing their toys outta the pram after extensive engaging on a few threads, get carded and banned after a longer period while posting. Both types have always being the majority of that "alt-right" who often try to influence opinion and do not even live in this country.

Faugheen

Belfast rape trial thread.

I'm providing legal facts yet the experts are allowed to spread lies in the thread.

This has been ongoing throughout that thread. I'm accused of saying they're guilty (despite saying multiple times not guilty is the right verdict) but yet they're allowed to say 'the jury thought everything was consensual and she was lying' yet they go unpunished and they're allowed express that 'view' as a fact, when it's an absolute lie and an assumption, and legally very, very dangerous.

Again, there's having 'views' and there's people arguing with actual facts and making stuff up to suit a provocative narrative.

People just refuse to actually engage and read posts properly, and dramatise their posts to make people actually providing facts look like they're saying something they're not.

I've reported a few posts before realising I'm wasting my time. There's **** like that in so many threads that mods simply have too much to do and it will just get missed.

Boom_Bap

In relation to the minimum post count for AH, I should remind people that this type of thing has turned other previously busy fora into Ghost Towns and it's still being grumbled about, even on this thread....yes, I'm talking about the PCV2.0 restrictions


If it was put in place for AH, folk will be jumping to other fora to build a post count, which is not fair to other forums.


There will always be rereg's on a public forum. The best thing to do is keep reporting them.

Boards.ie: Niamh

I've been off for a week, I haven't had a chance to catch up on this thread yet but it seems we're now discussing cases before the courts? Absolutely not. I'm closing the thread until I have time to clean it up and see if it's worth re-opening.

Thanks for the genuine feedback given so far.

EDIT: it's been brought to my attention that the post I referred to was not about a case before the courts - I thought it was something else, apologies. Please see my first point about not having caught up yet on a week worth of posts yet.