Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Baggly

We have gone over the reasons for asking for a better standard of posting in this feedback thread before. The reasons haven't changed.

When it was a free for all the previous incarnations were muck and overflowing with trolling behaviour.

Since we have introduced guidance on what's acceptable we may have had to action a few posters and delete a few posts, but the majority of people contributing are finding a way to express their opinions without always needing incontrovertible proof or annoy the other side. There are exceptions to this but they are exceptions, not the majority.

The suggesting you need to back up every single statement is hyperbolic. I can find plenty of opinions in the last few pages of the trump v Biden thread that haven't provided proof and yet are fine.

Call me Jimmy you seem to be conflating rules around trolling phrases with not being allowed to express an opinion. I suggest you consider this again as I don't see any evidence for what you have said.

Call Me Jimmy

Baggly wrote: »

Call me Jimmy you seem to be conflating rules around trolling phrases with not being allowed to express an opinion. I suggest you consider this again as I don't see any evidence for what you have said.

I'm not confusing anything. There was a rule around using terms like 'sleepy joe' that I said already I have no problem with.

There is also a rule that you failed to defend around requiring medical evidence for commenting on the mental status of the candidates. Is that lifted?

And I was not being 'hyperbolic' I stated clearly that I said the principle you are applying for commenting on someone's mental status is what I extrapolated.

Baggly

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

And I was not being 'hyperbolic' I stated clearly that I said the principle you are applying for commenting on someone's mental status is what I extrapolated.

Ok so you were being hyperbolic.

As a principle it means any claims have to be incontrovertible and opinions simply aren't allowed.

That is not true. At all.

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I'm not confusing anything. There was a rule around using terms like 'sleepy joe' that I said already I have no problem with.

There is also a rule that you failed to defend around requiring medical evidence for commenting on the mental status of the candidates. Is that lifted?

We have a rule not to call the candidates names. What is the issue there? You cant express your opinion without name calling?

We have an issue with propagating the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden is in mental decline, to disrupt other discussions in the thread, because it has no medical basis in fact that anyone can point to.

That it keeps getting brought up again and again is, like the name calling, a tactic to troll one side of the debate. Again, if you are annoyed you cannot express your opinion that he is in mental decline, then in my opinion that is regrettable. Its not a discussion that can add to the thread.

'I think he is in mental decline'
'Do you have any evidence?'
'No but i can see it with my eyes sure'
'Ok so....'

The above only varies in the length it takes to get someone to admit there is no medical evidence or basis for the opinion, and thus nothing to actually discuss. But in the meantime the thread has been disrupted and actual discussion has ground to a halt. I dont know if thats always the intent, but thats the effect.

This isnt me making stuff up - this is what has happened.

Finally - can you please stop taking cheap shots at the mod team. We understand our actions and are well able to stand by them. We are, as you can imagine, busy moderating the forum. The little cheap shots you have posted a couple of times in this thread are really unwarranted and frankly just distasteful. My fellow comods are, in my opinion, doing a really good job keeping the Trump v Biden thread rolling, clean and civil for both sides. You insinuating otherwise is just crass.

Ten of Swords

Report posts has always been the advice.

The Trump vs Biden thread is incredibly fast moving. Part 4 was set up just before midnight on the 3rd and we will be moving to part 5 later tonight, so in the space of 2 and a half days (66 hours) there has been nearly 10,000 posts. The scale of the thread is such that the mods cannot possibly read every single post so if you don't report a post you have an issue with then there is little chance a mod will see it.

Call Me Jimmy

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Lad banned there for saying Biden has dementia. You know that he could have early stage dementia and not be diagnosed? I can't imagine how thin-skinned you have to be to be unable to read people's opinions about your dear leader.

In fairness, he could have all manner of ailments. But weird levels of guesswork is not gonna lead to a productive discussion.

The moderation is ridiculous there at the minute..I got thread banned for saying someone else's threadban was harsh..

It's a joke..

Snake Plisken

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Report posts has always been the advice.

