Is it time to kill Politics Café?

RandomName2

OOhh look, a forum suggestion that isn't going into the forum suggestion forum. Controversial. Is it because nobody except admin go to the forum suggestion forum?

Partially, but here's a bigger point. It makes sense that there's a separate Politics forum for serious political discussion. After Hours is for topical discussion (and low brow). Politics Cafe is for.. for non-serious political discussion that is handled in a serious fashion? Why does it exist? It is way more difficult to post in the light-weight Politics Cafe forum than it is to post in the super serious Politics forum.

You can go to Politics Cafe 2.0 and see popular threads threads.
THE SYSTEM WORKS!
But does it? These popular threads were popular because they were in After Hours. They died when they got forcibly moved into Politics Cafe.

BUT de trolls and rereg users destroyed the original politics cafe!
What? A measure of a forum's success or failure is its usage (not necessarily number of users, but high numbers are good too).
Even if you accept the premise that it makes sense to separate out current events and current politics/political incidents into separate After Hours and Politics Cafe forums, the failure of 'original' Politics Cafe is not clear. Go there. Look for the terrible threads or posts in the frozen, archived forum. You'll probably have to keep looking for a while, because I spent a couple of minutes before giving up.

Why is Politics Cafe 2.0 in existence? Is it just there to kill discussions in After Hours?

kneemos

Look. There's rules,this goes here and that goes there.

Seriously though,they haven't a clue.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Moving to Feedback, as feedback should be kept in Feedback

Harry Palmr

What I find weird beyond that it exists at all is the need to apply to join.

Boards.ie: Mark

The Politics Cafe handles threads that wouldn't meet the posting standards required within Politics (and caters for political threads which After Hours is not supposed to). There is a misunderstanding that the Politics Cafe is stricter. Its charter is:

In this incarnation of the Cafe, the moderation will take a hands-off approach.

There are 2 rules, in addition to the site Terms of Use:
Don't be a dick.
No discussion of illegal activities

Other than that, the floor is open to discussion.

It is more difficult to gain access initially than Politics. But less is expected when framing your point within a debate or discussion. If one was to post in Politics with the kind of throwaway comments that are more acceptable in the Cafe, they wouldn't last long. The access request requirement then helps ensure that those posting in the forum are likely to contribute to actual discussion (i.e. it is harder to gain access as a serial re-reg user (avoiding bans) or troll).

While more difficult to gain access to than a general forum with no access requirements, it is still quite straightforward to request access: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057753734. Moving threads to PC2.0 is not an attempt to kill off a thread; they are being moved to a more fitting place. One way to ensure that threads don't just die off is to request access and continue the discussion.

kneemos

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

The Politics Cafe handles threads that wouldn't meet the posting standards required within Politics (and caters for political threads which After Hours is not supposed to). There is a misunderstanding that the Politics Cafe is stricter. Its charter is:



It is more difficult to gain access initially than Politics. But less is expected when framing your point within a debate or discussion. If one was to post in Politics with the kind of throwaway comments that are more acceptable in the Cafe, they wouldn't last long. The access request requirement then helps ensure that those posting in the forum are likely to contribute to actual discussion (i.e. it is harder to gain access as a serial re-reg user (avoiding bans) or troll).

While more difficult to gain access to than a general forum with no access requirements, it is still quite straightforward to request access: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057753734. Moving threads to PC2.0 is not an attempt to kill off a thread; they are being moved to a more fitting place. One way to ensure that threads don't just die off is to request access and continue the discussion.

Here's one that's never actually looked at the PC.

Every thread that goes there dies immediately.

Boards.ie: Mark

kneemos wrote: »

Here's one that's never actually looked at the PC.

Every thread that goes there dies immediately.

I can't disagree that PC2.0 is quieter than AH. But what I see is that there are often posters interested in a topic that don't follow a thread across from AH to PC. In fact, many have never have never even applied for access.

If people would like to provide feedback on the requirements themselves, I'm all ears (as I've said before).

Where a forum is quiet, people can help be the change they want to see. Apply for access, post on threads that interest them (whether they are started in AH and moved or have an origin in PC), and create threads that might be of interest to themselves and/or others.

padd b1975

The original Café was destroyed by the appointment of a totally unsuitable Mod.

