Moderation of boards as a whole.

Miike

Before I start, I think I should preface this with the purpose I'm hoping this thread serves - A somewhat healthy discussion on moderation actions on threads that is seen across every forum on boards.ie. Noting that I am not going to seek out every thread that is subject to the conditions I highlight in this thread, I'm sure there are plenty of examples, both good and bad.

Anyway, at what point does moderator action serve no real purpose other than to stifle or stop discussions on a discussion forum? I understand that threads going wildly off-topic is a thing and that sometimes some posters will make facetious, fallacious or just out right inaccurate claims in posts but instead of highlighting this and allowing open discussions on the posts - the threads end up locked. If threads serve to simply have a question answered and are locked when a moderator just deems it so, I feel as though it seriously hampers healthy discussions on the topic or peripheral ideas on the general topic being discussed. Conversation has a flow and often veers off-topic but is that not just natural? That people want tie other ideas together as part of the complex nature of discussion?

I've seen this happen on countless threads over the years but generally it hasn't bothered me but the more I scratch beneath the surface of my observations, the less I feel enthused to engage on boards.

Example thread (non-specific, but for the purpose of discussion): https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057984207&page=9

I feel as though the above thread thread was of actual interest in hearing how other people would respond to or react to this situation but it's now just locked... 'because'.

I sincerely hope there's a chance that people will want to discuss this as it seems 'over moderation' is often met with stone wall, brutish reactions in the appeals sections.

Any thoughts?

Miike

Miike wrote: »

Any thoughts?

After a week of radio silence from Boards, I guess not.

oholly121

Thinking that the possibility of saying anything negative about mods on this forum could have one ended up banned

Might explain the lack of input and replies !!

Miike

oholly121 wrote: »

Thinking that the possibility of saying anything negative about mods on this forum could have one ended up banned

I would sincerely hope not. I don't think there's need to target a specific mod or anything but just to have a plain and simple discussion on moderation rationale, which to be fair should stand up to logical scrutiny.

Boards.ie: Mark

Hi Miike,

In this instance, from my reading, the OP asked for advice (rather than discussion) and got plenty of insight from users. The thread veered off topic as a Moderator warned and it was later locked by a different Mod with a specific and clear message that "the OP has gotten sufficient advice on how to deal with the situation they find themselves in". They also left it possible for the thread to be reopened if the OP wanted to hear anymore or was interested in a more general discussion.

Generally speaking, Moderators do try to leave threads run and have taken previous feedback on board in relation to this. Sometimes, it's best to contact Mods individually when there are specific instances to get their take and to try to come to an understanding.

Worztron

Most mods seem fine but a select few are truly awful.

Gimme A Pound

After Hours is a joke. Barely a **** given. There is a person posting "scum" over and over just to wind people up. It's surely a given that that nonsense is nipped in the bud, but nah...

Threads get locked and moved for no reason all right though.

Another "new" person whose username is (a misspelling of) that of the actor who played Charles Ingalls in Little House On The Prairie, and there's another account which is... Charles Ingles. Same avatar, same trolling... yet both still here. One account only I thought?

And as for the woman hating... pity to see a poster Kiki Larue close her account because of it.

Boards.ie: Niamh

That user has received a forum ban from AH for those posts (for the 'scum' comments). I'll have a look at the other accounts now.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

After Hours is a joke. Barely a **** given. There is a person posting "scum" over and over just to wind people up. It's surely a given that that nonsense is nipped in the bud, but nah...

Threads get locked and moved for no reason all right though.

Another "new" person whose username is (a misspelling of) that of the actor who played Charles Ingalls in Little House On The Prairie, and there's another account which is... Charles Ingles. Same avatar, same trolling... yet both still here. One account only I thought?

And as for the woman hating... pity to see a poster Kiki Larue close her account because of it.

I know. There’s a post still up in a thread in AH that is openly attacking the poster and not the post. In a really hyperbolic way. It’s impossible to miss. There is no ambiguity. And it has not been infracted or anything. Nothing. I’m not going to post a link to it here or anything (don’t think that’s permitted and I’d probably receive a warning or infraction fairly sharpish. :rolleyes:) but I’ve reported it three times. The first two times, I just said “Attacking the post and not the poster”. The last report was along the lines of “Lads, seriously”.

Loud and clear, I guess, that it will not be subject to an infraction but then what are the charter guidelines for?

