Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Moderation of boards as a whole.

2456710

Comments



  • 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.




  • 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?




  • 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?




  • 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




  • 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


  • Advertisement


  • 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.




  • 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?




  • 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.




  • 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




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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.




  • 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 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.




  • 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




  • 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




  • 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>)




  • <snip>




  • @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).




  • snoopsheep 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.


  • Advertisement


  • fair enough!




  • Kimsang wrote: »
    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>)

    Okay, I'm not going to continue debating the intent of another poster's posts beyond this (that's what DRP is for), but I have read the exchange in question, and here's how it boiled down to me:

    Posters in thread: Some useful discussion, some pointless whataboutery.
    Nobelium: Pointless whataboutery.
    Posters in thread: Stop the pointless whataboutery, everyone, or take it elsewhere.
    Nobelium: Pointless whataboutery.
    Skylinehead [modding]: Lets move it along. Back up your pointless whataboutery, or let it go.
    Nobelium: nuh uh. More pointless whataboutery
    Skylinehead [modding]: Okie dokie then.
    Nobelium: Help, I'm being oppressed!!

    Now, also bear in mind that this had been their sole response to any discussion of this topic, which went on for about half a day from what I can see. But that aside, if a poster has a genuine perspective from people outside of the "mainstream" feedback loops that's fine. However, it's worth considering that when your world view is outside of the mainstream, when you offer your views you're going to need to provide us with something more than just you saying it. Try providing us with cites for these unorthodox views that are being posted.

    Now, I didn't mod the thread, and am just reading through it now, so this is my personal opinion as a poster on this site (which I'm sure will be jumped on as an example of bias), it was clear he wasn’t interested in meaningful participation, so we're gone well beyond ideological discussion, and well into the realm of deliberate provocation designed for maximum impact with minimum effort. In other words, ****posting - "posts that are meant to be awkward and irrelevant, aggravating and distracting social media communities from discussing their topic at hand".

    In the ideal world, posters wouldn't get caught up in trying to debate said posts ad infinitum. In the real world however, ideals of 'heated ideological debate' or no, a mod sometimes needs to step in and try and kick the conversation out of this endless feedback loop. Which the mod did in this case. And I believe it was the right call to make.

    I'm calling an end to the discussion on that particular incident - if the poster themselves wants to discuss it, he or she can do so in DRP. But I will sum up with this. Mods and admin don't always get it right, sure. But sometimes, just sometimes, that thumping sound posters hear is not heavy mod jackboots coming down the hall to kick their door in, it's the countless other Boards posters banging their heads against the wall that they wasted their time arguing with them.




  • Well, it's not the answer I wanted, but it is very telling. Thank you for taking time in this matter. Personally I think that the collective should have to work harder to make their arguments rather than just mass reporting to authority.




  • respecting your decision that we shouldnt discuss that specific incident any further, the modding on that thread is a fairly clear example of a controversial topic causing heated debate without reaching a consensus (spinning into further heat, tbh)

    presumably because of the number of posts reported, mods felt action was warranted

    the action was to identify the minority view and moderate it as stringently as possible, finding breaches where possible and (from what *can be seen as a user*) ignoring other clear examples from the majority of precisely the same (frankly, worse) behaviour.

    whether its prompted by the balance of reports or from a decision from an individual or group of moderators is little or no difference, the effect is the same.

    minority argument, while behaving the same as the majority, is moderated differently in order to maintain the mod workload or minimise disagreement

    i resent having to say it but i see the value and requirement for explicitly doing so- this minority opinion is not necessarily the type of (genuine) hatespeech that should be actionable. its disagreeing on terms and definitions very relevant to the discussions on emergent topics of important social interest.

    that thread is a very useful case in point which is why the conversation was frenetic and why a person with an opinion either way would see the other side as merely involved in whataboutery (or a rush to summary judgement in what is always going to be a subjective matter). a mod(s) who is minded to treat one entite side of this kind of tedious but sincere conversation as being in the wrong is, i suggest, modding badly.

    not for me to say thats a bad way to run a message board. it depends on the type of message board you want, really.




  • snoopsheep wrote: »
    minority argument, while behaving the same as the majority, is moderated differently in order to maintain the mod workload or minimise disagreement

    i resent having to say it but i see the value and requirement for explicitly doing so- this minority opinion is not necessarily the type of (genuine) hatespeech that should be actionable. its disagreeing on terms and definitions very relevant to the discussions on emergent topics of important social interest.

    I would honestly say boards is just reflecting society in this respect. Society hasn't always been this way. Its a scary time.