Dravokivich

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

I can't disagree that PC2.0 is quieter than AH. But what I see is that there are often posters interested in a topic that don't follow a thread across from AH to PC. In fact, many have never have never even applied for access.

If people would like to provide feedback on the requirements themselves, I'm all ears (as I've said before).

Where a forum is quiet, people can help be the change they want to see. Apply for access, post on threads that interest them (whether they are started in AH and moved or have an origin in PC), and create threads that might be of interest to themselves and/or others.

I applied to post on boards. I'm not going to apply to post on other sections within the very same website. It doesn't make sense.

kneemos

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

I can't disagree that PC2.0 is quieter than AH. But what I see is that there are often posters interested in a topic that don't follow a thread across from AH to PC. In fact, many have never have never even applied for access.

If people would like to provide feedback on the requirements themselves, I'm all ears (as I've said before).

Where a forum is quiet, people can help be the change they want to see. Apply for access, post on threads that interest them (whether they are started in AH and moved or have an origin in PC), and create threads that might be of interest to themselves and/or others.

It's been going two years and has eighteen pages (and eleven mods??) surely it's obvious at this stage that nobody wants to use it,despite the admins constant protestations that it's easy to join.

This is an out there concept,but how about listening to what your customers have been saying for ages and go with what they actually want rather than what makes life easier.

Boards.ie: Mark

Dravokivich wrote: »

I applied to post on boards. I'm not going to apply to post on other sections within the very same website. It doesn't make sense.

To be pedantic, there's no application process to join Boards. Once you have an email address and a username that's not in use, you're in.

There are some topics that are divisive or contentious. There are some where people revel in winding up others. And there are people who are quite happy to take a ban and will reregister and start all over again. Politics happens to be one of these topics.

Restricting access helps to ensure that you'll get users who want to engage with a discussion while minimising the impact of rereg trolls, etc.

If someone wishes to post about Politics on Boards their current options are to post in the Politics forum and abide by its charter or apply for access to PC2.0 if they want a more hands-off moderation experience.

Dravokivich

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

To be pedantic, there's no application process to join Boards. Once you have an email address and a username that's not in use, you're in.

There are some topics that are divisive or contentious. There are some where people revel in winding up others. And there are people who are quite happy to take a ban and will reregister and start all over again. Politics happens to be one of these topics.

Restricting access helps to ensure that you'll get users who want to engage with a discussion while minimising the impact of rereg trolls, etc.

If someone wishes to post about Politics on Boards their current options are to post in the Politics forum and abide by its charter or apply for access to PC2.0 if they want a more hands-off moderation experience.

Signing up / application makes no odds what way you describe it. It's the same thing, I was just keeping to the phrasing you were using to show how mundane it is. I find it very off putting as a user to need to go through it to post somewhere else. So I dont.

Politics isn't the motivation of wind up merchants. Other posters on boards are. Take politics away and they'll find something else to smack you over the head with. Theres been no shortage of that. This very thread is opened trivialising the outcome of politics cafe. And theres nothing to indicate its success or any sense of a positive spin to be put on it in anyway. Most threads kicked out of AH with a healthy discussion just get left in the corner.

end of the road

pc2.2 is a complete failure. there are no 2 ways about it as far as i can see.
as i see it the choices are remove the access requirement or kill it. trying to work around the edges is just not going to work. if it means a few rereg trolls get in for a time, so be it. they can be ignored and banned accordingly. other forums manage in that manner, why is the pc different? i don't believe it is or should be.
i posted the odd time in the old pc and i used to read it quite a bit. i don't believe that the issues it did have, which from my point of view weren't that big really, couldn't have been solved without shutting the forum and replacing it with a locked down ghost town which nobody wants to post in.
was there a feedback discussion with the userbase during the time of the old pc, or 1 to discuss the changes that lead to pc 2.0 before it was implimented?

Boards.ie: Mark

The access requirement helps to minimise the impact of wind up merchants (regardless of whether politics in and of itself is their motivation). It helps to ensure that the posters within the forum will engage in some sort of reasonable discussion, and helps to keep out serial reregs. A healthy discussion is about more than simply quantity; the quality of posts is also important.

The current access requirement was implemented after issues arose with the previous guise of the Politics Cafe and after much deliberation and discussion. As I have said, if people would like to suggest viable alternatives, please do and they can be taken into consideration.