I get the impression that the AH mods are overwhelmed. There is probably not enough hours in the day. That’s the only explanation I can think of for a blatantly insulting post going uninfracted or being otherwise not dealt with. But all solutions got summarily dismissed in the AH feedback thread. As Kiki pithily put it, there was a problem for every solution. I do admit that I’m finding it all quite fascinating at this point.

Faugheen

CMods and Admin really need to be stepping in in AH. I know they all have their own stuff to deal with but AH is being left to run like a circus because there’s simply too much for the mods there to deal with.

For example, there’s still loads of posts about the complainant in the Belfast rape trial falsely accused them because they were found not guilty. That’s plain wrong.

I’m all for opinions, but people shouldn’t be allowed to make up their own facts like above and leave boards open to a libel suit.

The reason is because there’s so many threads that are complete fungal infections that need to be cleaned up.

There’s no basis for people getting warned/infracted for posting fake news and alternative facts. They’re just allowed to under the premise of ‘views’.

end of the road

Faugheen wrote: »

CMods and Admin really need to be stepping in in AH. I know they all have their own stuff to deal with but AH is being left to run like a circus because there’s simply too much for the mods there to deal with.

For example, there’s still loads of posts about the complainant in the Belfast rape trial falsely accused them because they were found not guilty. That’s plain wrong.

I’m all for opinions, but people shouldn’t be allowed to make up their own facts like above and leave boards open to a libel suit.

if there is anything that would leave boards open to a case, it would already be removed. i believe such matters are prioritised in terms of mod/cmod/admin action?

Faugheen wrote: »

The reason is because there’s so many threads that are complete fungal infections that need to be cleaned up.

or it's because there isn't a lot there that does actually need mod action, rather people don't agree or like what is being said and want the mods to get rid of it, which is perfectly fine, but not liking something doesn't automatically make it against the rules.
there is no reason the community can't deal with the idiots and debunk them so that the mods can actually moderate. that was how this forum operated.
there are 10 mods with apparently a couple of more coming so there is plenty available if there is a serious problem. but the userbase are going to have to step up to the plate as well.

Faugheen wrote: »

There’s no basis for people getting warned/infracted for posting fake news and alternative facts. They’re just allowed to under the premise of ‘views’.

the community can deal with that and other issues perfectly well. or at least we used to be able to do so.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I know. There’s a post still up in a thread in AH that is openly attacking the poster and not the post. In a really hyperbolic way. It’s impossible to miss. There is no ambiguity. And it has not been infracted or anything. Nothing. I’m not going to post a link to it here or anything (don’t think that’s permitted and I’d probably receive a warning or infraction fairly sharpish. :rolleyes:) but I’ve reported it three times. The first two times, I just said “Attacking the post and not the poster”. The last report was along the lines of “Lads, seriously”.

Loud and clear, I guess, that it will not be subject to an infraction but then what are the charter guidelines for?

I get the impression that the AH mods are overwhelmed. There is probably not enough hours in the day. That’s the only explanation I can think of for a blatantly insulting post going uninfracted or being otherwise not dealt with. But all solutions got summarily dismissed in the AH feedback thread. As Kiki pithily put it, there was a problem for every solution. I do admit that I’m finding it all quite fascinating at this point.

theres a couple dozen posts matching this description

be some squeals if the mods actioned them all

Beasty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I get the impression that the AH mods are overwhelmed. There is probably not enough hours in the day. That’s the only explanation I can think of for a blatantly insulting post going uninfracted or being otherwise not dealt with. But all solutions got summarily dismissed in the AH feedback thread. As Kiki pithily put it, there was a problem for every solution. I do admit that I’m finding it all quite fascinating at this point.

I've just had a look at the post you reported and would note the poster was permanently banned from AH later that day

I appreciate there was no note left to that effect, but the mods did act based on a number of reports including your own

Hoboo

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

After Hours is a joke. Barely a **** given. There is a person posting "scum" over and over just to wind people up. It's surely a given that that nonsense is nipped in the bud, but nah...

Threads get locked and moved for no reason all right though.

Another "new" person whose username is (a misspelling of) that of the actor who played Charles Ingalls in Little House On The Prairie, and there's another account which is... Charles Ingles. Same avatar, same trolling... yet both still here. One account only I thought?

And as for the woman hating... pity to see a poster Kiki Larue close her account because of it.