  • snoopsheep wrote: »
    respecting your decision that we shouldnt discuss that specific incident any further, the modding on that thread is a fairly clear example of a controversial topic causing heated debate without reaching a consensus (spinning into further heat, tbh)

    presumably because of the number of posts reported, mods felt action was warranted

    the action was to identify the minority view and moderate it as stringently as possible, finding breaches where possible and (from what *can be seen as a user*) ignoring other clear examples from the majority of precisely the same (frankly, worse) behaviour.

    whether its prompted by the balance of reports or from a decision from an individual or group of moderators is little or no difference, the effect is the same.

    minority argument, while behaving the same as the majority, is moderated differently in order to maintain the mod workload or minimise disagreement

    i resent having to say it but i see the value and requirement for explicitly doing so- this minority opinion is not necessarily the type of (genuine) hatespeech that should be actionable. its disagreeing on terms and definitions very relevant to the discussions on emergent topics of important social interest.

    that thread is a very useful case in point which is why the conversation was frenetic and why a person with an opinion either way would see the other side as merely involved in whataboutery (or a rush to summary judgement in what is always going to be a subjective matter). a mod(s) who is minded to treat one entite side of this kind of tedious but sincere conversation as being in the wrong is, i suggest, modding badly.

    not for me to say thats a bad way to run a message board. it depends on the type of message board you want, really.


    I think there is merit to what you say, though I don't believe to the extent you describe the situation.

    Unpopular opinions are, by definition, unpopular. Therefore, posters who express unpopular opinions get called out at a much higher rate than those whose opinions are popular. And it's quite probable that posts of that nature generate more reported posts - it's simple maths - there are more people of the opposing opinion to report them.

    What I don't agree with though, is that (a) mod simply react to the number of reported posts on a particular post, or (b) the constantly thrown out accusation of mods using (abusing) their position to steer a thread towards a particular point of view. I know I have the luxury of having a broader viewpoint (access to reported posts, mod and CMod forums, posters histories etc.) as admin, but what I see is discussion for both points of view behind the scenes, and mods trying to get the discussion back on track toward being a discussion, and not just a series of foot stomps. To the letter of the word, it's steering the debate, yes, but in the sense of trying to improve it and I think that's a fair use of the mod hat.

    There is the plain reality that posters 'throwing out one-liners and [not] actually participating' (on both sides) is exceptionally common. You and I both would like a world where everyone is rational and well researched and post substantively. In real life that doesn't happen here any more than it happens in real life. So what should be done? In many cases, the members themselves do a more than adequate job of exposing weak arguments. But when that is not enough, part of the moderator's role is to step in and keep some forward momentum in the thread.

    This isn't about unpopular ideas. This is about someone coming to a site specifically because they know that their unpopular ideas will cause conflict, and then specifically refraining from doing anything other than ranting in a manner that can reasonably be expected to do nothing but piss off their targets while not providing a scrap of support for their position and flaming their targets. Frankly, I would love to see more intellectual debate and less whataboutery, more reason and less rhetoric. I bet I'm not alone in that.

    But I do take your point, though I would consider it more of a tangential issue than a one of intent. That is that moderation, particularly when it's not straight boards rules stuff, can give one side of a debate undue weight if not done correctly. I'd say that this can be inadvertent though, rather than a mod deliberately trying to sway an argument in their particular favour, and I don't believe it's as regular an occurrence as people seem to think.

    I would ask for mods to read this and just keep it in the backs of their minds though - it never hurts to be reminded of these things from time to time. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that most already do - posts in mod forums asking for a second opinion to ensure objectivity, and other conversations that regular posters don't get to see.




  • ill digest that mike, but want to acknowledge the considered and courteous reponse as always.




  • snoopsheep wrote: »
    ill digest that mike, but want to acknowledge the considered and courteous reponse as always.

    I appreciate that. I think we are working towards the same goal here, albeit from slightly different perspectives.




  • I think there is merit to what you say, though I don't believe to the extent you describe the situation.


    Unpopular opinions are, by definition, unpopular. Therefore, posters who express unpopular opinions get called out at a much higher rate than those whose opinions are popular. And it's quite probable that posts of that nature generate more reported posts - it's simple maths - there are more people of the opposing opinion to report them.


    What I don't agree with though, is that (a) mod simply react to the number of reported posts on a particular post, or (b) the constantly thrown out accusation of mods using (abusing) their position to steer a thread towards a particular point of view. I know I have the luxury of having a broader viewpoint (access to reported posts, mod and CMod forums, posters histories etc.) as admin, but what I see is discussion for both points of view behind the scenes, and mods trying to get the discussion back on track toward being a discussion, and not just a series of foot stomps. To the letter of the word, it's steering the debate, yes, but in the sense of trying to improve it and I think that's a fair use of the mod hat.


    Taking the above as a start (and apologies if I’ve managed to destroy the quotes) there’s a few things I think worth pointing out:



    - Agreed that the unpopular side of a debate (no ‘right and wrong’ unless clearly over what ought to be fairly defined lines is, I think, our agreed/common aim) will generate through human nature more reports and that mods shouldn’t be swayed by this. But I think there’s a case building to ask that the wider view of modding do keep an eye on this as opposed to reactively defending against it, as it is also human nature for the mods to react to sheer numbers, and I’m phrasing that as passively as I can.



    - I’ve raised a thread on visibility of reported posts and actions, and I think this is of a piece with your point that mods/admin are seeing *and using* a different context that we as posters are permitted/able to in making some calls. I don’t doubt you that mods are doing behind the scenes work on every call, but it’s a black box to users and it’s a point of friction that everyone feels when the action occurs- and never more so than the actions that aren’t taken. If modding occurs in context, then a poster who appeals an infraction should have the same right to bring in the same context to their appeal, and I think (speaking only for myself) that time and again when this is denied it’s the kind of selective hard enforcement of rules that does begin to look exactly like the accusation you note as being constantly thrown out- moderation of views and not behaviours.



    - The mods steering a debate towards discussion cannot but be an imperfect/inconsistent judgement call. When posters feel that it has been imperfectly carried out (in any given debate we all feel there’s a ‘fair way’ for the debate to occur and no two posters will agree, certainly no two sides will at any rate) the above friction surfaces, and it’s not going to stop. I can accept is as a fact of life as a poster and no doubt it’s the mod’s burden in life, but that’s not to say that things are where they need to be to allow a debate that isn’t being modded to a pre-determined wind-down.






    There is the plain reality that posters 'throwing out one-liners and [not] actually participating' (on both sides) is exceptionally common. You and I both would like a world where everyone is rational and well researched and post substantively. In real life that doesn't happen here any more than it happens in real life. So what should be done? In many cases, the members themselves do a more than adequate job of exposing weak arguments. But when that is not enough, part of the moderator's role is to step in and keep some forward momentum in the thread.



    - I think this is really interesting (yeah look I can’t help how I’m built). I don’t actually want a world/board where every post is rational and well-researched! This is where I’d take it back to my (rapidly building thesis) comparison to the pub or the lecture hall. There are many ways to debate and converse, many levels on which to do so. I think Irish people have an innate/ingrained understanding of this and it’s totally inherent to our culture as a whole. A one-line zing can expose an opposing view in a way that a green paper often cannot. There has to be space- within the one thread- to allow for both and all the other approaches. Many *topics* are worthy of serious consideration while many *elements and viewpoints within those topics* should be open to a robust volley of ridicule, hostility, contempt. Attack the post/argument and not the poster is a very good rule (if applied rigidly and fairly, of course) and it’s enough.



    - The idea that a new current affairs forum means that serious topics must be addressed seriously here has the potential to gut debates of a huge amount of valid (imo utterly necessary) commentary style. In particular, the idea that all serious topics go to this forum and are subject to the new/blossoming rules of debate implied hasn’t, imo, been fully explored just yet. Can a serious topic be discussed non-seriously in AH? Or will it be moved to CA to be discussed in the proper way? I think this is a big question in terms of a new approach.



    - ‘forward momentum’ is not a value-free concept. It implies a desirable pace of progress, it implies a given vector. This is murky enough ground. Some debates reflect reality in that they don’t lead towards consensus, they don’t see a move towards resolution, they certainly don’t lend themselves to posters coolly engaging and shaking hands afterwards. They reflect the current positions and conflicts in our wider society and I don’t know that moderation should see its role as advancing that artificially (even if an end-point could be identified as a goal). Better a monthly thread with the same people genuinely banging heads than a resolution imposed from above!



    - Personally speaking, nothing kills a debate more than the quote marathons we commonly see between three or four very well-established posters (I realise the irony given this current rather dry litany). Nothing keeps a debate going better than concise and zippy posts that hit their mark (even if they might leave a bruise). These are preferences and again I don’t know that we should put a value judgement on style, once a standard is in place covering behaviour.






    ]This isn't about unpopular ideas. This is about someone coming to a site specifically because they know that their unpopular ideas will cause conflict, and then specifically refraining from doing anything other than ranting in a manner that can reasonably be expected to do nothing but piss off their targets while not providing a scrap of support for their position and flaming their targets. Frankly, I would love to see more intellectual debate and less whataboutery, more reason and less rhetoric. I bet I'm not alone in that.





    - Fully on-board with dealing with trolls. But if you don’t have conflict on a message board- within the moderation framework that supports the community ideals, obviously- then you don’t have a message board (not that I don’t love my information-only forums, like). I think more consideration has to be given to not lumping in any and all minority/unpopular positions with the behaviour described above. Which I think your next point addresses pretty well tbf, but as a poster vs your position as admin/mod I’m not sure the balance is right as things stand.


    But I do take your point, though I would consider it more of a tangential issue than a one of intent. That is that moderation, particularly when it's not straight boards rules stuff, can give one side of a debate undue weight if not done correctly. I'd say that this can be inadvertent though, rather than a mod deliberately trying to sway an argument in their particular favour, and I don't believe it's as regular an occurrence as people seem to think.

    I would ask for mods to read this and just keep it in the backs of their minds though - it never hurts to be reminded of these things from time to time. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that most already do - posts in mod forums asking for a second opinion to ensure objectivity, and other conversations that regular posters don't get to see.



    - Watch them, Mike. Watch them like hawks.


  • Advertisement


  • https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110598157&postcount=940

    I was surprised to see this post was infracted. Any clarification available?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement