Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Moderation of boards as a whole.

1468910

Comments



  • Mr E wrote: »
    Yes, it was 100% racist and he/she got warned for it.

    It was their first mod action in that forum.
    If they do it again, red card.
    After that, ban.
    After that, longer ban, and so on.
    Build up enough punishments, they get 3 months probation.
    Any cards/bans anywhere on the site in that probationary period will result in a siteban.

    It's a standard escalation of punishments. What do you want me to do? Jump straight to the end and siteban them?

    I can understand where you are coming from and agree with the process of escalation to a certain extent. I do think however a harder line needs to be taken against the racist posts such as the one referenced here, as they do seem to becoming more frequent, especially in the current affairs forum.

    A poster, often in a fit of pique, who threatens legal action against boards will be hit with an immediate, permanent site ban. Not disagreeing with that as boards obviously needs to protect itself. But it does seem a bit incongruous then that a poster who spews out racist bile is given the proverbial slap on the wrist. And can do it again on a number of occasions before getting punted from the site permanently.

    I'm not advocating banning someone permanently for just one post. I just think that the current affairs forum could do with a bit of a crackdown at the moment. It does seem to be a bastion of racism/ xenophobia.




  • plenty others will argue that its a bastion of protected viewpoints and people rushing to never hear anything they disagree with

    ive had my bumps with the mods but the wailing to have everything banned that doesnt please you is ridiculous.




  • snoopsheep wrote: »
    plenty others will argue that its a bastion of protected viewpoints and people rushing to never hear anything they disagree with

    ive had my bumps with the mods but the wailing to have everything banned that doesnt please you is ridiculous.


    Nobody is wailing to have everything banned. There is a difference between having a difference of opinion or an objectionable opinion and just spouting racist hate speech.




  • MrFresh wrote: »
    Nobody is wailing to have everything banned. There is a difference between having a difference of opinion or an objectionable opinion and just spouting racist hate speech.

    I didn’t get involved in that thread but it looks like there are problems in ballbrigan, right enough.

    If boards bans discussion of this the discussion goes elsewhere.




  • MrFresh wrote: »
    Nobody is wailing to have everything banned. There is a difference between having a difference of opinion or an objectionable opinion and just spouting racist hate speech.

    nobody said anybody was wailing to have everything banned.

    i said theres a good cohort that have no tolerance for anything beyond their own viewpoint, call everything thats less than polite dinner talk "despicable" or "filth" or "disgusting and constantly wail for bannings.

    you are one of that cohort in my opinion, certainly. thats not an attack but it is an observation.

    but its a discussion site, this stuff- and look a lot of it is rubbish, distasteful, whatever, sure- is never going to disappear as long as humans live in a society together.

    these views are out there, to a greater or lesser extent than may be seen on boards or the "cess pit".

    held with sincerity, or espoused by trolls, one way or the other.

    demanding that you never have to see/read them and that the mods must ensure it be so is, to repeat myself, ridiculous. its a little infantile.

    engage with it, argue against it, ignore it. but the rush towards "delete it" is pretty unseemly while the topics remain current.

    i tend to think the mods are fairly quick to jump on stuff that touches certain sore spots, and they let some other stuff go where i probably would be surprised at it.

    but god help us, the wails. theres no reason we should americanise to the extent that we become a triggered nation.


  • Advertisement


  • snoopsheep wrote: »
    nobody said anybody was wailing to have everything banned.


    You literally did.

    snoopsheep wrote: »
    ive had my bumps with the mods but the wailing to have everything banned that doesnt please you is ridiculous.
    snoopsheep wrote: »
    i said theres a good cohort that have no tolerance for anything beyond their own viewpoint, call everything thats less than polite dinner talk "despicable" or "filth" or "disgusting and constantly wail for bannings.

    you are one of that cohort in my opinion, certainly. thats not an attack but it is an observation.


    You call it less than polite, I call it hate speech. I think that's more of a reflection on you though.

    snoopsheep wrote: »
    but its a discussion site, this stuff- and look a lot of it is rubbish, distasteful, whatever, sure- is never going to disappear as long as humans live in a society together.