Kiki Larue gone? Good luck to her, off to bang her man hating drum elsewhere. I thought she was a wind up.

dudara

Hoboo wrote: »

Kiki Larue gone? Good luck to her, off to bang her man hating drum elsewhere. I thought she was a wind up.

The Boards Terms of Use state that you must not “treat others with disrespect”.

This is the feedback forum, please try to give relevant Feedback rather than get in pot shots at posters who have closed their accounts.

Gimme A Pound

Boards.ie: Niamh wrote: »

That user has received a forum ban from AH for those posts (for the 'scum' comments). I'll have a look at the other accounts now.

Apologies Niamh - that took place before my post above.

Beasty wrote: »

I've just had a look at the post you reported and would note the poster was permanently banned from AH later that day

I appreciate there was no note left to that effect, but the mods did act based on a number of reports including your own

Thanks Beasty. Maybe if it was noted on thread, as these actions are being missed and sometimes it's necessary (in lots of things) to be seen to be doing something.

Gimme A Pound

Hoboo wrote: »

Kiki Larue gone? Good luck to her, off to bang her man hating drum elsewhere. I thought she was a wind up.

To me she just seemed to be complaining about hostility towards women rather than being hostile to men. You can have one without the other.

Two fathers' day threads were started, not to celebrate fathers but to have a go at women. That's how some of the posters are, and it's what Kiki meant. Looks like actioning occurred re a fathers' day thread anyway - fair play.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

To me she just seemed to be complaining about hostility towards women rather than being hostile to men. You can have one without the other.

Two fathers' day threads were started, not to celebrate fathers but to have a go at women. That's how some of the posters are, and it's what Kiki meant. Looks like actioning occurred re a fathers' day thread anyway - fair play.

Aye, she was vocal but articulate. Her posts made a lot of sense to me!

Kimsang

dudara wrote: »

The Boards Terms of Use state that you must not “treat others with disrespect”.

This is the feedback forum, please try to give relevant Feedback rather than get in pot shots at posters who have closed their accounts.

The hypocrisy of some mods is the problem. I see it in the most engaging threads on this forum(AH). Even the rules are gendered in nature, "Don't be a dick", what is the female equivalent of this? Would it be bad to call someone this word?

As another poster alluded to, the infractions are STILL all there for all to see, go back over any popular thread and you can see. Seeing what is banned and what is left up reveals massive political bias.

I've had shots leveled at me in this thread as well, no one was jumping to my defence like you were with kiklarue(No mods anyway). I posted in my feedback thread about KiKilaRue, because she decided to post there about me first.

Its understandable if some people close their accounts, because they're not getting what they want, but what about those whose opinions are being stifled?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Beasty wrote: »

I've just had a look at the post you reported and would note the poster was permanently banned from AH later that day

I appreciate there was no note left to that effect, but the mods did act based on a number of reports including your own

There should be some kind of note, just so we know we’re not reporting in vain. The times I checked, the poster hadn’t been banned even. That must have happened afterwards but I’d stopped checking by then.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Kimsang wrote: »

The hypocrisy of some mods is the problem. I see it in the most engaging threads on this forum(AH). Even the rules are gendered in nature, "Don't be a dick", what is the female equivalent of this? Would it be bad to call someone this word?

As another poster alluded to, the infractions are STILL all there for all to see, go back over any popular thread and you can see. Seeing what is banned and what is left up reveals massive political bias.

I've had shots leveled at me in this thread as well, no one was jumping to my defence like you were with kiklarue(No mods anyway). I posted in my feedback thread about KiKilaRue, because she decided to post there about me first.

Its understandable if some people close their accounts, because they're not getting what they want, but what about those whose opinions are being stifled?

Yeah, infractions always remain next to a post. That’s always been the way. I’m glad they do, it saves people from wondering if an egregious post was ever actioned.

I’ve been infracted myself. You just have to accept that if you’re infracted, that card will remain next to the post.

Kimsang

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yeah, infractions always remain next to a post. .

I mean infractions that have been made, that haven't been identified by moderators or have been ignored.

Seeing what is banned and what is left up reveals massive political bias.

McMurphy

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yeah, infractions always remain next to a post. That’s always been the way. I’m glad they do, it saves people from wondering if an egregious post was ever actioned.

I’ve been infracted myself. You just have to accept that if you’re infracted, that card will remain next to the post.

Not always the case, you can be infracted, and the post can subsequently be deleted.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Kimsang wrote: »

I mean infractions that have been made, that haven't been identified by moderators or have been ignored.

