Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

gozunda

Necro wrote: »

Why would you think calling another user a commie or a pinko would not be sanctionable?

Same as if you started calling users fascist or racist, it's personal abuse plain and simple.

But that wasn't snoopsheep's point and you know that, you changed the argument to users when they were clearly referring to points made about non-users ie Trump

Tbh I'm confused about the users / non-users thing. I know posters cant use the phrase 'sleepy [fill in name of person] where it implies Alzheimer's etc. And you certainly can't say that of a user. But if I said that (for example) republicans / democrats were all 'criminals' or 'paedophiles' and by doing so infer that the poster was the same - for supporting them - would that be sanctionable?

KyussB

Baggly wrote: »

Please PM or report some examples for me. Thanks.

I think it was the prior thing I mentioned on this thread a month or more ago - and reported relevant backseat modding examples around then.

Necro

gozunda wrote:

Tbh I'm confused about the users / non-users thing. I know posters cant use the phrase 'sleepy [fill in name of person] where it implies Alzheimer's etc. And you certainly can't say that of a user. But if I said that (for example) republicans / democrats were all 'criminals' or 'paedophiles' and by doing so infer that the poster was the same - for supporting them - would that be sanctionable?

I think it depends. Are you using it to gain a rise out of other users ie trolling or are you trying to have a general discussion with such posts. I think you're running into hassle inferring a poster is the same in any case, the rules are pretty clear on attacking the posts not the poster.

As always, context is key. And such generalisations rarely add to any discussion in my experience. From what I gather the whole sleepy stuff was banned as users were simply doing it to get a rise out of the other side, so in other words they were trolling with those posts.

KyussB

Necro wrote: »

Why would you think calling another user a commie or a pinko would not be sanctionable?

As the person on Boards who likely has had this label applied to them more than any other poster (to the point that my last username KomradeBishop took the piss out of this fact), despite endless statements that it doesn't represent me or my views, I find that kind of laughable. I even brought that up here on Feedback at some stage.

I don't think it on its own should be sanctionable either, mind; but when combined with bad faith argument, particularly borderline trolling - that's when it'd make sense (and even then, doesn't need permanent recorded sanction - just modding with "cop-on" type posts is enough).

Baggly

KyussB wrote:

I think it was the prior thing I mentioned on this thread a month or more ago - and reported relevant backseat modding examples around then.

I'll take a look for you.

blanch152

Necro wrote: »

I think it depends. Are you using it to gain a rise out of other users ie trolling or are you trying to have a general discussion with such posts. I think you're running into hassle inferring a poster is the same in any case, the rules are pretty clear on attacking the posts not the poster.

As always, context is key. And such generalisations rarely add to any discussion in my experience. From what I gather the whole sleepy stuff was banned as users were simply doing it to get a rise out of the other side, so in other words they were trolling with those posts.

Unfortunately, the moderation isn't consistent when it comes to such generalised terms.

For example, there are some nationalist posters who use the term "partitionist" to refer to anyone who disagrees with them purely as a ruse to get a rise out of the other side. As you say, it adds zero to the discussion, and is only used to troll.

Yet, despite complaints in the past, it hasn't been actioned.

gozunda

Necro wrote: »

I think it depends. Are you using it to gain a rise out of other users ie trolling or are you trying to have a general discussion with such posts. I think you're running into hassle inferring a poster is the same in any case, the rules are pretty clear on attacking the posts not the poster.

As always, context is key. And such generalisations rarely add to any discussion in my experience. From what I gather the whole sleepy stuff was banned as users were simply doing it to get a rise out of the other side, so in other words they were trolling with those posts.

No not advocating for the use of such terms :pac: . I agree that use of same would rarely (if ever) add to any discussion in my experience.

Moreso anyone inferring that all republican/ democrats (for example) or any posters in supporting them were paedophiles or whatever would certainly amount to trolling.

That said it happens quite frequently. And no not always sanctioned.

Baggly

Baggly wrote: »

I'll take a look for you.

Ive found reports that claim backseat modding going back 6 weeks and reviewed each of them.

Where action was appropriate it was taken, where it wasnt; it wasnt taken. I will say that not all of the actions taken may be apparent to you, but they were taken nonetheless.

By that i mean if a user has their post deleted you may not see an action against that post. Or if the post was just deleted (which i sometimes do if there are a chain of off topic posts) then you also may not see this and thus not see it as 'active' moderation.

If you continue to see posts as backseat modding, please keep reporting them. They will all be reviewed and actioned where appropriate.

Im sorry but i cant provide you with further detail than the above, for reasons mentioned by others within the last page of this thread, but hopefully this might reassure you that we are not ignoring anyones reports; we just have a different interpretation of them.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Unfortunately, the moderation isn't consistent when it comes to such generalised terms.

For example, there are some nationalist posters who use the term "partitionist" to refer to anyone who disagrees with them purely as a ruse to get a rise out of the other side. As you say, it adds zero to the discussion, and is only used to troll.

Yet, despite complaints in the past, it hasn't been actioned.

the general approach from our SF contingent- the three or four accounts that everyone knows, im not sure what detail its appropriate to get into here- on irish politics threads would appear to be enough to see them banned very quickly indeed under the rules on US politics threads.

is that not a strange division of approaches?

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, and the other one, of course, is saying someone is a 'shill'

Now, afaik, calling someone a Shinnerbot or a bot is an actionable offence, yet one can call someone a shill or a FF/FG/Green shill with impunity.

There is NO consistency at all here.
Either permit both or action both.

to be fair- id imply all the time that the three or four of them are pretty much just that and i rarely get actioned for it

that may be because no reporting or maybe its fair comment, i dunno

EmmetSpiceland

[Deleted User] wrote: »

the general approach from our SF contingent- the three or four accounts that everyone knows, im not sure what detail its appropriate to get into here- on irish politics threads would appear to be enough to see them banned very quickly indeed under the rules on US politics threads.

is that not a strange division of approaches?

I think we’re comparing apples with oranges if we start likening the US politics, or identity politics, threads with Irish politics.

Sure there is a bit of “mud slinging” amid the, heated, cut and thrust of robust debate but the Irish politics threads aren’t populated with crackpots and loons. Well, not to the same degree.

Those threads are always, and should always, be moderated differently. If the denizens of the US politics, and identity politics, threads were to pick up “forum bans” then they’d be scuttling off and making a mess of other, more normal, forums.

Anyway, I, personally, don’t believe that the posters in the Irish politics threads are as “sensitive” as the types that post in the others. They don’t seem get as “butthurt” over the little things, maybe I’m wrong but might be interesting to compare the rates of “reported” posts in each.

EmmetSpiceland

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I think we’re comparing apples with oranges if we start likening the US politics, or identity politics, threads with Irish politics.

Sure there is a bit of “mud slinging” amid the, heated, cut and thrust of robust debate but the Irish politics threads aren’t populated with crackpots and loons. Well, not to the same degree.

Those threads are always, and should always, be moderated differently. If the denizens of the US politics, and identity politics, threads were to pick up “forum bans” then they’d be scuttling off and making a mess of other, more normal, forums.

Anyway, I, personally, don’t believe that the posters in the Irish politics threads are as “sensitive” as the types that post in the others. They don’t seem get as “butthurt” over the little things, maybe I’m wrong but might be interesting to compare the rates of “reported” posts in each.

sorry emmet, not a single solid point scored there for me

i. nothing to do with id politics or sensitivities. irish political threads are unusable due to the rotating-shift partisan hack attacks

ii. "all these threads are good containers so that the threads i like are kept clear" isnt actually any defence at all, and i wish you'd stop saying it as if it were an excuse for not moderating these behaviours

iii. moderation of current affairs discussion should be consistent across current affairs, politics forum and the approach taken there has been done to death but seems largely irrelevant to the point here imo

iv. the irish politics threads arent really populated by anyone BUT crackpots and loons, or those who i sincerely hope actually are getting paid to be there. pop in sometime, its three shins and a little lady and everyone else has just bailed because of the tiresome rote nature of how every issue is discussed.

its a real issue but *shrug*

Beasty

gozunda wrote: »

Tbh I'm confused about the users / non-users thing. I know posters cant use the phrase 'sleepy [fill in name of person] where it implies Alzheimer's etc. And you certainly can't say that of a user. But if I said that (for example) republicans / democrats were all 'criminals' or 'paedophiles' and by doing so infer that the poster was the same - for supporting them - would that be sanctionable?

There is a site rule against personal abuse. That is any abuse directed towards another user

When it comes down to abuse directed towards 3rd parties it's up to local mods/charters

So, for example, the Soccer Forum has a specific rule against abusing players/managers/officials or pretty much anyone

In the case of CA we do not have such a rule, but we do have the "Don't be a Dick" rule

In the election discussions dementia and "sleepy Joe" became weapons in the discussion. Posters found it offensive (and indeed trolling) and we clamped down. In doing so we have recognised similar "protection" had to be afforded Trump. Those "rules" applied to the election threads. We only started handing out sanctions after making it very clear that such names/descriptions were not permitted

There remains no such specific rule elsewhere in the forum. "Don't be a dick" remains the overriding principle, and if posters use "name-calling" or abusive terms to troll others they can expect sanction

Of course it's very easy for anyone to avoid getting into a situation where their intent needs questioning

Beasty

markodaly - you are currently disputing a card in the DRP - do not use Feedback threads to try and gain support for your position

I've deleted 2 of your posts for doing so

Any questions PM me - do not respond to this post in-thread (and that also applies to everyone else)

Beasty

Please use this thread to provide forum feedback, not highlight specific issues you can very easily report (and yes a post has been deleted)

EmmetSpiceland

[Deleted User] wrote: »

sorry emmet, not a single solid point scored there for me

i. nothing to do with id politics or sensitivities. irish political threads are unusable due to the rotating-shift partisan hack attacks

ii. "all these threads are good containers so that the threads i like are kept clear" isnt actually any defence at all, and i wish you'd stop saying it as if it were an excuse for not moderating these behaviours

iii. moderation of current affairs discussion should be consistent across current affairs, politics forum and the approach taken there has been done to death but seems largely irrelevant to the point here imo

iv. the irish politics threads arent really populated by anyone BUT crackpots and loons, or those who i sincerely hope actually are getting paid to be there. pop in sometime, its three shins and a little lady and everyone else has just bailed because of the tiresome rote nature of how every issue is discussed.

its a real issue but *shrug*

Not trying to “score points”, pal, but if you take a look in ‘Helpdesk’ or ‘Dispute Resolution’ you’ll see users from “the other side” complaining, almost daily, about the moderation, just as you are.

Granted, it does appear to have gotten much stricter in there the last while. This may be down to new faces moderating that haven’t quite grasped the “tone” of the place or maybe there’s been a conscious decision to force a change.

I completely disagree with you when you say it should be moderated the same as the ‘Politics Forum’. It shouldn’t. If you want to discuss serious politics then head over to that forum, if you want some lighthearted, or informative, discussion go to ‘After Hours’ but if you want more contentious “debate” then that’s where ‘Current Affairs’ fits in.

Yes, threads do get “taken over” by a group of posters from time to time but they tend to die off unless someone posts in them. The TERF one is a prime example of that, the anti-trans crowd turn it into an “echo chamber” until some brave soul decides to post something compassionate and that sets them off again.

You can’t censor their opinion, as long as it’s delivered within the site “rules”, just because you don’t like or you think they’re working in shifts.

Stricter moderation of the forum just makes it redundant when ‘Politics’ and ‘After Hours’ are there. I’m on record as saying that I, personally, think the “report button” should be removed from ‘Current Affairs’, or at least reported posts should be ignored as I’d imagine it would require too much effort to remove the button.

Gatling

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

The TERF one is a prime example of that, the anti-trans crowd turn it into an “echo chamber”

You mean the thread where one person attacks and labels anyone who doesn't agree with their ideology as a terf and cis despite people asking not to be called by either , pretty much an one person echo chamber

you seem to have honestly misinterpreted what i said about current affairs/politics- which may have been unclear in my post. im saying that modding has to be consistent across current affairs.

the rest of your post either misrepresents my points or doesnt really address anything i said

apart from your characterisation of the rowling thread, which tbh is laughable- as anyone who had read that thread would see.

no talk from me of censorship but clearly you have yr own items where opinions are verböten eh

EmmetSpiceland

[Deleted User] wrote: »

you seem to have honestly misinterpreted what i said about current affairs/politics- which may have been unclear in my post. im saying that modding has to be consistent across current affairs.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

iii. moderation of current affairs discussion should be consistent across current affairs, politics forum and the approach taken there...

Apologies, I took the point above to mean you were looking for consistency with the ‘Politics Forum’.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

no talk from me of censorship but clearly you have yr own items where opinions are verböten eh

Nonsense, I think all “topics” should be up for discussion with minimal mod intervention. The forum, as it is, must be a nightmare to moderate with a constant flow of whinging and reported posts.

Rothko

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Yes, threads do get “taken over” by a group of posters from time to time but they tend to die off unless someone posts in them. The TERF one is a prime example of that, the anti-trans crowd turn it into an “echo chamber” until some brave soul decides to post something compassionate and that sets them off again.

Anti-trans crowd? I haven't seen a single anti-trans poster on that thread.

TomTomTim

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Not trying to “score points”, pal, but if you take a look in ‘Helpdesk’ or ‘Dispute Resolution’ you’ll see users from “the other side” complaining, almost daily, about the moderation, just as you are.

