Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

This is it

Beasty wrote: »

It's not a thread I would intend posting in. It is a thread we may well see some problems with. However we do not dictate to mods what they can or cannot post. they are as free to start a thread as anyone else. In this particular case I think there's a fair chance someone else would have started a thread on this topic anyway

Yep, common sense is normally relied upon.

freshpopcorn

Beasty wrote: »

It's not a thread I would intend posting in. It is a thread we may well see some problems with. However we do not dictate to mods what they can or cannot post. they are as free to start a thread as anyone else. In this particular case I think there's a fair chance someone else would have started a thread on this topic anyway

That's why I started the thread because I thought somebody else would have started it and thought my take on it would be tamer than some.
I also shared information about what it's like to work in hospitality industry and basically what the owners expect the staff to do.

Odhinn

Beasty wrote: »

It's not a thread I would intend posting in. It is a thread we may well see some problems with. However we do not dictate to mods what they can or cannot post. they are as free to start a thread as anyone else. In this particular case I think there's a fair chance someone else would have started a thread on this topic anyway

True, but that doesn't make it right. Having seen closehand what a second generation traveller family have to put up with in terms of discrimination that thread seems to just endorse bigotry. It was one woman as well, which makes it doubly bad.

Annasopra

Beasty wrote: »

It's not a thread I would intend posting in. It is a thread we may well see some problems with. However we do not dictate to mods what they can or cannot post. they are as free to start a thread as anyone else. In this particular case I think there's a fair chance someone else would have started a thread on this topic anyway

I wouldnt ever suggest you can dictate what mods can and cannot post but lets face it, this is just an indirect invitation for traveller bashing. I stand by my original point. Mods shouldnt be encouraging discriminatory behaviour.

Baggly

How do you reconcile the start of that post with the end of that post Joey?

Discodog

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I wouldnt ever suggest you can dictate what mods can and cannot post but lets face it, this is just an indirect invitation for traveller bashing. I stand by my original point. Mods shouldnt be encouraging discriminatory behaviour.

I read the thread only because it's mentioned here. I can't see any bashing & I think that the word "bashing" is used as an excuse too often.

For example we have had threads closed under the excuse of Garda bashing & justifiable debate has been closed down.

Annasopra

Baggly wrote: »

How do you reconcile the start of that post with the end of that post Joey?

Mods posting in order to "debate" an issue but really in an underhand manner encouraging numerous ways in which the forum charter can be breached through hate speech, insults, derogatory abusive posting shouldnt be encouraged.

Baggly

I don't know that it is being encouraged.

But more to the point, how do you avoid telling mods what not to post, while at the same time telling them what not to post.

Sonny noggs

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Mods posting in order to "debate" an issue but really in an underhand manner encouraging numerous ways in which the forum charter can be breached through hate speech, insults, derogatory abusive posting shouldnt be encouraged.

Why don’t you just post a list of topics you don’t want discussed instead of making underhand weasel word accusations. That is where you are going with this...maybe you should be made an Administrator so you can card and ban moderators.

Sonny noggs

How does Joey feel about the Gemma ‘bashing thread’?

batgoat

Sonny noggs wrote: »

How does Joey feel about the Gemma ‘bashing thread’?

A public figure engaging in hate speech is pretty different to justifying refusing rooms to travellers.

Sonny noggs

batgoat wrote: »

A public figure engaging in hate speech is pretty different to justifying refusing rooms to travellers.

The Gemma thread was also started by a moderator, it wasn’t started to compliment her, so a clear double standard there, regardless of her being a public figure or not. Joey has posted in that thread, it would be interesting to see his thought process on what he deems an acceptable or unacceptable thread and how it ties into his politics. I’d hazard a guess that it would be something along the lines of right of center or conservative BAD, anything attacking them GOOD.

Sonny noggs

Sickening that this thread hasn’t been nuked yet:

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058009191

TheValeyard

I think the split between AH and current affairs is working very well and a vast improvement on the previous system. Well done those involved.

Outlaw Pete

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Mods posting in order to "debate" an issue but really in an underhand manner encouraging numerous ways in which the forum charter can be breached through hate speech, insults, derogatory abusive posting shouldnt be encouraged.

Your comments are ridiculous.

The mod in no way encouraged (indirectly or otherwise) the things you keep suggesting they did.

This is a discussion forum and I think it's not mods like the one you're chastising that are a detriment to healthy debate here, it's mods like you, who would no doubt turn Boards into one giant leftist echo chamber if you had your way.

You are free to reply to the posts you don't agree with are you not and so why not focus on doing that. If someone's opinion has no merit and is borne of hate then you should have little trouble posting a solid rebuttal making them look like the bigot you imply them to be.

Odhinn

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Your comments are ridiculous.

The mod in no way encouraged (indirectly or otherwise) the things you keep suggesting they did.

This is a discussion forum and I think it's not mods like the one you're chastising that are a detriment to healthy debate here, it's mods like you, who would no doubt turn Boards into one giant leftist echo chamber if you had your way.

You are free to reply to the posts you don't agree with are you not and so why not focus on doing that. If someone's opinion has no merit and is borne of hate then you should have little trouble posting a solid rebuttal making them look like the bigot you imply them to be.

The post in question is its own condemnation. A lone traveller woman is not the equivalent to an invasion by Genghis Khan.

bringing every little thing in here to litigate it is in the top three irritating behaviours from the brigade who seem astonished that it is permitted to disagree with them

Sonny noggs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

bringing every little thing in here to litigate it is in the top three irritating behaviours from the brigade who seem astonished that it is permitted to disagree with them

Yes, when Joey deems something is racist the wheels should be put in motion forthwith (if not sooner) to purge the site of the offending material. Forget due process or moderation. His word should be final.

Odhinn

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Yes, when Joey deems something is racist the wheels should be put in motion forthwith (if not sooner) to purge the site of the offending material. Forget due process or moderation. His word should be final.

He's not the subject of the complaint, however. What is, is a thread that implies discrimination against a lone traveller woman was some great victory, despite a court finding that she was discriminated against.

Faugheen

So traveller bashing and encouraging ‘jokes’ that wish harm on children are fair game.

Right so.

Sonny noggs

Odhinn wrote: »

He's not the subject of the complaint, however. What is, is a thread that implies discrimination against a lone traveller woman was some great victory, despite a court finding that she was discriminated against.

He is actually the subject of a complaint. The complaint being that he is attempting to over step the mark regarding moderation.

KyussB

TheValeyard wrote: »

I think the split between AH and current affairs is working very well and a vast improvement on the previous system. Well done those involved.

From the little I've seen of it (I have not bothered to look far tbh), CA seems like the lack of rules from AH - but without any of the cop-on from AH, that was capable of counteracting the lack of rules.

Great success for people who view political stuff in general as 'boring', and have wanted it excised from AH, though (the pub with the 'no politics' sign hung over the bar...).

KyussB

Is red-baiting - i.e. everything being constantly reduced to equating it with Communism - considered a form of trolling?

That's pretty much the level of discussion.

Look at this shite:
https://twitter.com/GrrrGraphics/status/1167127261377548288

Efforts to fight climate change are a Communist conspiracy don't you know!

I don't actually want any mod intervention - that's a rube goldberg machine of bullshit to come - but I am curious if this is viewed as trolling.

its surely, and in total sincerity, no different to everything a certain dedicated cohort doesnt like being equated with racism, trumpism, fascism, sexism? that's absolutely rampant across the boards, and the posters exhibiting these behaviours furthermore demand banning.

"oh but we're right!" is no defence. everyone thinks they're right. the mods action behaviours not opinions, and this behaviour is prevalent across the spectrum.

KyussB

The difference is when it becomes evident that posters aren't being serious when making tenuous/farcical comparisons to an '-ism' (be that communism, racism etc.) - the are just shitting out the comparisons because they know it blocks discussion, to backslap/circlejerk with other posters at obstructing a discussion - i.e. basically just to troll.

When the comparisons become evidently, deliberately farcical like that - that's just trolling at best - and worse than trolling, when posters mix up stuff like that, with the pretence of putting forward genuine arguments as well.

sorry, i dont agree

to project that the posters you disagree with are acting in bad faith is precisely equivalent to saying "but when we do it its ok because we're right"

the tendency for many high-volume posters (whose view would appear to align broadly with the classic internet left set of views) to jump to allegations of -isms at the first whiff of an opportunity is totally open to the criticism you're making- that it's a bad faith move to exert control over debate.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

The difference is when it becomes evident that posters aren't being serious when making tenuous/farcical comparisons to an '-ism' (be that communism, racism etc.) - the are just shitting out the comparisons because they know it blocks discussion, to backslap/circlejerk with other posters at obstructing a discussion - i.e. basically just to troll.When the comparisons become evidently, deliberately farcical like that - that's just trolling at best - and worse than trolling, when posters mix up stuff like that, with the pretence of putting forward genuine arguments as well.

Because you may disagree with someone does not make them a 'troll', or mean they are 'not being serious', making 'tenous / farcical comparisons' blocking / backslaping / circke-jerkng / trolling / obstructing. To disagree with something is a normal part of discussion as is holding comments up to scrutiny or asking for clarification and further detail. Just the way it is and shouldn't involve getting personel about any of it eitherway.

KyussB

Here is - literally - the list of things that are considered Communist:
- Any significant increase in government spending
- The term 'mobilizing workers' - i.e. any increase in government employment of workers
- The word 'resources'
- The entirety of environmentalism
- The entirety of the movement against climate change

I'm not even joking - these are the things that have illicited branding of views, as Communist - by like, at least 4-5 posters. It's fucking bizarre.

When the brush is cast that ridiculously wide, it's just trolling - the posters spouting that absolutely are acting in bad faith, because it's just not credible that they actually believe it is Communism - especially when that keeps getting put forward on a sustained basis.

It's just a form of dog-whistling - labelling certain views as 'unacceptable', deeming them troll-worthy to block debate.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Here is - literally - the list of things that are considered Communist:
- Any significant increase in government spending
- The term 'mobilizing workers' - i.e. any increase in government employment of workers
- The word 'resources'
- The entirety of environmentalism
- The entirety of the movement against climate changeI'm not even joking - these are the things that have illicited branding of views, as Communist - by like, at least 4-5 posters. It's fucking bizarre.When the brush is cast that ridiculously wide, it's just trolling - the posters spouting that absolutely are acting in bad faith, because it's just not credible that they actually believe it is Communism - especially when that keeps getting put forward on a sustained basis.It's just a form of dog-whistling - labelling certain views as 'unacceptable', deeming them troll-worthy to block debate.

So do you believe everyone who you disagree with is trolling? Interesting viewpoint...

jesus ppl really love trying to relitigate in full in these threads dont they.

kyuss, the individual instance that irked you is rather beside the point.

for any instance of nonsense statement (a) that you feel is a troll, an example of statement (b) will be found as ridiculous but crucially *on your side of the argument*

you will, miraculously (and "you" here isnt personal, most everyone is guilty as far as i can see) will only complain about the instance that you disagree with.

team x will say all of team z said (a), team z will say that all of team x said (b)

mods are being asked to rule on these gotcha-fests and hey ive got my problems with modding but its a totally unfair and unrealistic demand to ask them to get involved, because across the board its posters behaving like this and then pointing at anyone but themselves and their side.

ive no idea how it could be resolved as a set of behaviours tbh, but modding aint it imo