I have no idea what this means.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Not always the case, you can be infracted, and the post can subsequently be deleted.

Well of course if the post is deleted, the infraction card goes with it. I meant posts that are infracted and aren’t deleted. I didn’t think I’d have to specify that.

Kimsang

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I have no idea what this means.

I mean to say some people commit offences, crimes, infractions, misdemeanours or whatever you'd like to call them, that are not deemed as such by moderators. There is bias in the policing.

If two people are fighting, and an arbiter arrives to settle the dispute, but only punishes one person. Both parties have made an infraction, but only one party's infraction has been punished.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Kimsang wrote: »

I mean to say some people commit offences, crimes, infractions, misdemeanours or whatever you'd like to call them, that are not deemed as such by moderators. There is bias in the policing.

If two people are fighting, and an arbiter arrives to settle the dispute, but only punishes one person. Both parties have made an infraction, but only one party's infraction has been punished.

Not necessarily. Two people can be arguing but only one might cross the line into personal attacks or whatever else gets one over the line. Just because there is back-and-forth between two users, doesn’t mean they’re as bad as each other.

Dial Hard

Genuine question, is blatant trolling a breach of the site rules??? Or is it only a problem if they're a re-reg and have been banned for it previously?

Thanks.

dudara

The ToU don’t explicitly definite trolling, but it does ask people not to...

post irrelevant Material, repeatedly post the same or similar Material or otherwise impose an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the boards.ie servers or infrastructure

IMO, and when combined with other aspects of the ToU, this constitutes trolling.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Not necessarily. Two people can be arguing but only one might cross the line into personal attacks or whatever else gets one over the line. Just because there is back-and-forth between two users, doesn’t mean they’re as bad as each other.

I don't believe we're talking in generalities here

infractions and warnings are following politicised lines in my experience

in many peoples experience, i think

opinions are being moderated and if you are on the right side of an issue you appear to have licence to attack man not post again and again across multiple threads

if you are the wrong side of an issue you get zero leeway (and we have all seen dispute threads where its clear enough from the offence that a mod was waiting to pounce)

and thats just the infractions people appeal and bring public, and honestly why would you bother?

report the post. see zero effect. see the same type of behaviour from posters on the other side of the debate get actioned in the meantime.

see the posters who get away with constant breaches untouched screaming that after hours is a cesspit and how horrible everyone else is.

its a problem, and i mean i try to be an upbeat type of chap who gives the mods the benefit of the doubt in whats a tough job.

Tokyo

Dial Hard wrote: »

Genuine question, is blatant trolling a breach of the site rules??? Or is it only a problem if they're a re-reg and have been banned for it previously?

Thanks.

The fundamental problem is that trolling is virtually indistinguishable from idiocy, and we don't have any rules against being an idiot. A further problem is that many of these people are both at once.

So at times, it's a judgement call. Innocuous idiocy could potentially be mitigated by a few mod notes, warnings and/or infractions, insofar as the person involved would then be aware that their posting style was not in line with board rules and could act to avoid future warnings, whereas trolls will deliberately continue with the same obnoxious behaviour.

TL;DR:
Sometimes the banhammer is needed, and sometimes the best course of action is to hand out a rope and see how good they are at noose-tying.

Beasty

I would just add that sometimes it may be appropriate to warn either in-thread or via PM that if a poster continues in a particular vein they may be banned. Then if and when the ban hammer does come down they really have little excuse

In cases of blatant trolling though it's easier to warn/infract/ban without having given any advance warning

delly

Hello fellow boards users. This thread happened to be top of my specific filter and having read through most of it, I thought I'd give an opinion from a mod that gets very little traffic on the mod front.

I suppose to be clear from the outset, most of my mod actions occur based on reports, so I think it important to know that a lot of what can seen as unnecessary mod actions, actually come from a similar level of expectations from the user base. I get reported posts if a user has a similar thread in another forum, I get reports of someone posting to an old thread with requests to lock it, I get reports of bullying when someone has been told to cop on in a thread, I get reports of off topic posts or lock requests.

All of the above are expectations of what should be mod intervention, but for me personally would by and large not be. I don't see a point in locking a thread if it has run it's course, it doesn't bother me if someone wants to ask about a similar issue someone else had a year ago, and no, I'm not going to reprimand someone for being a little annoyed at someone else's opinion once they are not doing so in an abusive way. My main philosophy is one which we all know and that's 'don't be a dick'. You can't go to far wrong with it, but there are some folk who would like to dissect every action for whatever their respective reasons are.