McMurphy

padd b1975 wrote: »

The original Cafas destroyed by the appointment of a totally unsuitable Mod.

Unsuitable how?

Because he or she made decisions in a mod capacity that made no sense? (We've a DRP procedure on this site, so there's a safety net mechanism via catmods/admin to highlight any poor decisions)

Or unsuitable because they might have different political persuasions to yourself?

That's the thing about politics, there's always differing opinions and outlook's.

RandomName2

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

The access requirement helps to minimise the impact of wind up merchants (regardless of whether politics in and of itself is their motivation). It helps to ensure that the posters within the forum will engage in some sort of reasonable discussion, and helps to keep out serial reregs. A healthy discussion is about more than simply quantity; the quality of posts is also important.

The current access requirement was implemented after issues arose with the previous guise of the Politics Cafe and after much deliberation and discussion. As I have said, if people would like to suggest viable alternatives, please do and they can be taken into consideration.

I honestly appreciate the reason for restricting access but there's a few problems.

• First, it doesn't assume good faith.
• Second, it can't be just a rubber stamp. If the application process was just a rubber stamp it wouldn't exist in the first place. It means you get a human to look at the person making the application and making a decision if they think that person is going to be a windup merchant.
• Third, chicken and egg. The lack of people there means less of an inclination to join. The lack of inclination to join means there's less people there.
• Fourth, it sends a really weird tone. Hey guys, have fun, just play nice and don't do anything illegal. Actually first guys, mind if I see all of your IDs, and would you mind each sending me a formal membership application that I can inspect?

If you want to stop spam, or simple rereg, or people with multiple forum bans from posting there, you can just have the computer block such users automatically. Minimum post number of 250 seems excessive as well, and unlikely to do what is intended.

Edit: finally, I don't entirely trust the reason given for winding up the first politics cafe. Call me a cynic, but this impacts my view of politics cafe 2.0.

Edit edit: I also think there's probably too many separate forums in Boards anyway, but that's a different issue. People hate looking around for things. They are lazy and ficke. I nearly didn't bother posting this reply because I couldn't find the Feedback forum quickly.

kneemos

RandomName2 wrote: »

I honestly appreciate the reason for restricting access but there's a few problems.

• First, it doesn't assume good faith.
• Second, it can't be just a rubber stamp. If the application process was just a rubber stamp it wouldn't exist in the first place. It means you get a human to look at the person making the application and making a decision if they think that person is going to be a windup merchant.
• Third, chicken and egg. The lack of people there means less of an inclination to join. The lack of inclination to join means there's less people there.
• Fourth, it sends a really weird tone. Hey guys, have fun, just play nice and don't do anything illegal. Actually first guys, mind if I see all of your IDs, and would you mind each sending me a formal membership application that I can inspect?

If you want to stop spam, or simple rereg, or people with multiple forum bans from posting there, you can just have the computer block such users automatically. Minimum post number of 250 seems excessive as well, and unlikely to do what is intended.

Edit: finally, I don't entirely trust the reason given for winding up the first politics cafe. Call me a cynic, but this impacts my view of politics cafe 2.0.

Edit edit: I also think there's probably too many separate forums in Boards anyway, but that's a different issue. People hate looking around for things. They are lazy and ficke. I nearly didn't bother posting this reply because I couldn't find the Feedback forum quickly.

It's a victory for the wind up merchants basically.

Beasty

kneemos wrote: »

It's a victory for the wind up merchants basically.

I don't disagree. This is to some extent linked to the recently closed AH thread in Feedback, and the Current Affairs forum we've been considering. It has re-ignited discussion about a new forum with the Admin team and Office staff, and I would hope we can make some progress on this before too much longer

end of the road

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

The access requirement helps to minimise the impact of wind up merchants (regardless of whether politics in and of itself is their motivation).

the thing is mark, the system for dealing with trolls/reregs etc seem to work fine for the majority of the site, so i can't subscribe to the idea that the current system is doing anything other then keeping what could and should be a busy lively forum, anything other then a dead one where nobody wants to give their time. so essentially, it is effectively keeping everyone out.

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

It helps to ensure that the posters within the forum will engage in some sort of reasonable discussion, and helps to keep out serial reregs.

the problem is mark, in practice those of us in the forum are not discussing and we don't see the forum as 1 that is worth giving our time to, as essentially it will just be our very own political diary, which is not what the forum is about.
potential users seem to feel the same as we do. we see the forum as unfit for purpose, whereas i would imagine many users (i know i do) would see the old cafe as mostly fit dispite the issues, and would be something we could give our time to, as people can come in and discuss. if they are a windup, they can be ignored and banned, or preferibly they might flounce out in a huff if they are challenged sufficiently.

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

A healthy discussion is about more than simply quantity; the quality of posts is also important.

agreed but while an access system remains, then realistically neither quantity or quality of posts will happen because hardly anyone will waste time requesting access or even discussing if they have access already. especially when there are other forums outside boards which allow for political discussion, some even dedicated to it. we don't want people to go to the other forums, we want them to come here or even stay here.

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

The current access requirement was implemented after issues arose with the previous guise of the Politics Cafe and after much deliberation and discussion. As I have said, if people would like to suggest viable alternatives, please do and they can be taken into consideration.

KyussB

The access requirement in practice, isn't simply used against wind up merchants. In practice, it's there to put user posting rights, up to completely arbitrary mod discretion.

Further, there is a mix up between those who have not been approved to post, and those under legacy bans who were never banned from the new forum - as if both are the same...(with cop outs about it being a 'moved' forum, and such - even when bans on original forums have gone)

Basically, it's another area of Boards where the rules are made up and enforced in completely arbitrary fashion - and is one of the many parts of Boards symbolic of that - as if it's ruled over by authoritarian teachers in a devout catholic primary school, who get a thrill over disciplining pupils in a petty manner.

Timberrrrrrrr

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

The access requirement helps to minimise the impact of wind up merchants (regardless of whether politics in and of itself is their motivation). It helps to ensure that the posters within the forum will engage in some sort of reasonable discussion, and helps to keep out serial reregs. A healthy discussion is about more than simply quantity; the quality of posts is also important.

The current access requirement was implemented after issues arose with the previous guise of the Politics Cafe and after much deliberation and discussion. As I have said, if people would like to suggest viable alternatives, please do and they can be taken into consideration.

Every time this subject comes up this same line is trotted out.

You then get god knows how many people explaining to you (not personally) why this system is not working and that the access request should bebremoved (maybe replaced with a minimum post/join date). This suggestion is never taken seriously or tried.

Im another page or 2 and this thread will be locked and we will be assured that all suggestions have been taken on board and discussion is ongoing behind the scenes yadda yadda yadda.

2 months time the subject is raised again and the circle continues. Meanwhile PC 2.0 dies a slow death and once vibrant discussion/threads rot away due to being moved to a forum with little/no traffic.

Boards.ie: Mark

As discussed in the previous feedback thread regarding the Politics Cafe, simply removing the access restriction and changing nothing else will not work. It was tried in the past which is how we have come to this point - this was outlined in the closing message of the first Politics Cafe: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057752604 - as such, it isn't a viable alternative.

You have mentioned possibly replacing the current requirements with a minimum post/join date. This is something that we can discuss and if there were suggestions as to what seems reasonable, that would be great.

Timberrrrrrrr

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

As discussed in the previous feedback thread regarding the Politics Cafe, simply removing the access restriction and changing nothing else will not work. It was tried in the past which is how we have come to this point - this was outlined in the closing message of the first Politics Cafe: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057752604 - as such, it isn't a viable alternative.

You have mentioned possibly replacing the current requirements with a minimum post/join date. This is something that we can discuss and if there were suggestions as to what seems reasonable, that would be great.

Minimum of 1 month on boards and 50 posts seems fair enough, others may want more (less?) But i dont think many rereg trolls would last a month before being found out.

Dravokivich

That just sounds like stretching for a compromise. It's still putting conditions on how someone can get in, to post there. A new comer cant just enter into it. Which was a big focus on re-aligning boards a couple of years ago, to make this website more accessible. So what's the point in it?

kneemos

The thing has eleven mods waiting for action, don't see what the problem is opening it up.

Timberrrrrrrr

Dravokivich wrote: »

That just sounds like stretching for a compromise. It's still putting conditions on how someone can get in, to post there. A new comer cant just enter into it. Which was a big focus on re-aligning boards a couple of years ago, to make this website more accessible. So what's the point in it?

Reregs will create new accounts and spam AH as there is no control. 50 post or 1 month minimum will allow posters who are here a while to post whereas reregs won't/don't usually last that long.

end of the road

kneemos wrote: »

The thing has eleven mods waiting for action, don't see what the problem is opening it up.

to be pedantic pc has 5 forum specific mods, with 6 cmods presumably for the whole politics section.

Dravokivich

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Reregs will create new accounts and spam AH as there is no control. 50 post or 1 month minimum will allow posters who are here a while to post whereas reregs won't/don't usually last that long.

A new person comes in. They've an interest in a topic there they want to contribute to. They cant. Boards reset itself a few years back with the intention to increase accessibility, yet everything new since hinders it. Becuase of a few morons?

Tokyo

kneemos wrote: »

The thing has eleven mods waiting for action, don't see what the problem is opening it up.

5 mods.

It would be preferable to foster an environment where moderators didn't have to be "waiting for action". A recurring theme in these threads is that the onus seems to get placed on the mods to mod better, but no similar responsibility put on posters to behave better.

Anyhow. We are discussing a few possible solutions to this in the admin forum at the moment, and as soon as we have decided on a course of action, we'll let you know here.

_Kaiser_

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

The Politics Cafe handles threads that wouldn't meet the posting standards required within Politics

Translation: notions by the regulars and mods as to what is "quality posting" :rolleyes:

It was very clear first time round that the locals didn't like "their" domain being invaded by Average Joe with his opinions (and bearing in mind that this was during the recession years when people generally were more interested in political shenanigans as it was directly impacting them), hence why the Cafe was setup in the first place. Simultaneously they also started labelling/categorising every thread which made navigation a complete pain IMO

Then, when the Cafe became too popular and muppetry increased, the complaint was that it was diverting discussion and the redirecting and moving of threads started,complete with restrictions on access (because rather than deal with the primarily handful of posters acting the tool, let's make it harder for everyone).

That's where the Cafe has failed. Poor moderation, over-zealous "filing" of everything by other mods, and failure to keep up with the demands/expectations of the users who are generating the threads/traffic in the first place.

Timberrrrrrrr

Dravokivich wrote: »

A new person comes in. They've an interest in a topic there they want to contribute to. They cant. Boards reset itself a few years back with the intention to increase accessibility, yet everything new since hinders it. Becuase of a few morons?

I thought there was already a minimum post count/join date for PC 2.0 already along with the access request?


Edit: There is a 3 month and 250 post count restriction

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057753981/1/#post103836472

Dravokivich

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I thought there was already a minimum post count/join date for PC 2.0 already along with the access request?


Edit: There is a 3 month and 250 post count restriction

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057753981/1/#post103836472

The point is there shouldn't be any criteria.

LuckyLloyd

Surely now more than ever boards.ie shouldn’t be killing discussion? Posting is massively down all across the site as is.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Surely now more than ever boards.ie shouldn’t be killing discussion? Posting is massively down all across the site as is.

only the correct kind of discussion can be allowed though, can't be annoying the corporates with anything controversial

_Kaiser_

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Surely now more than ever boards.ie shouldn’t be killing discussion? Posting is massively down all across the site as is.

This is an issue that's been going on for years and I've made several posts about it myself, but at this stage I just don't care anymore to be honest.

It's clear that for whatever reason the site owners are happy with this decline, the staff (paid and unpaid - let's not get into that derailment again!) are too busy shuffling threads around and designing HR type policies for a discussion forum, and the userbase seems increasingly to be a lot of re-regs posting inflammatory comments or threads to stifle discussion or just troll outright. Then you have the group of friends moving from thread to thread, similarly stifling discussion by being unwelcoming to others (Motors is a long-standing example of that).

Meh. I use it as a source of local/Irish information and knowledge and may throw in comments on topics here and there but for the most part I just browse for a few mins here and there when bored. I'm not invested enough to bother with much more than that anymore.

Boards.ie: Mark

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Surely now more than ever boards.ie shouldn’t be killing discussion? Posting is massively down all across the site as is.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

...and the userbase seems increasingly to be a lot of re-regs posting inflammatory comments or threads to stifle discussion or just troll outright....