    It is a discussion site. But as a society I would think we have moved beyond discussing the idea that people should be judged based on the colour of their skin, their orientation, their gender, their nationality or their ethnicity. We even brought in laws to that effect. Giving these ideas air time is simply no longer acceptable in modern society.

    snoopsheep wrote: »
    these views are out there, to a greater or lesser extent than may be seen on boards or the "cess pit".

    held with sincerity, or espoused by trolls, one way or the other.

    demanding that you never have to see/read them and that the mods must ensure it be so is, to repeat myself, ridiculous. its a little infantile.


    Nonsense. There are terms of use for this site. One of those terms is to not post racially or ethnically objectionable material. I'm aware backwards opinions exist but that doesn't mean they should be given an equal platform in some misguided idea of balance.

    snoopsheep wrote: »
    engage with it, argue against it, ignore it. but the rush towards "delete it" is pretty unseemly while the topics remain current.

    You can't argue against an opinion that's not based on standard logic or rational thought. You can't argue against a comment that has no purpose other than to incite hatred.




  • show me where i literally did. i have no interest in correcting you twice on it.

    the rest of it- meh. the entire point is that your thresholds for what you demand to have banned are lower than mine. spare the soapbox.

    either way the mods have been clear enough over the past few months. they wont be coming down to my level, they wont be ascending to yours

    why the constant lament




  • snoopsheep wrote: »
    show me where i literally did. i have no interest in correcting you twice on it.


    I quoted it in the post you are responding to.

    snoopsheep wrote: »
    the rest of it- meh. the entire point is that your thresholds for what you demand to have banned are lower than mine. spare the soapbox.

    either way the mods have been clear enough over the past few months. they wont be coming down to my level, they wont be ascending to yours

    why the constant lament


    You don't even do the courtesy of reading my reply properly and you call it a soapbox? Why the constant lament? Because we are being dragged into backward ideas that I had thought we had put behind us in the past. I get that you are probably not in a demographic that will be effected by this so you care very little, but allowing hatespeech does have real world effects on people.




  • MrFresh wrote: »
    I quoted it in the post you are responding to.

    and i corrected you once. no further interest.




    You don't even do the courtesy of reading my reply properly and you call it a soapbox?

    you do me the discourtesy of half-quoting me for effect once and doubling down when called out. and yeah you're soapboxing
    Why the constant lament? Because we are being dragged into backward ideas that I had thought we had put behind us in the past. I get that you are probably not in a demographic that will be effected by this so you care very little, but allowing hatespeech does have real world effects on people.

    /soapbox

    dont want to incur wrath of mods by this becoming a diversion but you are very ably demonstrating precisely the point. dishonest argument, projection, rush to personalise, vague condemnations, soapboxing, catastrophising anything you personally dislike to shut down the discussion.

    idk, its pretty blatant stuff imo, genuinely.




  • snoopsheep wrote: »
    and i corrected you once. no further interest.

    you do me the discourtesy of half-quoting me for effect once and doubling down when called out. and yeah you're soapboxing


    You asked where you did it and I quoted the exact part. That's not half quoting you, that's complying with your demand.

    snoopsheep wrote: »
    dont want to incur wrath of mods by this becoming a diversion but you are very ably demonstrating precisely the point. dishonest argument, projection, rush to personalise, vague condemnations, soapboxing, catastrophising anything you personally dislike to shut down the discussion.

    idk, its pretty blatant stuff imo, genuinely.


    Should be easy to argue the points then shouldn't it? Isn't that what you've been saying?


  • Advertisement


  • snoopsheep wrote: »
    plenty others will argue that its a bastion of protected viewpoints and people rushing to never hear anything they disagree with

    ive had my bumps with the mods but the wailing to have everything banned that doesnt please you is ridiculous.

    Is this the post that you are claiming Mr. Fresh is half quoting for effect?




  • MrFresh wrote: »
    You asked where you did it and I quoted the exact part. That's not half quoting you, that's complying with your demand.


    its unbelievable that i have to go back and do this myself, its my understanding that when challenged to prove i said something the onus is on you.

    and im on a phone, so its a double pain in my arse.

    but what am i if not reasonable


    you claimed i said a cohort was wailing to have everything banned

    i said a cohort was wailing to have everything banned that *doesnt please them* which is completely different.

    can we agree and move on that this is poor stuff from you, please? ive no wish to take up the thread but im not backing down on the above.




  • snoopsheep wrote: »
    its unbelievable that i have to go back and do this myself, its my understanding that when challenged to prove i said something the onus is on you.

    and im on a phone, so its a double pain in my arse.

    but what am i if not reasonable


    you claimed i said a cohort was wailing to have everything banned

    i said a cohort was wailing to have everything banned that *doesnt please them* which is completely different.

    can we agree and move on that this is poor stuff from you, please? ive no wish to take up the thread but im not backing down on the above.

    You're really relying on semantics now to be fair.

    I mean people are hardly going to ask for things that do please them to be banned. It's pretty self evident that they ask for things that they don't like to be banned. The addition of 'doesn't please them' is pretty redundant imo.




  • You're really relying on semantics now to be fair.

    genuinely disagree, but its hardly the main point tbf. i think for a poster so particular about what other people say, its no accident to mess about when attributing statements from others.

    edit: sorry im not sure if you changed that while i typed or if i missed the bottom paragraph you followed up with above. theres a huge amount of people who ~dont want things they disagree with banned~ and this is exactly the argument thats worth having! the idea that because you defend peoples right to say/think something means you automatically must agree with it is lazy, so yeah the "that displeases them" is important imo.

    anyway, people have different thresholds for whats acceptable.

    one can find the expression of views distasteful without demanding shutdown

    and several years of attempts to deplatform, cancel culture, callout culture and an ever-shrinking middle ground has not advanced the cause of either left or moderate policies.

    you can disagree with the thresholds while agreeing on aims, but this level of practicality is unacceptable to some people, and its counterproductive as an approach.




  • OK, back on topic please




  • If there's any evidence that the lack of reasonable mod action to blatant racism it's the above argument, where you have someone completely arguing a toss with it.

    Cut it out and the above doesn't escalate to the point it has.




  • Well to clarify, I'm not looking for bigots to be banned from the site immediately. I'm looking for hate speech and discriminatory statements, which I understood to be contrary to the terms of use, to be treated with appropriate severity. I don't think that is being done at present. Like I said, allowing the platform to be used to spread this stuff has real world consequences for people and a yellow card without removing a blatantly racist post is not, in my opinion, an appropriate or serious response. The fact that some people consider this censorship is not really something that bothers me and shouldn't bother you because these are hateful opinions that should be left in the past along with the atrocities they caused.




  • Don't know where to put this.
    But when I have an issue, most of the mods on boards have been tolerant and responsive - even the ones behind the scenes. Just wanted to say thanks.




  • Over the last year I've been thrown into prison - here's my little thread on that- enjoy :D

    (PS- I know I shouldn't say this but they have FFF- fantastic fish Fridays- in the prison forum- the "prick with a fork" does all the cooking- the battered monkfish is to die for :D:D:D )

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057913353

    I've also appealed a "card" which was over-turned and appealed another card which was refused- I agree with all mod/admin decisions made, whether in my favour or not.

    So, that should count for something- prison thread was about a rudey word, mis-spelt when reporting a troll- emotions were high that evening but no offence was meant to the people reading the reported post forum- and certainly that's accepted.

    I'm posting the above to show that sometimes I think it's about how we posters go about things- the intention is often good, but the means we go about maybe isn't.

    I know mods are busy, but sometimes, maybe a "stern" PM could sort the issue and probably (I think), achieve an apology reply?

    Only other thing is lack of feedback on reporting a post- again, I know this is totally time consuming for mods if they were to reply to posters but sometimes posts are reported and nothing done or timely intervention not visible on the thread- that can be frustrating and can also lead to a raise in temperature on the thread. So again, maybe mods could take that into account and use the ban hammer or red card a little less, especially when they arrive long after the event?

    Anyway, my tuppence .