OldMrBrennan83

Look at the 2019 Senior Football Championship thread. Moderator, who inputs zero to the actual thread, rocks up two hours ago, locks the thread for "cleanup", and promptly pisses off leaving it closed. Absolutely ridiculous on what was a hugely busy weekend for the SFC.
If a moderator has no interest in moderating then why are they doing it at all?

jobbridge4life

If a individual compares you, in an unambiguously derogatory manner, to the father of a convicted murderer on boards.ie should that post be subject to a warning? Or deleted?

Most especially when that same poster has called for the other children of that convicted murderer's Father to be removed immediately?

Beasty

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If a individual compares you, in an unambiguously derogatory manner, to the father of a convicted murderer on boards.ie should that post be subject to a warning? Or deleted?

Most especially when that same poster has called for the other children of that convicted murderer's Father to be removed immediately?

My understanding is this is a specific complaint about the actions of a specific Administrator in the Ana Kriegel thread in Current Affairs. This (Feedback) forum is for site-wide feedback. I understand the Admin has requested you contact the Boards office over your concerns. Please do that rather than continuing to try and draw attention to this here

Thanks

Beasty

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Look at the 2019 Senior Football Championship thread. Moderator, who inputs zero to the actual thread, rocks up two hours ago, locks the thread for "cleanup", and promptly pisses off leaving it closed. Absolutely ridiculous on what was a hugely busy weekend for the SFC.
If a moderator has no interest in moderating then why are they doing it at all?

I've just had a look at this. It's a forum-specific complaint that should be taken up directly with the relevant Mods and/or CMods

I would just add here that there were a large number of reports about the thread before it was closed. The thread is now re-opened. If you wish to take this further once you have attempted to resolve your concerns with Mods/CMods please start a thread in Help Desk

Thanks

Tokyo

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If a individual compares you, in an unambiguously derogatory manner, to the father of a convicted murderer on boards.ie should that post be subject to a warning? Or deleted?

Most especially when that same poster has called for the other children of that convicted murderer's Father to be removed immediately?

I just took a look at this. A couple of things jump out.

1. From the perspective of the site, you're an anonymous online username. Anonymous online usernames can't be defamed.

2. Looking at the post itself, it seems to be a textbook definition of the use of hyperbole to get a point across.

Kimsang

mike_ie wrote: »

I just took a look at this. A couple of things jump out.

1. From the perspective of the site, you're an anonymous online username. Anonymous online usernames can't be defamed.

2. Looking at the post itself, it seems to be a textbook definition of the use of hyperbole to get a point across.

Would calling someone a 'fascist' not be a textbook definition of the use of hyperbole to get a point across?

Tokyo

Kimsang wrote: »

Would calling someone a 'fascist' not be a textbook definition of the use of hyperbole to get a point across?

Still banging that drum? You had the opportunity to discuss this in DRP, but you chose not to engage civilly.

Either way, your usage of the word, according to your DRP post was:

How dare you make such an accusation you authoritarian FASCIST... Enjoy your echo chamber you fascist.

where your explanation was:

I was using it in its very real context.

...so no, that's not hyperbole. You stated as much yourself.

Kimsang

This was also posted earlier in that thread, apologies as I can't quote correctly.

Originally Posted by Nobelium
Calling something homophobic is not actual evidence that the motivation was homophobia. No evidence has been presented yet that their motivation was homophobic. Have you got any actual evidence yet ? post it up.

Originally Posted by Skylinehead
Mod: The victims said it was. The police said it was. If your next post isn't sufficiently sourcing your claims that it isn't homophobic, I will ban you for clogging this thread up with your ****.

Originally Posted by Nobelium
I didn't say it was or wasn't homophobic. What I said was I've yet to see any evidence that their actual motivation was homophobia, if you've got any you are welcome to contribute. Calling something homophobic is not actual evidence their motivation was homophobia

Originally Posted by Skylinehead
Well, I warned you. Goodbye.

Nobelium was banned

Then I replied, when I saw skylinehead act like an authoritarian

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinehead
Mod: The victims said it was. The police said it was. If your next post isn't sufficiently sourcing your claims that it isn't homophobic, I will ban you for clogging this thread up with your ****.