An access restriction helps to reduce the issue raised by Kaiser above. And there is a time to ask whether more posts is definitively better. It's not about killing discussion; people are currently welcome to apply for access or they can use the Politics forum for discussion of the same topic but with different requirements.

Kenzie Better Kangaroo wrote: »

only the correct kind of discussion can be allowed though, can't be annoying the corporates with anything controversial

There are plenty of topics discussed on Boards of varying degrees of seriousness and controversy.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Then you have the group of friends moving from thread to thread, similarly stifling discussion by being unwelcoming to others (Motors is a long-standing example of that).

I think it would be best to highlight concerns like these directly with Mods either via PM or by reporting posts that you see being unwelcome to others/stifling discussion. You could also contact the CMods.


Now, I'm afraid I will have to ask that we keep this thread related to PC2.0 as there is a risk of losing focus.

As Mike said, discussions are underway.

Fr_Dougal

Beasty wrote: »

I don't disagree. This is to some extent linked to the recently closed AH thread in Feedback, and the Current Affairs forum we've been considering. It has re-ignited discussion about a new forum with the Admin team and Office staff, and I would hope we can make some progress on this before too much longer

As long as this new Current Affairs forum doesn’t mean that current affairs threads will be moved from AH, all we’ll be left with then is threads about defecating by reregs.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

As long as this new Current Affairs forum doesn’t mean that current affairs threads will be moved from AH, all we’ll be left with then is threads about defecating by reregs.

follow the threads then, why are people so married to AH?

kneemos

Kenzie Better Kangaroo wrote: »

follow the threads then, why are people so married to AH?

AH threads moved anywhere generally don't do well.
If you're following the flow of a thread and it gets moved,well you just won't be bothered starting again.
The questions and angles are lost.

McMurphy

Kenzie Better Kangaroo wrote: »

follow the threads then, why are people so married to AH?

Some people who have signed up to the site, refuse pointblank to ask permission to post in certain forums.

Shifting a thread off to a forum where the OP hasn't been granted permission to post in the forum it was shunted to, is madness.

The fact you can apply for access doesn't seem to matter to some poster's it would seem.

I'm really at a loss to understand why you need shag all permission, post count or membership of the site needing to be over a certain period to post in the busiest forum on the site - After Hours, and the rereg trolls get eradicated there by the mods in a timely enough manner, yet politics cafe, a post apocalyptic waste ground in comparison has all the shackles on it, and hoops that need to be jumped through before one can get on there.

It's madness.

Tokyo

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

As long as this new Current Affairs forum doesn’t mean that current affairs threads will be moved from AH, all we’ll be left with then is threads about defecating by reregs.

Why is this an issue? If Current Affairs is open access, then surely the location of the thread isn't an issue. Arguing against moving threads to Current Affairs only serves to highlight that the problem with the Café may not just have been that posters have to ask for access, but that some people simply want their posts up front and centre in After Hours, and wouldn't be happy with any other setup.

kneemos

mike_ie wrote: »

Why is this an issue? If Current Affairs is open access, then surely the location of the thread isn't an issue. Arguing against moving threads to Current Affairs only serves to highlight that the problem with the Café may not just have been that posters have to ask for access, but that some people simply want their posts up front and centre in After Hours, and wouldn't be happy with any other setup.

People post in AH because it's busy. Moving threads from anywhere doesn't work.

This can't be a revelation?

Fr_Dougal

mike_ie wrote: »

Why is this an issue? If Current Affairs is open access, then surely the location of the thread isn't an issue. Arguing against moving threads to Current Affairs only serves to highlight that the problem with the Cafay not just have been that posters have to ask for access, but that some people simply want their posts up front and centre in After Hours, and wouldn't be happy with any other setup.

How has creating extra fora on boards worked out in the past? From what I can see, in recent times, the sum of the posts due to segmentation is not equal to the sum of a more general forum.

And you’re correct, I don’t see access to Politics Cafe as the issue. In AH a thread can go anywhere, and that’s something I like about it. Personally I post in AH for the craic, and occasionally I’ll post in a serious thread. I don’t go seeking out serious threads/fora, I may browse them but I don’t post.

Is access still a requirement for PC? If it is, how about trialing removing it for a while? See what happens and then make a permanent move whether to keep the requirements or remove them.

The mods in AH are doing a great job, they are allowing opinions from both sides, it’s refreshing when you see how much of an echo chamber most social media has become.

Skylinehead

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

The mods in AH are doing a great job, they are allowing opinions from both sides, it’s refreshing when you see how much of an echo chamber most social media has become.

No, it's shite.

Tokyo

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

How has creating extra fora on boards worked out in the past? From what I can see, in recent times, the sum of the posts due to segmentation is not equal to the sum of a more general forum.

I don't think that anyone disagrees that areas of the site should become more streamlined, and certain less busy forums could be merged into one (it's something that we are working towards on a case by case basis), however, that only works when the end game and general ethos of each forum of origin is more or less the same.

The issue I see with After Hours at the moment is that its purpose, in theory, is to be a place where you can have lighthearted threads, and also be a place where everyone can openly discuss (sometimes controversial) topics and content and express their views while respecting the rights of others.

The reality is somewhat different. We have a not unreasonable percentage of posters who post in the lighthearted threads, and then somehow extrapolate from the fact that AH has a more open charter than other forums, that they can post absolute vitriol, some of it genuine hate speech, and scream from the rafters about their "right" to freely express their opinion if the post is removed or the thread shut down.

And here we're getting to the crux of the problem. The issue isn't just having to request access to the Politics Cafe, or having to follow a thread to another part of the site. For a certain subset of posters, what they wanted all along was an uninhibited venue in which to potentially post bile, to as wide an audience as possible. And they see After Hours as their personal sandbox to do so.

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

The mods in AH are doing a great job, they are allowing opinions from both sides, it’s refreshing when you see how much of an echo chamber most social media has become.

They're not. And when I say that, I don't mean that as a slight on them and they aren't flat out trying, but their task is akin to pushing water up a hill. A quick look shows me that there 364 reported posts since June 1st, or 3,347 since the beginning of the year, a huge percentage of them related to blatant traveller bashing, misogyny, Islamophobia, racism, to name a few. The mods are sick to the back teeth of trying to keep their finger in the dam, and I can't say I blame them.

It gets thrown out here quite a bit that we don't listen to the userbase, but the userbase isn't just the squeakiest wheel in feedback. The sheer volume of reported posts tells me that the userbase isn't happy with the quality of posting in AH. Something needs to change.

So it's a more complicated issue than "Why don't you get more mods?", "Why don't the mods do their jobs?" (one could turn it around and ask "Why don't a large subset of posters stop being dicks?", but that's a conversation for another day). I don't think that any topic should be off-limits, and sometimes you need to let stupid people say stupid things sometimes, in the hope that other people will point out that person's stupidity. However, the difficulty here is allowing for an online dialogue that mirrors the exchange of ideas and opinions that happens throughout people’s lives offline, while eliminating the obvious trolls, and people who hide behind the anonymity of the internet.

Should AH be able to facilitate this? In the ideal world, yes. In theory, every forum here should operate by one simple guiding principle: Don't be a dick. However, it's not a perfect world, and enough people have abused the open nature of the "don't be a dick" rule to warrant charters and addendums to varying degrees in different forums, depending on the nature of the forum to begin with. And the way things stand in AH at the moment, I think it's gone beyond a one charter fits all scenario - if we allow for lighthearted anything goes threads, then we have to specifically ask for a slightly higher standard of posting when it comes to controversial topics. For me, the only way I see of doing this is by filtering more serious or controversial threads somehow, making them distinct from the lighthearted threads, and applying a slightly higher level of moderation to them, to weed out the trolls and genuine racists/homophones/Islamophobes etc. while still allowing open discussion to occur.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Mike that's a nice post, but there is one huge problem.

One person's "islamophobia" is another person's "islam's teachings are bad because...", or one person's "racism" is another person's "this distinct group of people seem to have a problem with...."

Having a non-randomly chosen group of people tasked with making those arbitrary desicions is the issue, and furthermore, having that same group not applying their interpretation of the charter in a consistent fashion. And even further, those people and people further up the hierarchy getting their heckles up when anyone makes the mistake of questioning that.

Tokyo

Kenzie Better Kangaroo wrote: »

One person's "islamophobia" is another person's "islam's teachings are bad because...", or one person's "racism" is another person's "this distinct group of people seem to have a problem with...."

Broadly speaking, I agree with you - what you describe above is by definition "points of view", and of course they are going to differ from person to person. However, the above might hold more weight for me if people were actually posting along the lines of "this distinct group of people seem to have a problem with....". But, to a concerning degree, that's not the case. One poster's recent charming viewpoint on the the travelling community was:

Surely a plausible call for ethnic cleansing. They add nothing to society, all they do is take take take. A scourge.

...and this is by no means a unique example.

This is my own personal opinion here, but as a discussion forum, we can't simply gag all racist/homophobic/misogynistic viewpoints, if for no other reason than so they can be fought. But on what planet does dehumanizing prejudiced nastiness like the above permit civil conversation? Folks who post this sort of bile should be banned.

Kenzie Better Kangaroo wrote: »

Having a non-randomly chosen group of people tasked with making those arbitrary desicions is the issue, and furthermore, having that same group not applying their interpretation of the charter in a consistent fashion. And even further, those people and people further up the hierarchy getting their heckles up when anyone makes the mistake of questioning that.

What would you propose in its stead? There are arguments for both camps of course. On one side, it can be debated that allowing such rhetoric normalizes and spreads it, no matter how much effort is put into fighting it. And that allowing it to be debated it puts it into the socially acceptable category of "things a reasonable person can debate over". On the other hand, not allowing it to be discussed pushes it underground where people become more radicalized, and we end up with points of view along the lines of "Look at these immigrants, taking over the country, stealing our jobs, breeding like rabbits, ethnic cleansing etc."

But either way, what remains is an interesting line to define as a moderator. Mods need to encourage people to post, yes. But they need to encourage people to post in the right way. However, I don't believe that the decision-making process is as arbitrary as you believe. I don't personally mod AH, but I would imagine a value judgement needs to be made in many cases. Some posts need to be tackled head-on and stamped out, others might be the sort of post that I would expect other posters can swing back at and make a difference in the minds of the readers. But by that very nature, sometimes it means different mods will fall on different sides of whatever line is drawn in terms of their immediate response. I might come across a reported post and decide that it's better to leave it and let people know their views are not acceptable and deplatform them, whereas another mod might fall slightly the other side of the line and remove it.

Do mods always fall on the right side of the line? Of course not. It's an imperfect system, and I don't believe there is a perfect system to deal with posts like this, and the direction AH has taken as of late. But I'd argue that the AH mods make the right call far more frequently than they make the wrong one.

Tokyo

Based on feedback here, and in other feedback threads, and with the opening of the Current Affairs/IMHO forum, we have decided to take your comments on board and close the Politics Café. I do applaud the mod team there who have put up a valiant effort to steer the Café towards what it was originally intended to be, but I also feel that to an extent, biases built up in the past iteration of the Café seem to be a bell that we can't unring.

My post in the Café this morning.

Good morning guys,

As some of you may be aware, in response to feedback from users across the site, we recently created the Current Affairs/IMHO forum as a place for frank exchanges of views on serious and at-times controversial topics, which users clearly want to discuss. It will allow users to openly discuss issues and express their views while respecting the rights of others. Threads that have the potential for more serious or controversial discussion can be moved there. Of course, the obvious trolls still get nuked, but the idea is to foster an environment where everyone can openly discuss issues and express their views while respecting the rights of others.

However, by going ahead with this, we have decided to close the Café.

From a purely practical perspective, the Café will become redundant with the Current Affairs forum in place - content in each is similar enough that posters simply aren't going to request access and post in the Café if they can post in an open-access Current Affairs forum. The issue of access and visibility is one that comes up on a regular basis in feedback, and while a degree of that is coming from posters who still hold on to biases built up in previous iterations of the Café, it's still something we need to consider.

I'd like to thank the mods and posters who put in so much effort into keeping this place open over the past few years, and I hope to see you bring your discussions to the Current Affairs forum. For now, we will not accept any new posters to the Café, and will close it this weekend, to give threads a chance to wind down.

~Mike

blackwhite

Will the limited number of active(ish) threads in there be moved across also?

Tokyo

blackwhite wrote: »

Will the limited number of active(ish) threads in there be moved across also?

After discussion with the CA mods and Café mods, a handful of active threads were moved, yes.