Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Rodney Bathgate

Better Than Christ wrote: »

Honestly, to eradicate the worst of the far-right nonsense, less than a dozen would have to leave.

Then you would move onto getting the next set of remaining users you consider ‘the worst’ banned. Then the next etc.

Omackeral

Better Than Christ wrote: »

I won't be singling anyone out. You'll find what you're looking for in Current Affairs.

Cut their username off. All I'm asking for is an example of your claims. If it's that prevalent, shouldn't be tough to throw a quote or two up? It's you makin the claim, only fair to back it up.

PS Even if the posts are identifiable, who cares if you're exposing an anonymous racist?

Baggly

We don't moderate opinions - we moderate discussion within the framework of the rules. And the CA charter is clear and very easy to follow in this regard.

People are allowed hold opinions that may be unpalatable or that we may disagree with - if they do so within the rules, thats all anyone can ask of anyone else on the site. There are lots of reports that come in on posts that i might find objectionable from a personal beliefs POV, but if they are expressed civilly and dont break any other site rules, then as a mod im going to leave the post there, even if i disagree with it. And if the post doesnt break the rules, its there to be debated or ignored. Thats how discussion sites should work, imo. I wouldn't want to be involved in a site or forum that bans people for their viewpoint alone.

Just my 2c as a CA mod of course.

Baggly

KiKi III wrote: »

I know this is regularly suggested jokingly, but for issues that come up all the time could we not have megathreads?

For example, right now we have two nearly identical threads about prominent figures who are anti-trans, one for J K Rowling and one for Graham Linehan. It’s the same posters posting the same opinions and in a month it’ll be the same again on someone else.

Right now there’s a main thread on the new government, but there are also at least three other threads in the forum about individual ministers and another about gender balance in the cabinet.

Why do we need all these threads on the same topics?

You can PM me the details or report the threads in question and ill take a look, if you like.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

The plug should have been pulled when a moderator was allowed start a thread ranting and lecturing about why ‘all lives matter’ is racist.

As long as he wan't a mod of the particular forum, he would and should be treated as a normal non mod poster. And if a mod of that particular forum, would it not be beneficial to show that opinion and examine the consequences of holding that belief?

It's a matter of opinion as to whether we shouldn't hear opinions we disagree with and ban based on that alone or allow that opinion to be aired and discussed and shine a sometimes harsh light on it to expose the more unpalatable sides to it that the original poster might not have considered when expressing that opinion first day. One will lead to posters examining their beliefs and evaluating them in relation to opinions never before seen by them, the other will lead to an echo chamber.

I know which one I would prefer, anyway.

Rodney Bathgate

I’d like to understand why the opening post in the thread “‘Europol: Ireland hit by surge of ‘right-wing extremism’” is not deemed trolling.

The definition that boards uses:

“A troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

The opening post content:

“Maybe we could avoid ten pages of "yeah but these days you get called far-right just for saying Jews are plotting to destroy the West and immigrants are invading our pure white lands" and talk about the serious issue this raises?

At the very least, I'd love to hear the arguments as to why bloody Europol is wrong about this or how they might have some kind of "leftist agenda".“

I would consider this ‘inflammatory’ and the intent was clearly ‘to provoke other users into an emotional response’.

But it wasn’t deemed to be trolling when it was reported.

EmmetSpiceland

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

But it wasn’t deemed to be trolling when it was reported.

Did you, yourself, report this post, R?

Rodney Bathgate

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Did you, yourself, report this post, R?

Yes, I did, E, so I know it was reported.

EmmetSpiceland

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Yes, I did, E, so I know it was reported.

Have you been doing that a lot? I’ve heard that the mods get annoyed at what can be perceived as “abusing the report function”.

I, personally, choose to confront any “issues” head on myself. I’ve reported one post early on in my tenure here, after being encouraged to by the poster I had a beef with. Nothing came of it, which I’m glad of now as the guy is a good skin.

Did you try to address your “concerns”, or put forward any counter-argument in the thread you mentioned before running to the mods?

To be honest, I’d like to see the report function removed from “Current Affairs”. Just let the place flow.

Baggly

EmmetSpiceland wrote:

Have you been doing that a lot? I’ve heard that the mods get annoyed at what can be perceived as “abusing the report functionâ€.

Where did you hear that Emmet? It's not true BTW. The people who are helping the site the most are the ones using the report function imo.

Omackeral

It's extremely difficult to take your points seriously when you insist on using needless inverted commas, especially in a feedback forum.

Annasopra

Baggly wrote: »

We don't moderate opinions - we moderate discussion within the framework of the rules. And the CA charter is clear and very easy to follow in this regard.

People are allowed hold opinions that may be unpalatable or that we may disagree with - if they do so within the rules, thats all anyone can ask of anyone else on the site. There are lots of reports that come in on posts that i might find objectionable from a personal beliefs POV, but if they are expressed civilly and dont break any other site rules, then as a mod im going to leave the post there, even if i disagree with it. And if the post doesnt break the rules, its there to be debated or ignored. Thats how discussion sites should work, imo. I wouldn't want to be involved in a site or forum that bans people for their viewpoint alone.

Just my 2c as a CA mod of course.

It seems to be subjective though. A lot of posters in the past have been sanctioned for saying trans people are mentally ill yet recently this is no longer the case. It seems like moderation now allows abuse of trans people where it didn't before. And if someone said gay people were mentally ill it would be sanctioned. So it seems abuse of trans people is now allowed on CA when posts saying trans people are mentally ill do not get sanctioned.

Rodney Bathgate

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Have you been doing that a lot? I’ve heard that the mods get annoyed at what can be perceived as “abusing the report function”.

I, personally, choose to confront any “issues” head on myself. I’ve reported one post early on in my tenure here, after being encouraged to by the poster I had a beef with. Nothing came of it, which I’m glad of now as the guy is a good skin.

Did you try to address your “concerns”, or put forward any counter-argument in the thread you mentioned before running to the mods?

To be honest, I’d like to see the report function removed from “Current Affairs”. Just let the place flow.

I report personal abuse, of me or others regularly. Having been on the receiving end of being reported a few times, I figured I may as well play the same game.

Baggly

Abuse of anyone isn't permitted joey. Doesn't matter what subset they identify within, abuse isn't allowed.

Don't confuse this with people holding subjectively wrong opinions or misinformed opinions as you may see them. But as a mod its not my job to change their mind. Its up to other users to discuss it and perhaps change their mind.

You might find people holding opinions that are transphobic. That is their right. They are allowed to hold opinions you don't agree with or might not be the most PC. It's there to be debated or ignored. Same options they might have if you post an opinion they don't like.

I didn't agree to become mod to subjectively decide what is and isn't a valid point of view. I moderate discussion by applying the rules. I've no interest in moderating opinions. And I shouldn't be doing so, whether I agree with a point of view or not.

Baggly

I'd also like to see where people were being sanctioned for that specific reason vs being sanctioned for rule breakages like trolling, being uncivil or being a dick. There is a distinction between a sanction for these and a sanction for someone holding what you may classify as a wrong opinion.

EmmetSpiceland

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

I report personal abuse, of me or others regularly. Having been on the receiving end of being reported a few times, I figured I may as well play the same game.

That’s fair enough. But, tell me, do you report yourself when you’re “at it”?

Rodney Bathgate

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

That’s fair enough. But, tell me, do you report yourself when you’re “at it”?

Not possible unfortunately. You cannot report your own posts. I don’t think I have ever reported you either.

Annasopra

Baggly wrote: »

Abuse of anyone isn't permitted joey. Doesn't matter what subset they identify within, abuse isn't allowed.

Don't confuse this with people holding subjectively wrong opinions or misinformed opinions as you may see them. But as a mod its not my job to change their mind. Its up to other users to discuss it and perhaps change their mind.

You might find people holding opinions that are transphobic. That is their right. They are allowed to hold opinions you don't agree with or might not be the most PC. It's there to be debated or ignored. Same options they might have if you post an opinion they don't like.

I didn't agree to become mod to subjectively decide what is and isn't a valid point of view. I moderate discussion by applying the rules. I've no interest in moderating opinions. And I shouldn't be doing so, whether I agree with a point of view or not.

Why are mod warnings put in then that get ignored?

A mod warning that posts "labelling trans people as having mental issues / are paedophiles etc, or any other attempts at being blatantly offensive will earn a threadban" - but this hasnt been followed through in every case

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112062597&postcount=1

I cant find posts offhand that have been moderator sanctioned in the past for this transphobic abuse but it is common knowledge

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113783000&postcount=2423
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113783284&postcount=2426

Why is there a change of policy that abusive transphobic posts saying trans people are mentally ill are now allowed.

Baggly

I don't think there has been a Change in policy Joey.... To be honest if I punished those two posts you gave as an example I think it would be very harsh given they are reinforcing what the mod note says, albeit poorly.

Ill have to defer to the mod who saw those reports as I haven't seen them before and don't know the context around them.

What I will say is that your question is, I believe, asked in bad faith. Instead of asking if there has been a Change in policy, you assumed there is one. I don't feel you are coming into this discussion with your mind open on this one.

Baggly

Just reread your post and I think I've picked you up wrong. You weren't offering those posts as examples. Apologies... My bad.

My point still stands I think.... As far as I know there hasn't been any change.... If you see posts you have an issue with please report them.

I don't cover each and every report that gets made, but I try my best. If there are any examples you can find I'm happy to take a look.

Annasopra

Baggly wrote: »

Just reread your post and I think I've picked you up wrong. You weren't offering those posts as examples. Apologies... My bad.

My point still stands I think.... As far as I know there hasn't been any change.... If you see posts you have an issue with please report them.

I don't cover each and every report that gets made, but I try my best. If there are any examples you can find I'm happy to take a look.

My point was

1 The mod warning here says https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112062597&postcount=1 "...labelling trans people as having mental issues / are paedophiles etc, or any other attempts at being blatantly offensive will earn a threadban."

2 It has been noted by 2 posters this has always been the policy to sanction this transphobic abuse
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113783000&postcount=2423
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113783284&postcount=2426


So why are there posts that were not sanctioned

Baggly

If there are posts I missed on that thread or if I forgot the mod note I must admit it's an oversight on my part. I'll do better to keep an eye out for that in future.

Annasopra

Baggly wrote: »

If there are posts I missed on that thread or if I forgot the mod note I must admit it's an oversight on my part. I'll do better to keep an eye out for that in future.

It's not necessarily a personal comment here on you personally though. It was a general comment that transphobic abuse like this has always been sanctioned.

Baggly

I appreciate that. All the same I'll keep an extra eye out for the mod note being breached going forward. The answer to your question is, I think, they weren't sanctioned because of an oversight rather than a 'policy change'

Annasopra

Baggly wrote: »

I appreciate that. All the same I'll keep an extra eye out for the mod note being breached going forward. The answer to your question is, I think, they weren't sanctioned because of an oversight rather than a 'policy change'

Fair enough - thanks for the response

by the letter of the law just discussed the above post would seem to be actionable

i think its worth asking if that passes a smell test tbh- maybe im wrong in how im judging it

i understand that a different criteria could and should apply in an lgbtqia+ forum and i think joey moderates exuberantly in that role and i can see the case for that

sabat

Why are certain posters allowed to contribute nothing except telling people what they're supposed to think
and allowed to say? And why when hard evidence of the major question marks around transexualism such as one of the hundreds of YouTube videos of vulnerable young people who were given pharmaceutical or surgical treatment which they deeply regret, or whistleblower reports from inside clinics, is posted do these same posters become conspicuous by their absence? You'd almost think their presence here was to push an agenda no matter what, rather than engage in discussion.

Sweetemotion

It's the hipocrisy that gets me.

The posters crying racism and call CA a cesspit have no problem calling other posters, "angry little gammons". And are amazed "white people are so sensitive".

Think they are better than those they accuse.

Tokyo

Better Than Christ wrote: »

They won't even address the issue.

I'd love if an admin could give an honest answer to the following:

Are you happy that CA has become a racist cesspit? I mean, is it something that you're happy to stand over, or are you at least slightly ashamed?

This is it wrote: »

What do you expect when you ask a loaded question?

Better Than Christ wrote: »

It's not a loaded question. It has become a racist cesspit. And the admins have allowed that to happen. I'd genuinely like to know whether they're happy or ashamed of what their inaction has led to.

Better Than Christ, have you stopped beating your wife?

It is 100% a loaded question, which is genuinely unfortunate as it's a disingenuous way of using feedback as a means to get a dig in, rather than looking at the issue critically and trying to elicit a solution, or better still, trying to be a part of the solution. And much like "have you stopped beating your wife?", it's unrealistic to expect an answer when your question is couched in those terms. On a more pertinent note though, it's actually quite representative of what often happens in CA these days - there's been an uptick lately in threads with “innocent” questions that are often loaded questions, many of the bigoted ilk.

end of the road wrote: »

the site is what the users make it though, the admins can't do everything, the users will have to do their bit and play their part.
if people want sensible discussion then have it and ignore whether it be racists or whoever else by not responding to them, some will want to challenge them and that's fine as well.
the admins can bann the racists and eventually they do but they come back anyway, so the userbase will have to debunk the nonsense as that does have some success in getting rid of racists and similar as they eventually go off in a strop that way.

This is a valid point. Many of the posts in feedback - when they're not insults couched as loaded questions - point toward the mods/admin as being the root cause of every issue across the site. Mods are biased. Admin 'let' it happen. Path of least resistance and all that. But the site is what the users make it; an argument that seemingly suits in feedback when someone wants to take the line that posters are 'customers' and boards needs to do better / work harder, but never comes to the fore when there's an option for posters to effect *actual* change through how they engage with the site. More succinctly, cause vs. effect.

What you are asking for, BtC and others, is a greater show of effect, but nobody wants to address the cause, or the fact that they might have a role to play in improving the overall atmosphere themselves. There are the obvious posters of course, bent on creating a toxic environment, a poster who refuses to argue in good faith, and we deal with those pretty ruthlessly. You also have the bigots who are so obvious in their support of ideals that society has rightly decided that this is beyond the pale that I think we can discern pretty readily that these ideals are indeed irrefutably bad, and people who insist on advancing them are indeed bad people for doing so. They are free to exercise their free speech in places that are not privately controlled, such as message boards like this one, and I'm happy to assist them on their journey.

I believe there is something to the assertion of CA having turned into an echo chamber. But I think that is largely poster-driven, and not because of moderation (apart from the bans of complete nutcases, which is of course mod-driven). By far the most prevalent posters in CA these days are those with the tendency to demonize their debate opponents and see them in the worst possible light, and where arguments - not debates - quickly devolve into displays of tribalism or quickly become personalised. The behavior described, sounds a lot like sea lioning, (something I hadn't heard of before yesterday,) as far as I understand the term. Persistence, asking for cites on everything, even opinions, dismissing answers as insufficient or non-responsive, following the poster around and re-engaging over and over, “innocently” asking repeated questions, responding to good-faith answers only with another question. As I see it, this is as destructive to good debate as anything you’ve named above, and many of the very people giving feedback here engage in it on a daily basis.

But to address the original loaded question - "Are you happy that CA has become a racist cesspit?" There are bigots in CA, most definitely so. Personally, I'm unhappy that so many of our posters find it so easy to express bigoted points of view towards other human beings. It is an interesting line to define as a moderator because there's never a bright line, in many cases it's going be a question of the probative value of allowing a bigot to advocate his or her bad ideas and countering them with good ideas, vs the fact that merely hosting such a debate within this community contributes to making this forum a hostile environment to the targets of that bigotry. It does mean a bit of work on our end. Anytime there are value judgments like that being made I find that it’s best to give people some leash to define a pattern of behavior before anything final is done. It's not always a bad thing to give people the opportunity to learn and mend their ways. Our habits and expectations here on boards are so different from so many other, harsher places on the Internet that sometimes it can take people a while to adjust. They should have that opportunity.

As for those who advocate for instant bannings for speech with which they disagree? I’d say most of such should be happy we don’t. Based on reports we get every day most posters in CA/IMHO would be banned within a week under such a regime.

However to expand on the above, I'm also unhappy that many of our posters are unable or unwilling to address the content of somoene's post in some substantive way that doesn’t just amount to an indirect insult or accusation of lying. And before someone jumps in to say I am equating trolls and bigots to posters who don't always engage in good faith - I'm not. What I am saying is that both are equally time consuming to moderate, and the more time we spend on the latter, the less time we have to focus on the former.

Basic rules, that apply to all, repeated ad nauseum:

Someone disagreeing with you, or even holding forth an opinion you find repugnant, does not make them a bad person. And it is neither possible nor desirable to write specific rules for every single instance of debating in poor faith.

1. Your opinion of another poster is not a fact.
2. Someone disagreeing with you does not make them a troll.
3. You disliking another’s post does not give you license to abuse them.
4. It's a message board - you don’t need to insult or objectify other posters to somehow ‘win’ an argument.

Calling someone a racist/troll/homophobe/liar devolves into “no I’m not” “yes you are.” Dropping the poster’s own words on them and making them answer for it or slink away from it makes your point in a much more effective manner. If you really want to help the forum, regardless of the OP's original intent, stop fanning the flames.

Tokyo

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why are mod warnings put in then that get ignored?

Why is there a change of policy that abusive transphobic posts saying trans people are mentally ill are now allowed.

There has been no "change of policy" in this regard, as you very well know. Your N=2 would have been too small to illustrate your point, even if what you were stating as fact was true.

You are deliberately loading your questions Joey, and you have done so multiple times in this thread, which doesn't lead to honest discourse. One of your last posts in this thread stated unequivocably that the forum was permitting posters to threaten violence against children who express anti racist views which I asked you to qualify and was ignored. This is posting in bad faith, and I'd like you to please either answer the question I asked or withdraw it before posting in the thread again.

That's not stifling your input to this thread by the way, but if you want to be considered to not be posting in bad faith, you need to do better than seagulling and not qualifying your previous statements. I think that's a reasonable expectation.