Originally Post by Kimsang
Please take a look at these stories of some innocent men, and how the 'victims' and the police treated them.
The police said they were guilty.
The 'victims' said they were guilty.

Unfortunately, victim-hood has become ingrained in our culture.
Nothing has yet been proven in a court of law in this case.
Your authoritarianism is showing.

The next time I see skylinehead he had closed my other thread and posted in this thread

Don't post here anymore. Your other thread was deleted for reasons of being utterly stupid

This easily fact-checked here.
Also please note the mod posted only 3 times in the entire thread, completely ignoring civil discourse after such a careless shift of the burden of proof.

"How dare you make such an accusation you authoritarian FASCIST... Enjoy your echo chamber you fascist."

Actually reads:

What do you mean 'don't post here'. I'm posting relevant information to the topic on hand, highlighting hypocrisy of posters and you want to ban me. Enjoy your echo chamber, but don't call me when everything goes tits up for you.

Find one post of mine that is not relevant to the discussion on hand, or where i'm being utterly stupid. How dare you make such an accusation you authoritarian FASCIST..

I am still waiting for a link to a post where I was being 'utterly stupid' I clearly resent that remark.

This is me behaving 'uncivilly' enough to get my thread silenced/locked.

I believe if my point is proved to be correct, and certainly from my current point of view - there is no other more accurate description in this circumstance.
If you can find me a more accurate descriptor for describing these exact traits I will concede your point.

The very definition of hyperbole is an exaggeration. An exaggeration of the truth

Tokyo

You're equivocating at this stage. In one thread you argue that you posted in the literal sense of the word, now you're claiming to have posted in hyperbole. You had a chance to argue your usage of "fascist" in DRP, you ignored instructions there to engage civilly, so I'm not going to allow this thread to be taken over by DRP-dressed-up-as-feedback.

With respect to the posts you quoted, I enjoy a good heated ideological debate as much as the next man, but one thing I've learned over the years is that there are some posters that never argue in good faith, spewing the same tired BS every time the subject comes up. There's no point in debating them, because they will never acknowledge the flaws in their facts and their arguments. I've given up on it myself, because life's too short to be continually refuting the same mix of delusion and dishonesty. In this case, the poster was asked repeatedly to back up his opinions with facts and from what I've seen, when pressed, his response has mostly been "nuh uh." I can see why the mod in question called time on it - such conduct does not help advance debates.

Since you insist on pressing the issue, let me confirm to you that the poster's stance on it being a homophobic attack (maybe/maybe not/who really knows) was ridiculously stupid. Having looked at the mod warning, I don't think any reasonable person could disagree with them. That being said, I'd like to think that when I'm wearing my mod hat, I'd take a less inflammatory tone, if for no other reason than to rise above it, as such conduct does not help advance debates either. And I will speak to the mod team about that in the near future.

Walter Bishop

What is the stance on people who will typically post in the Politics forum with several links, generally phrase a post as a press release, and then ignore any and all questions or debate that anyone tries to have with them? They then disappear for anywhere for a few days to a few weeks until popping up again with the same shtick.

dudara

Walter Bishop wrote: »

What is the stance on people who will typically post in the Politics forum with several links, generally phrase a post as a press release, and then ignore any and all questions or debate that anyone tries to have with them? They then disappear for anywhere for a few days to a few weeks until popping up again with the same shtick.

I believe that I know to whom you are referring. This is a specific issue, so should be raised to the CMods, or addressed in the Help Desk.

The standard approach is to report to the mods. Should that fail, contact the CMods.

mike_ie

mike_ie wrote: »

Since you insist on pressing the issue, let me confirm to you that the poster's stance on it being a homophobic attack (maybe/maybe not/who really knows) was ridiculously stupid. Having looked at the mod warning, I don't think any reasonable person could disagree with them.

this is how that thread was modded, certainly.

it raises the question of consistency, modding to behaviour and not the argument, and (pointedly in this instance) the rights and wrongs of moderation doing the heavy lifting when an argument reaches an impasse

worth declaring my own interest tbf: i was infracted in that thread for describing a post as a tantrum

out of context, bang to rights. couldn't argue with the mod

in context of the posts in that thread from both sides (but mainly, frankly, the other side) it was pretty ridiculous.

so what can one do?

disagree and argue in reasonable faith with an unpopular/'wrong' opinion and you're going to take the brunt when a mod has to clean up

you arent allowed, if we're honest, to point to context or to provocation.