  • What discussion purpose does an entire AH thread entitled "Why are women so annoying?" serve? What would be stifled there except stupid and blatant sexism?


  • Advertisement


  • What discussion purpose does an entire AH thread entitled "Why are women so annoying?" serve? What would be stifled there except stupid and blatant sexism?

    Perhaps people just want to explore why women are so annoying per the title and irgo because of defacto free speech they should be allowed to do so.




  • 'Why are women so annoying' is a mildly winding thread that isn't really - or wasn't when I read a bit of it - taking itself seriously and is so blatant as to be harmless and even funny. If it has since gone seriously downhill from there then I take back my offering. (Female view)




  • Don’t really grasp the reasons for huge differences in moderation.
    Got banned from a brexit thread yesterday for saying ‘you’re taking the piss at this stage’ and yet there’s a whole thread which is titled ‘would Britain ever piss off and get on with brexit’

    Some harmonisation among moderation of current affairs topics could be good. Or maybe a less heavy handed or more consistent approach.




  • Don’t really grasp the reasons for huge differences in moderation.
    Got banned from a brexit thread yesterday for saying ‘you’re taking the piss at this stage’ and yet there’s a whole thread which is titled ‘would Britain ever piss off and get on with brexit’

    Some harmonisation among moderation of current affairs topics could be good. Or maybe a less heavy handed or more consistent approach.

    One is in the politics forum and the other in CA. Politics has always been a higher standard.




  • Nosnon wrote: »
    One is in the politics forum and the other in CA. Politics has always been a higher standard.

    See, I only hang out mainly in those two threads and wasn’t aware they were different areas. Ignorance isn’t an excuse I know. But I wasn’t thinking cos i wasn’t aware then either. Just a weird gulf between rules on similar topics though. No big deal. Thanks.




  • MrFresh wrote: »
    Well to clarify, I'm not looking for bigots to be banned from the site immediately. I'm looking for hate speech and discriminatory statements, which I understood to be contrary to the terms of use, to be treated with appropriate severity. I don't think that is being done at present. Like I said, allowing the platform to be used to spread this stuff has real world consequences for people and a yellow card without removing a blatantly racist post is not, in my opinion, an appropriate or serious response. The fact that some people consider this censorship is not really something that bothers me and shouldn't bother you because these are hateful opinions that should be left in the past along with the atrocities they caused.

    Should you get your wish to see them banned I'm interested what is your definition of hate speech and discriminatory statements? Who or what body gets to decide on these definitions and will context be taken into account?

    How would you re-write the charter to align with your beliefs?




  • See, I only hang out mainly in those two threads and wasn’t aware they were different areas. Ignorance isn’t an excuse I know. But I wasn’t thinking cos i wasn’t aware then either. Just a weird gulf between rules on similar topics though. No big deal. Thanks.

    I'd explain that to the mods that gave the ban by PM.




  • Been on boards since 06, and my take on moderation is that they can be dicks at times**

    But that's generally due to me doing something dickish that got me an infraction/ban or whatever.

    You'll be butt hurt initially, then as time goes on, you look back and think - you know what, in hindsight, I actually did deserve that.

    99% of the time, if you seek out their advice or assistance in something, they'll be more than willing to help you out.

    But it's like everything else in life, you get out what you put in, sugar achieves more than vinegar.

    I'm not advocating brown nosing, but civility and manners goes along way I find. Stick to the charters/rules and guidelines, and they're usually a decent bunch overall, with a too often thankless job.

    Waiting on a car service with too much time on my hands, so added my thoughts :P




  • Boom_Bap wrote: »
    I'd explain that to the mods that gave the ban by PM.

    Nah it’s fair enough. I’m gonna just be more aware of which forum I’m in in future and actually read the rules for it.


  • Advertisement


  • Nah it’s fair enough. I’m gonna just be more aware of which forum I’m in in future and actually read the rules for it.

    It's easy to do, I don't usually go into the CA Brexit thread but I did a couple of days ago and reported a post thinking I was in the Politics one. Like yourself, its just a matter of being aware :D


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement