Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Tokyo

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”.

You *can* get sanctioned for abusing the report button, but that's only ever done in cases of extreme bad faith post reporting. A good example would be a poster who was actioned for a particular infraction of the rules, and then proceeds to trawl through the last ten years of Boards history, reporting any and every perceived slight to prove a point. Or a recent poster who stated unequivocally that they would report hundreds of posts and then proceeded to do so.

Nobody is going to get sanctioned for reporting a post in good faith. Whether we action it or not comes down to a number of factors, and no, we are not going to explain our rationale each time and it's an unrealistic expectation that any mod do so. But broadly speaking, quite a few are what I regard as rather stretched interpretations of otherwise innocent phrases, others are had to explain away other than someone going out of their way to see an issue where there is none. That isn't going to earn anybody a mod action though, unless it enters serious taking-the-piss territory, and repeated requests from admin have been ignored.

What *is* irritiating though, to me personally at least, is that we have a number of posters who insist of using the reported post function in lieu of countering the argument in the thread. Frankly, we have a handful of posters who, if they made the same argument in the thread that they do when reporting the post, the forum might be a much better place. If you disagree with a post, argue your point. It's not my, or a mod's place to argue your point for you.

KyussB

mike_ie wrote: »

...
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.

Jaysus, that one was less than informative after Googling...

Though Sea Lioning that was mentioned is an interesting one - another one I've been coming across lately is the thought-terminating cliche.

The focus on bad faith posting, over strict technical enforcement of rules, is a much better direction for moderation alright - so it's good that that approach is being taken.

Tokyo

KyussB wrote: »

Jaysus, that one was less than informative after Googling...

Well that was a bit of an eye opener (or eye closer?) :eek:

My familiarity with the term (up until about 30 seconds ago) was broadly in this context.

TheValeyard

mike_ie wrote: »

Well that was a bit of an eye opener (or eye closer?) :eek:

My familiarity with the term (up until about 30 seconds ago) was broadly in this context.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Spiderman&amp=true&defid=83505

yeah, this gives Spiderman a new meaning.

osarusan

Just on the idea that it's up to the users to shape the content/standard/atmosphere of the forum.

I've never really agreed with this, or seen much logic to the argument. To use the 'pub' analogy which has often been used in the past, if I go to my regular pub and over a few months, realise that the place is becoming increasingly argumentative, or that there are more and more people droning on endlessly about a particular topic, or whatever the problem might be, I'll probably end up just not going there. No pub owner would tell their customers that it's up to them to improve the quality of the place.

Maybe others feel differently, but I'm not particularly invested in CA, don't feel like I'm part of a community there, don't feel any sense of ownership. It's a place to visit and you might learn something, see something funny, discuss something interesting, get a different perspective. If the visits become less enjoyable/interesting/enlightening, I'll visit less.

I'm just one poster who doesn't even post that frequently. CA doesn't owe me anything, and has no obligation to develop a tone/atmosphere that is to my liking. But equally, I don't owe CA anything and don't understand why posters think there is an onus on them to make those efforts either.

thats all somewhat fair

consider the corollary:

if i consistently turn up to a pub, demand that everyone in the entire pub never say anything i dislike, complain to the barman for not taking action when they do, and my main input is loudly saying "this place is a cesspit and everyone in it is a pig"

then why the hell should anyone care if i threaten to leave?

Discodog

If CA were a pub it would be closed & never get it's license back. But it is a good window on Ireland & exposes a lot of truth about some Irish opinion. Luckily it's not representative especially as most of the young, intelligent & tolerant don't go near Boards.

It's like a new Ranting & Raving. Lot's of people shouting at clouds & placing blame on everyone but themselves. Now I wonder if there is somewhere where intelligent, empathetic people can discuss World affairs - I doubt it ?

Better Than Christ

mike_ie wrote:

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.

Thank you for addressing the question, genuinely. I don't feel it's loaded because 'racist cesspit' is a pretty apt description right now.

It already is a hostile environment to the targets of that bigotry. I certainly know a lot of people who (perhaps unfairly) view Boards as a no-go-zone for anyone who isn't straight, white and male. Not necessarily because the debates themselves are being hosted, but because the loudest voices are always the bigots, who - by their very nature - are more interested in regurgitating whatever shite they've gleaned from white nationalist bloggers than entertaining any 'good ideas'. There is a very good reason why fascism has never been defeated by good ideas. It's something that always has to be stamped out. And I'm not saying "everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot" (because that seems to be the go-to response whenever this kind of stuff is called out) - there are plenty of posters on here whose views on issues like immigration and multiculturalism I don't share, but I don't think they stem from hatred.

mike_ie wrote: »

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.

I think it's fair to say the most prolific offenders have been given a very long leash. And there's no sign of them mending their ways. And why would they, when calling a racist poster a racist is literally a more serious offence than being one? It might be an idea, rather than immediately reaching for the card when someone is called a racist (or a homophobe or a misogynist), to take a quick glance through their past posts and see if there might be a ring of truth to the label.

Omackeral

Better Than Christ wrote: »

Thank you for addressing the question, genuinely. I don't feel it's loaded because 'racist cesspit' is a pretty apt description right now.

Again there’s that claim. If it’s such a racist cesspit then surely throwing up a couple of posts that weren’t actioned won’t be a chore? It’s not a ridiculous request. Merely saying “just have a look yourself” is a cop out. Just fire them up?

And I’m being genuine here, too. I’m often am at odds with some of your viewpoints but I respect you as a poster and contributor.

TheValeyard

If both lefties and righties are complaining, then surely it must be working?

EmmetSpiceland

TheValeyard wrote: »

If both lefties and righties are complaining, then surely it must be working?

Well, one side, the “lefties”, are complaining about the forum, while the other side, the “righties”, are complaining that the “lefties” are complaining about the forum.

Not sure that counts as “working”. But, again, the forum does “work” for me, in that it keeps all the creeps, bigots, weirdos, oddballs and malcontents occupied, for the most part anyway.

This is it

I hope there's a supply of inverted commas on the way, we'll have none left at this rate.

Better Than Christ

Better Than Christ wrote: »

I think it's fair to say the most prolific offenders have been given a very long leash. And there's no sign of them mending their ways. And why would they, when calling a racist poster a racist is literally a more serious offence than being one? It might be an idea, rather than immediately reaching for the card when someone is called a racist (or a homophobe or a misogynist), to take a quick glance through their past posts and see if there might be a ring of truth to the label.

does this work the other way or is your interpretation of any other poster or topic the absolute truth that stands as a pivot around which every other viewpoint in the universe must gravitate?

ie

when a series of mods and other posters decline to agree with you that something or someone is racist \end discussion\ \\run to feedback to demand immediate action if not satisfied\\

have you ever taken a second to consider that your declaration or decision or- loosen the conditions here a little- the manner and method you employ to make such a declaration, need a second glance


difficult topics - and the world isnt running out of them- dont go away because the most righteous or sensitive people aware of them get them shut down

support for these difficult/ugly conversations *is not* support for the ugly inputs in these conversations

if someone cannot see that then a general discussion forum is not where they are going to find satisfaction or achieve anything.

one would advise that type of individual to find a closed-off specialised platform where dissenting opinions were not allowed

echo, echo, echo

Quantum Erasure

as has been said to many posters in the past, if you don't like it here, maybe reddit would suit you better...

Beasty

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

it keeps all the creeps, bigots, weirdos, oddballs and malcontents occupied, for the most part anyway.

....and that's just the mods

Deebles McBeebles

Beasty wrote: »

....and that's just the mods

SUPER MOD - Beasty, don't post in this thread again.

The thread on Roderic O'Gorman is completely trying to conflate paedophilia and homosexuality. Also, why are Bitchute links even allowed on the site?

Tokyo

Deleted User wrote: »

The thread on Roderic O'Gorman is completely trying to conflate paedophilia and homosexuality. Also, why are Bitchute links even allowed on the site?

No, it's not. One poster attempted to, and was unreservedly actioned, threadbanned, and their post removed.

As I said in the thread itself, criticism of a gay man for his poor choice of personal associates isn't in itself homophobia, any more than questioning a straight man for the same associations would be. There is plenty of scope for that discussion to take place as long as it doesn't go down the path of equating one with the other.

Annasopra

mike_ie wrote: »

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.

Fair enough. I withdraw the post. It was an unecessary overeaction and I apologise. Can you delete it please.

Tokyo

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Fair enough. I withdraw the post. It was an unecessary overeaction and I apologise. Can you delete it please.

Thank you. Done.

2u2me

In my opinion the level of moderation has gone up recently. I used to see many objectionable actions from moderators but I have not seen any recently, and in fact I see many good interventions that previously were more spiteful 'this is for you taking my time into looking into the matter'.

Baggly wrote: »

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.

This is a very good point I would second. The difference in those reasons being subjectivity.

mike_ie

mike_ie wrote: »

No, it's not. One poster attempted to, and was unreservedly actioned, threadbanned, and their post removed.

As I said in the thread itself, criticism of a gay man for his poor choice of personal associates isn't in itself homophobia, any more than questioning a straight man for the same associations would be. There is plenty of scope for that discussion to take place as long as it doesn't go down the path of equating one with the other.

The association amounts to a gay man at a pride rally with another highly regarded gay rights activist who has done much in the way of activism on gay rights. The thread relies on a letter from 1997 that the minister is likely oblivious to. By the above logic, making the same association with every politician who has a photo with David Norris at pride etc as an example of a "poor choice of personal associates". It's also ignoring that this politician is largely being targeted by far right idiots because he is gay, this started as soon as he is kissed his partner days ago.

So I would say the primary motivator is being ignored.

Hotblack Desiato

mike_ie wrote: »

As I said in the thread itself, criticism of a gay man for his poor choice of personal associates isn't in itself homophobia, any more than questioning a straight man for the same associations would be. There is plenty of scope for that discussion to take place as long as it doesn't go down the path of equating one with the other.

Oh come on. We all know why he is being singled out, it's far from subtle. Many of the posts on the thread are straight out of the Gemma playbook.

There's also the posts saying that a Minister for Children shouldn't be gay.

I was going to post in that thread, but I remembered the old line about wrestling with a pig. The pig enjoys it, and you get covered in sh*t.

That thread is an absolute cesspit and Boards should be ashamed to host it.

If this is the standard now for Boards, what is the site going to become?

Hodors Appletart

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There's also the posts saying that a Minister for Children shouldn't be gay.

link?

that sounds horrendous

Hotblack Desiato

Here's one

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113908903&postcount=48

The implication there is very very clear given the current and previous incumbents' sexual orientation.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Here's one

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113908903&postcount=48

The implication there is very very clear given the current and previous incumbents' sexual orientation.

it's not though.
while there can be multiple interpretations if one wants to interpret it in a way that suits whatever viewpoint they hold, the reality is that post is just an impractical suggestion, and it was challenged sufficiently by other users from my reading of that page of the thread.

ExMachina1000

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Here's one

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113908903&postcount=48

The implication there is very very clear given the current and previous incumbents' sexual orientation.

Not really. That post is specifically asking for a minister for children who actually has children.
It is you who is twisting it into something different

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Not really. That post is specifically asking for a minister for children who actually has children.
It is you who is twisting it into something different

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058046008/1/#post112267049


This is a thread,which basically says someone who said virtually same thing,is homophobic



Now.....whether you agree with that point of view (i dont),there is large swades of population,who view that/similar statements as homophobic

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058046008/1/#post112267049


This is a thread,which basically says someone who said virtually same thing,is homophobic



Now.....whether you agree with that point of view (i dont),there is large swades of population,who view that/similar statements as homophobic

Well they are wrong on this one. The poster asked for a minister for children who actually has children.

No more was added. People looking for opinions to twist. That's how the world works now

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That thread is an absolute cesspit and Boards should be ashamed to host it.

If this is the standard now for Boards, what is the site going to become?

Is it the standard? A few posters who post all the time about something they care way too much about defines us all? I'd much rather boards.ie let the conversations take place and moderate it like they're doing. A lot of people are far too fond of censorship these days and cheer on the shutting down of anything they don't like. It would be far more shameful for boards.ie to shut down conversation because you don't like it.