so you start reporting. report it all. report report report. sauce for goose is sauce for gander and all that.

and .... zip. nada.

so we have conversations where breach and stretching of charter is moderated in a skew-whiff basis, and the result (in my instance, presumin im typical) where you get stung and think hang on, this doesnt pass a smell test and you create ten times the work for mods because if the bar is that low for you then it should be that low for everyone

and, well, ive started a thread in feedback about the black hole of modding once you know for sure that posts have been reported that seem clear breaches which have seen certain posters thumped and nothing happens

and that's where we are imo

ironically imo the posters allowed to consistently abuse and ad-hom because they are 'right' (they just are, mannn) are the very same demanding that the opinions they disagree with are barred from the site completely.

id say the site is doing its best to do this in ten soft ways but is avoiding just dropping a hammer based on ideology alone.

its just gonna take a little longer.

Eggonyerface

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Look at the 2019 Senior Football Championship thread. Moderator, who inputs zero to the actual thread, rocks up two hours ago, locks the thread for "cleanup", and promptly pisses off leaving it closed. Absolutely ridiculous on what was a hugely busy weekend for the SFC.
If a moderator has no interest in moderating then why are they doing it at all?

This was rediculous,I was enjoying catching up on the thread after the Dublin match and it was just point blank closed when it should have been hopping. In my opinion locking threads when they're at their most popular is a sure-fire way to send people elsewhere for discussion elsewhere in future

Eggonyerface

Beasty wrote: »

I've just had a look at this. It's a forum-specific complaint that should be taken up directly with the relevant Mods and/or CMods

I would just add here that there were a large number of reports about the thread before it was closed. The thread is now re-opened. If you wish to take this further once you have attempted to resolve your concerns with Mods/CMods please start a thread in Help Desk

Thanks

Sorry in my rush to throw my oar in I didn't see this until after I made my previous post

Kimsang

mike_ie wrote: »

With respect to the posts you quoted, I enjoy a good heated ideological debate as much as the next man, but one thing I've learned over the years is that there are some posters that never argue in good faith, spewing the same tired BS every time the subject comes up. There's no point in debating them, because they will never acknowledge the flaws in their facts and their arguments.

Since you insist on pressing the issue, let me confirm to you that the poster's stance on it being a homophobic attack (maybe/maybe not/who really knows) was ridiculously stupid. Having looked at the mod warning, I don't think any reasonable person could disagree with them. That being said, I'd like to think that when I'm wearing my mod hat, I'd take a less inflammatory tone, if for no other reason than to rise above it, as such conduct does not help advance debates either. And I will speak to the mod team about that in the near future.

I appreciate that you will speak to the mod team about this in the future. That's all I ever wanted. But something still doesn't sit right with me.

It seems you have taken two stances here, one that the moderators have indeed stopped a heated ideological debate.

The other that it was in fact "posters not arguing in good faith" who are 'ridiculously stupid' and 'how could any reasonable person agree with them'

Now it was either an heated ideological discussion with people arguing in good faith, or not. Which was it? Lets specifically talk about what I posted. What I posted about Nobelium and I, was this arguing in good faith? Was this 'ridiculously stupid' and would 'every reasonable person disagree with us'? (<edit> because my comments after nobeliums banning received a bit of thanks from very reasonable people </edit>)

SirGerryAdams

<snip>

Beasty

@SirGerryAdams

You have not been on the site for the minimum 3 months required for posting in the Feedback forum. Do not post again in the forum until you have reached that threshold.

The Help Desk forum is available if you have any specific site or forum issues to raise

Thanks

kimsang and i are, i think, trying to make the same broad point.

i presume we're both sincere, and i think it's quite an important one, but its possible that this isnt the consensus at the decision making level

if the response is no response, or "everyone thinks they're the victim of inconsistent modding" can a mod/admin blink once and I'll never ask again (until the next time).

Tokyo

Deleted User wrote: »

if the response is no response, or "everyone thinks they're the victim of inconsistent modding" can a mod/admin blink once and I'll never ask again (until the next time).

Please appreciate that with real-life events such as work, sickness and other things that I'm sure happens in your own day, we sometimes may not be able to jump through whatever hoops people hold up on a timely basis. I've made a distinct effort to reply to the points you have raised so far, as have other admin. Right now I'm sitting in front of a not inconsiderable amount of work to get through. We'll get to your latest post in due course too.