Granted, it does appear to have gotten much stricter in there the last while. This may be down to new faces moderating that haven’t quite grasped the “tone” of the place or maybe there’s been a conscious decision to force a change.

I completely disagree with you when you say it should be moderated the same as the ‘Politics Forum’. It shouldn’t. If you want to discuss serious politics then head over to that forum, if you want some lighthearted, or informative, discussion go to ‘After Hours’ but if you want more contentious “debate” then that’s where ‘Current Affairs’ fits in.

Yes, threads do get “taken over” by a group of posters from time to time but they tend to die off unless someone posts in them. The TERF one is a prime example of that, the anti-trans crowd turn it into an “echo chamber” until some brave soul decides to post something compassionate and that sets them off again.

You can’t censor their opinion, as long as it’s delivered within the site “rules”, just because you don’t like or you think they’re working in shifts.

Stricter moderation of the forum just makes it redundant when ‘Politics’ and ‘After Hours’ are there. I’m on record as saying that I, personally, think the “report button” should be removed from ‘Current Affairs’, or at least reported posts should be ignored as I’d imagine it would require too much effort to remove the button.

You know you can just not view CA, seeing as you hate it so much? I've never seen a poster on here before with such an obsession with a sub forum as you. No matter how much you try and frame it as being against hate or whatever, the reality is you want no dissent. The politics subs is far worse when it comes to being an echo chamber, yet you never mention it because it's an echo chamber you agree with. Not everyone agrees with your views, and they never will, so you better get used to it.

Baggly

I know its not the point and i dont mean to derail the feedback being provided, but this came up last week as well in another thread....

Current Affairs isn't a subforum of After Hours or vice versa. There is overlap on the mod team for the two fora, but they are separate fora with separate remits and different charters.

There is a link to CA at the top of AH, which is there from when CA was created and took the majority of AH's current affair topics; but the two fora arent linked beyond that.

Sir Oxman

Any update on the temporary closing of the JK Rowling thread in CA?

Baggly

Not yet. The mods are discussing next steps.

Baggly

A new thread has been opened on the topic of gender identity in modern ireland. Id suggest if anyone wishes to discuss the topic, they do so there rather than in the JK Rowling thread, which was in no way near to the topic of the original OP, nor was it a current issue (and so will be remaining closed).

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=115310653#post115310653

Gatling

Total cop out .

Let's ignore and start a thread steered in one direction

EmmetSpiceland

TomTomTim wrote: »

You know you can just not view CA, seeing as you hate it so much? I've never seen a poster on here before with such an obsession with a sub forum as you. No matter how much you try and frame it as being against hate or whatever, the reality is you want no dissent. The politics subs is far worse when it comes to being an echo chamber, yet you never mention it because it's an echo chamber you agree with. Not everyone agrees with your views, and they never will, so you better get used to it.

Think you have me confused with someone else there, chief. I’ve been a big “fan” of the forum since its inception.

My only “gripe” is that I’d like the moderation to be more relaxed but I understand that this isn’t an option for the mods. I should point out that I’ve also said on a number of occasions that the mods do a great job in there.

I never mention the ‘Politics Forum’ as I don’t post in there so I don’t know how much of an “echo chamber” it is.

I’m not sure how you got anything about me not “accepting” other views, I literally said I’d like all topics to be discussed. Anything that keeps all that dross out of ‘After Hours’.

It would be terrible for the site if ‘Current Affairs’ was shutdown. Disastrous.

Sir Oxman

Gatling wrote: »

Total cop out .

Let's ignore and start a thread steered in one direction

I don't know if that is the intent by boards.ie but Ireland and the UK and the rest of the Western World are inextricably linked by this subject and theory (ie Irish youth are referred to England for assessments/services) and what happens here may affect there and vice versa (ie puberty blockers being reclassified in UK, self-id legislation here) so the thread shouldnt IMO be seen as limiting it to to events only occurring in Ireland.
I do find it sort of copping out that the bullet pointed list of rules don't include a warning on finger pointing by anyone posting - this should be applied across all threads IMO as it devalues the accusation of -ist and -phobia to the point of uselessness (and therefore makes it harder to recognise and call out actual -ist's and -phobia's) and stokes up nothing 'circular' posts which appears to be the main reason in closing the long running thread in the first place.

Gervais08

Can I assume that rules will be fairly applied and if a word is felt to be offensive and a poster gleefully denies polite requests to stop - they will be warned ?

Baggly

Felt to be offensive by whom?

If the mods deem action is needed and warranted it will be taken. This does not vary from thread to thread in the forum.