The Trump vs Biden thread is incredibly fast moving. Part 4 was set up just before midnight on the 3rd and we will be moving to part 5 later tonight, so in the space of 2 and a half days (66 hours) there has been nearly 10,000 posts. The scale of the thread is such that the mods cannot possibly read every single post so if you don't report a post you have an issue with then there is little chance a mod will see it.

I agree and I don't envy you job trying to manage the thread and I appreciate Baggly post on there trying to bring order to the thread. Not sure it's going to make much difference with some of the main culprits but worth a try.

Call Me Jimmy

Baggly wrote: »

Ok so you were being hyperbolic.



That is not true. At all.

If you were consistent with the principle it would be the case. The principle is that you can't make claims or express an opinion without incontrovertible proof. The fact that you only decide to apply it to the mental status of candidates is arbitrary - this is the part you don't understand or accept. You don't understand what a conspiracy theory is, you've demonstrated that already. It's not an insult.

Baggly wrote:

We have a rule not to call the candidates names. What is the issue there? You cant express your opinion without name calling?

If you read my post you'd see I said I never had a problem with that, in fact before the rule came in I have made posts agreeing that the name-calling on both sides is tiring to read. So please read what I said rather than asking me to repeat it - it was a short post. In fact when I spoke to you before I made that clear, so you have to assume the reason I've spent time talking about this is because I'm just dying to be able to cry 'SLEEPY JOE"... which isn't surprising given the attitude of the users and mods towards people who are remotely pro-Trump or anti-Biden. It's clear this place is heading towards Reddit territory with modding like this.

Baggly wrote:

We have an issue with propagating the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden is in mental decline, to disrupt other discussions in the thread, because it has no medical basis in fact that anyone can point to.

That it keeps getting brought up again and again is, like the name calling, a tactic to troll one side of the debate. Again, if you are annoyed you cannot express your opinion that he is in mental decline, then in my opinion that is regrettable. Its not a discussion that can add to the thread.

'I think he is in mental decline'
'Do you have any evidence?'
'No but i can see it with my eyes sure'
'Ok so....'

The above only varies in the length it takes to get someone to admit there is no medical evidence or basis for the opinion, and thus nothing to actually discuss. But in the meantime the thread has been disrupted and actual discussion has ground to a halt. I dont know if thats always the intent, but thats the effect.

This isnt me making stuff up - this is what has happened.

You deemed it a conspiracy theory, and you provided weak justification for it based on highlighting part of definition of it! No, it is not a conspiracy theory to say that you think someone is declining due to old age. If I have the opinion that someone is suffering early stage dementia or any sort of decline from old age, if it isn't diagnosed it isn't even possible to get proof. And nobody was claiming to diagnose anyone.

The funny thing is there are people propagating the idea he has a stutter and it is the reason for him confusing concepts, mixing up names and forgetting where he is with no medical evidence. By your definition, the stutter is a conspiracy theory. Is it against the rules to claim he has a stutter despite that not making sense AND there being no medical evidence?

You know even if he was diagnosed with something it would be true but we wouldn't have evidence to bring to you. So no matter how poorly he does during the state of the union: no commenting on it, except if you want to say how bad his 'stutter' is!

Finally - can you please stop taking cheap shots at the mod team. We understand our actions and are well able to stand by them. We are, as you can imagine, busy moderating the forum. The little cheap shots you have posted a couple of times in this thread are really unwarranted and frankly just distasteful. My fellow comods are, in my opinion, doing a really good job keeping the Trump v Biden thread rolling, clean and civil for both sides. You insinuating otherwise is just crass.

Not a cheap shot it wasn't meant to be an insult, you didn't defend the actions except to bastardise the concept of conspiracy theories. Neither did Beasty who wrote back once but shut down when asked actual questions about it. You all don't understand what you are doing and it won't be good for the site because these things creep, especially when you have such poor justification for them. If people on the other side of this argument actually started holding you to it with reports and the like (which I never usually do because I want people to say what they want as much as possible) I promise you'll start to see the problems with it.

Anyway you have the last word you sound like you don't really accept that you could be wrong about this even though you show you haven't even read my posts properly.

Ten of Swords

This is not the place for complaining about specific mod actions.

If you wish to dispute a specific mod action you received you can do so in the Dispute Resolution Forum

If you have an issue with the forum or moderation in more general terms this can he raised in the Help Desk

This is it

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The moderation is ridiculous there at the minute..I got thread banned for saying someone else's threadban was harsh..

It's a joke..

In fairness, don't question mods on thread is a well known sitewide rule on boards, and for good reason.

Boards.ie: Mark

Mod note: Enquiring, you need to be on the site 3 months in order to provide feedback.

CQD, the best place to start is to send a Private Message to the moderator(s). This applies not only to your thread ban that you've picked up, but also to action taken against other users. Questioning moderation on a thread isn't allowed as it drags conversations off-topic.

Baggly

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

If you were consistent with the principle it would be the case. The principle is that you can't make claims or express an opinion without incontrovertible proof. The fact that you only decide to apply it to the mental status of candidates is arbitrary - this is the part you don't understand or accept. You don't understand what a conspiracy theory is, you've demonstrated that already. It's not an insult.


If you read my post you'd see I said I never had a problem with that, in fact before the rule came in I have made posts agreeing that the name-calling on both sides is tiring to read. So please read what I said rather than asking me to repeat it - it was a short post. In fact when I spoke to you before I made that clear, so you have to assume the reason I've spent time talking about this is because I'm just dying to be able to cry 'SLEEPY JOE"... which isn't surprising given the attitude of the users and mods towards people who are remotely pro-Trump or anti-Biden. It's clear this place is heading towards Reddit territory with modding like this.





You deemed it a conspiracy theory, and you provided weak justification for it based on highlighting part of definition of it! No, it is not a conspiracy theory to say that you think someone is declining due to old age. If I have the opinion that someone is suffering early stage dementia or any sort of decline from old age, if it isn't diagnosed it isn't even possible to get proof. And nobody was claiming to diagnose anyone.

The funny thing is there are people propagating the idea he has a stutter and it is the reason for him confusing concepts, mixing up names and forgetting where he is with no medical evidence. By your definition, the stutter is a conspiracy theory. Is it against the rules to claim he has a stutter despite that not making sense AND there being no medical evidence?

You know even if he was diagnosed with something it would be true but we wouldn't have evidence to bring to you. So no matter how poorly he does during the state of the union: no commenting on it, except if you want to say how bad his 'stutter' is!




Not a cheap shot it wasn't meant to be an insult, you didn't defend the actions except to bastardise the concept of conspiracy theories. Neither did Beasty who wrote back once but shut down when asked actual questions about it. You all don't understand what you are doing and it won't be good for the site because these things creep, especially when you have such poor justification for them. If people on the other side of this argument actually started holding you to it with reports and the like (which I never usually do because I want people to say what they want as much as possible) I promise you'll start to see the problems with it.

Anyway you have the last word you sound like you don't really accept that you could be wrong about this even though you show you haven't even read my posts properly.

Thanks for your feedback.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The moderation is ridiculous there at the minute..I got thread banned for saying someone else's threadban was harsh..

It's a joke..

I would guess it's more that moderators don't want anything to kick off since it's such a fast moving thread. Both sides are getting infractions. So it's more a matter of all posters raising their standards for a while.

Beasty

Please note that posts are not feedback on the forum will be deleted

This is also not a place to report posts - there's a process for that

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

The moderation is ridiculous there at the minute..I got thread banned for saying someone else's threadban was harsh..

It's a joke..

Is that on topic?

Isn't that arguing on thread about moderation?

Clear violation of the rules.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Is that on topic?

Isn't that arguing on thread about moderation?

Clear violation of the rules.

Yous may be correct

But it also smacks of moderators being on a powertrip....from info provided,you must surely agree it was excessively harsh??

Ha Long Bay

Not sure how much admin work is required but would it be possible to add a list of thread banned users to the OP of the threads?

It could save time if posters could see who are banned and dont engage on threads with them.

Seems to work reasonably well on the busy Covid threads.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

Yous may be correct

But it also smacks of moderators being on a powertrip....from info provided,you must surely agree it was excessively harsh??

No I surely don't. The subtopic has been done forwards and backwards through many iterations and at this point its down to people soapboxing their conjecture or simply doing it to purposefully troll a response out of other users, which mods end up having to referee. Like Trump's own campaign using the rhetoric, it is only designed to distract or filibuster from actually substantive topics.

Might I suggest starting a Conspiracy Theory thread if users sincerely believe Biden is hiding a serious medical condition, as users have done in the past starting a thread for whether Trump is hiding a serious medical condition. That frees up the thread in CA/IMHO to be used to discuss current events and things that can reasonably be argued based on common facts and not rudderless armchair speculation from total rank amateurs.

i really have to question the strand of thought that cannot tolerate a "sleepy joe" or reference to trumps ridiculous appearance, but allows the latest thread on the election to be titled "the case of the stolen election"

just think that the priorities are clearly out, there

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

i really have to question the strand of thought that cannot tolerate a "sleepy joe" or reference to trumps ridiculous appearance, but allows the latest thread on the election to be titled "the case of the stolen election"

just think that the priorities are clearly out, there

But like, you could say anything you wanted about trump until the sleepy Joe and dementia Joe comments started being a bit too real and the rules were changed..

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

i really have to question the strand of thought that cannot tolerate a "sleepy joe" or reference to trumps ridiculous appearance, but allows the latest thread on the election to be titled "the case of the stolen election"

just think that the priorities are clearly out, there

How? Argument from all corners that the election could be stolen, whether by Qanon conspiracy theories or by a packed SCOTUS ruling. Reading way too much into a thread title.

argument from all corners that joe is sleepy

argument from all corners that trump is a deranged fascist

i dont understand that point at all, certainly i dont feel its an effective rejoinder tbh

the focus on protecting public figures from fairly mild slings and arrows is very strange in and of itself, but set against the defence of a highly provocative title like that in the circumstances and it really is starkly highlighted.

Ten of Swords

john4321 wrote: »

Not sure how much admin work is required but would it be possible to add a list of thread banned users to the OP of the threads?

It could save time if posters could see who are banned and dont engage on threads with them.

Seems to work reasonably well on the busy Covid threads.

Not a huge amount of work but it requires ongoing maintenance and buy in from all of the forum mods to keep it up, this can be tricky during extremely busy periods where there are a lot of mod actions on the go at once. It's not practical for every single thread but for multi-part megathreads it can be useful.

I will add a list of all threadbanned users for the Trump vs Biden threads into the op of part 5 and we will see if it's beneficial.

Ha Long Bay

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Not a huge amount of work but it requires ongoing maintenance and buy in from all of the forum mods to keep it up, this can be tricky during extremely busy periods where there are a lot of mod actions on the go at once. It's not practical for every single thread but for multi-part megathreads it can be useful.

I will add a list of all threadbanned users for the Trump vs Biden threads into the op of part 5 and we will see if it's beneficial.

Thank you appreciate the reply.

Ten of Swords

This has been done, will see if it makes life easier
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115201805&postcount=1

Outlaw Pete

I'm not on that threadbanned list. Has my ban been lifted?

If so, cheers - appreciate it.

Overheal

Yeah there were 2 threads merged into 1 so there is 2 lists of threadbans?

CQD you've been cheeky

Baggly

That list has to be checked and verified by all of the mods.

Please dont post if you have received a threadban in the past, unless there is a post and/ or pm confirming your threadban has been lifted.

As mentioned in the request made earlier in the thread, the list is a tool for users to check to see who they should or shouldn't engage with with regards to threadbans.

Kidchameleon

The list is hilarious - all Trump supporters. You'd almost think either a. Trump supporters are breaking the rules or b. Boards.ie doesn't like Trump supporters. Seeing as I have been carded and banned for literally NOTHING multiple times whilst Biden supporters get away scot free with the same or worse infractions, I'll go with the latter.

Faugheen

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The list is hilarious - all Trump supporters. You'd almost think either a. Trump supporters are breaking the rules or b. Boards.ie doesn't like Trump supporters. Seeing as I have been carded and banned for literally NOTHING multiple times whilst Biden supporters get away scot free with the same or worse infractions, I'll go with the latter.

I got carded the other day and I’m a Biden supporter.

Delusional.