Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Does it have issues? Of course, any such forum will have. That doesn't mean it can't be improved.

On this front and rather than just fire out problems, one solution I'd propose is a hardline attitude to sniping at other posters. Nip that in the bud and threads would go a lot more smoothly. Make people agree to disagree. I've caught myself doing it and mea culpa, but there's no excuse for it.

Discodog

Wibbs wrote: »

Well just looking at the Currently Active on CA and it has 500 odd, whereas AH has 150. That's quite a bit of popularity and traffic to a forum apparently full of "undesirables".

Does it have issues? Of course, any such forum will have. That doesn't mean it can't be improved.

I didn't say "full of". It has dozens of pages of issues & it's to Board's credit that it's not closed.

One thing to it's credit is the way it can expose posters. I am discovering that posters, I would of respected from other fora, have some rather nasty opinions.

Kivaro

Discodog wrote: »

I was the one that proposed it & I wouldn't never of done so had I envisaged what a Cesspit it would become.

I am no fan of Mods in general or over moderation but CA needs closing not moderating. The only positives seem to be that it concentrates all the undesirables in one place.

Sounds like when Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet.
It's just that I don't recall you when a number of us worked on getting a viable solution in place for PCv2. The fact that you want it shut down is very odd. I mean, the whole forum is now a Cesspit that "concentrates all the undesirables in one place"? That generalisation is very strange; almost like segregation.

Anyway, there are a cohort of posters who regularly demand threads deleted or shut down because it does not suit their narrative. It should be noted that Boards whole raison d'être is to facilitate discussion, so I cannot imagine that Current Affairs will be shut down anytime soon.

Discodog

Kivaro wrote: »

Sounds like when Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet.
It's just that I don't recall you when a number of us worked on getting a viable solution in place for PCv2. The fact that you want it shut down is very odd. I mean, the whole forum is now a Cesspit that "concentrates all the undesirables in one place"? That generalisation is very strange; almost like segregation.

Anyway, there are a cohort of posters who regularly demand threads deleted or shut down because it does not suit their narrative. It should be noted that Boards whole raison d'être is to facilitate discussion, so I cannot imagine that Current Affairs will be shut down anytime soon.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057860148

Facilitating discussion has to be within the basic Boards rules of decency & mutual respect. By undesirables I clearly mean those who are incapable of this.

There could easily be a point where it becomes too much effort & consumes too much time to justify it's existence.

I'm a long time browser and just an occasional poster, but I'm amazed at the latitude that seems to be given to obvious WUM's in CA forums. Given that no-one on here has to pay to post, I'd be using the ban hammer after a couple of warnings about "Don't be a dick." The lengths the mods and admins seem to go through to decide if someone should be banned seems crazy.

Though, it does lend itself to the occasional funny prison story.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058083598

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

but I'm amazed at the latitude that seems to be given to obvious WUM's in CA forums. Given that no-one on here has to pay to post, I'd be using the ban hammer after a couple of warnings about "Don't be a dick." The lengths the mods and admins seem to go through to decide if someone should be banned seems crazy.

Agree completely. It's obvious after as few as 50 posts or so that somebody has no interest in disucssion and will not respond to posts, and instead is just going post bad faith crap and/or bang a particular drum relentlessly.

Discodog

osarusan wrote: »

Agree completely. It's obvious after as few as 50 posts or so that somebody has no interest in disucssion and will not respond to posts, and instead is just going post bad faith crap and/or bang a particular drum relentlessly.

Totally agree. It amazes me how posters will have a long list of similar transgressions but still be allowed to continue.

EmmetSpiceland

Discodog wrote: »

Totally agree. It amazes me how posters will have a long list of similar transgressions but still be allowed to continue.

Then when they, finally, get “caught out” they start bawling away about being “targeted”.

Even going so far as to starting threads in the ‘Dispute Resolution’ forum mewling about “persecution”.

Gatling

Discodog wrote: »

Totally agree. It amazes me how posters will have a long list of similar transgressions but still be allowed to continue.

Put them ignore if that's the case ,cant see boards going for mass bans just because people don't want to play nice ,
Seen it on the gender identity thread ,bans going one way yet others who have a certain pro stance , refusing to answer even basic questions instead they play a game of chasing their own Tails ,then resorting to name calling

Invidious

Kivaro wrote: »

Anyway, there are a cohort of posters who regularly demand threads deleted or shut down because it does not suit their narrative. It should be noted that Boards whole raison d'être is to facilitate discussion, so I cannot imagine that Current Affairs will be shut down anytime soon.

There's a cohort of posters who claim not to be able to stand the CA/IMHO forum, refer to it as a "cesspit," and yet are drawn to it like moths to a flame.

If you can't stand it, don't read it. Don't campaign for it to be closed down, as some here are doing.

.anon.

Beasty wrote: »

If someone reports a poster as a re-reg, it would of course be helpful if they give a reason as to why, and indeed who they think it is a re-reg of. That allows us to narrow our investigation as we will not ban on suspicion alone

I'm good at spotting a re-reg (from their writing style, the opinions they express, the topics they post about, the forums they frequent, etc), but I don't like reporting them. Nine times out of ten, the exact behaviour that got them banned in the first place will get them banned again anyway. And if it doesn't, well then fair play to them for being smart enough to either change their behaviour or fly under the radar.

V8 Interceptor

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

How so, R? You don’t believe there are men on this site who are using a female “persona”? It’s quite common on the internet. Some engage in something called “catfishing”, there’s even a tv show about that, some do it to get points across unchallenged. Sure some, even, create a gay persona so they can get away with “disparaging” remarks about the LGBTQIA+ community. I, wrongly, assumed that the user in question was, jokingly, “pretending” to be a female user. I mean, it’s not illegal. Just thought they were having a laugh with it.

There are a lot of men on this Site posing as women.

Overheal

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

There are a lot of men on this Site posing as women.

Did you just assume their gender

a_squirrelman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm a long time browser and just an occasional poster, but I'm amazed at the latitude that seems to be given to obvious WUM's in CA forums. Given that no-one on here has to pay to post, I'd be using the ban hammer after a couple of warnings about "Don't be a dick." The lengths the mods and admins seem to go through to decide if someone should be banned seems crazy.

Though, it does lend itself to the occasional funny prison story.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058083598

Thank you so much for this, that was a hilarious read.

Dial Hard

Overheal wrote: »

Did you just assume their gender

In fairness, that kind of thing is very easy to spot at times.

McHardcore

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

There are a lot of men on this Site posing as women.

You sound disappointed.

McHardcore

Invidious wrote: »

There's a cohort of posters who claim not to be able to stand the CA/IMHO forum, refer to it as a "cesspit," and yet are drawn to it like moths to a flame.

Ive come to the conclusion that Current Affairs/IMHO is needed as it pulls away a large proportion of the toxic topics from spoiling and spreading through the rest of the forum. Every now and again some fuel is needed to be tossed in there in the form of a controversial viewpoint to keep the posters occupied.

Smee_Again

I posted this on election thread but it might be worth raising here.

At what point should the discussion of election fraud be confined to the Conspiracy Theories forum?

We’re weeks out from the election and there’s been dozens of court cases and no fraud of any significance has been found, surely there comes a time when this topic should be confined to where it belongs, the conspiracy theories forum.

Beasty

Smee_Again wrote: »

I posted this on election thread but it might be worth raising here.

At what point should the discussion of election fraud be confined to the Conspiracy Theories forum?

We’re weeks out from the election and there’s been dozens of court cases and no fraud of any significance has been found, surely there comes a time when this topic should be confined to where it belongs, the conspiracy theories forum.

I'm not sure that's the case when it remains probably the main talking point of the election. In fact giving posters the opportunity to highlight the absurdity of claims being made by the incumbent seems entirely reasonable in the current climate

Yes that may allow those who support Trump to continue pushing conspiracy theories, but when every major news outlet caveats Trump's claims as being without evidence but states them nonetheless I think it reasonable for us to follow their lead

Overheal

The conspiracies are still a strictly political matter at least for a few more weeks when the congress puts it to bed on January 6. Until then as ridiculous as the process is, the point is these folks are trying to force a Political conclusion to the election: trying to convince Congress to use its plenary power to throw out the election and let the states elect Trump directly in a 12A contingent election in the House of Representatives.

They have categorically no chance of success which is detailed in the thread, but, they will convince anyone who will listen they do, which is rightfully a current affair in itself.

Smee_Again

Beasty wrote: »

I'm not sure that's the case when it remains probably the main talking point of the election. In fact giving posters the opportunity to highlight the absurdity of claims being made by the incumbent seems entirely reasonable in the current climate

Yes that may allow those who support Trump to continue pushing conspiracy theories, but when every major news outlet caveats Trump's claims as being without evidence but states them nonetheless I think it reasonable for us to follow their lead

It may be a talking point of the election but point 2 of the forum charter bans the posting of material that is known to be or should be known to be false.

So I would argue that it’s fine to say Trump claims there was wide spread fraud but it is against the charter to say there was wide spread fraud.

TheRepentent

Smee_Again wrote: »

It may be a talking point of the election but point 2 of the forum charter bans the posting of material that is known to be or should be known to be false.

The Trumpists done this repeatedly...post easily debunked crap but hope people would get fatigued reading/watching easily debunked crap.

They were regularily caught copy/pasting/plagarising stuff and passing it of as their own highly thought rebuttals.

ExMachina1000

TheRepentent wrote: »

The Trumpists done this repeatedly...post easily debunked crap but hope people would get fatigued reading/watching easily debunked crap.

They were regularily caught copy/pasting/plagarising stuff and passing it of as their own highly thought rebuttals.

The Trumpists?

Can you not make a point without resorting to labelling an entire group who might have to different opinion than your own?

"The Trumpists" is meant as some sort of derogatory term and looking for a reaction.
You are intentionally trying to create an us vs them scenario where your opinions are right and anyone who disagrees is a "Trumpist" and should have their opinion removed to the conspiracy theory forum.

Cop on

Overheal

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The Trumpists?

Can you not make a point without resorting to labelling an entire group who might have to different opinion than your own?

"The Trumpists" is meant as some sort of derogatory term and looking for a reaction.
You are intentionally trying to create an us vs them scenario where your opinions are right and anyone who disagrees is a "Trumpist" and should have their opinion removed to the conspiracy theory forum.

Cop on

Trumpist is typographical shorthand for Trump Supporter.

I figured the people who were supposedly happy to see the death of political correctness wouldn’t get so bent up about such a relatively innocuous term.

ExMachina1000

Overheal wrote: »

Trumpist is typographical shorthand for Trump Supporter.

I figured the people who were supposedly happy to see the death of political correctness wouldn’t get so bent up about such a relatively innocuous term.

Yet when same or similar is posted in reply it leads to mod action.

Check out any thread with "Trump " in the title. They have become almost echo chambers. Almost all opposing opinion posters have been banned. It's now the same half dozen or so posters with the same view posting the same comments over and over. The odd one will ask "where have all the Trump supporters gone" or " its quiet in here now " . They have all been banned for among other things replying in kind to the type of post I replied to above.

The Biden v Trump thread is gone that dull that currently posters including yourself are talking about the posts of "kid chameleon " from early November. Is it starting to get boring yet? Having nobody left to argue with.

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Yet when same or similar is posted in reply it leads to mod action.

Check out any thread with "Trump " in the title. They have become almost echo chambers. Almost all opposing opinion posters have been banned. It's now the same half dozen or so posters with the same view posting the same comments over and over. The odd one will ask "where have all the Trump supporters gone" or " its quiet in here now " . They have all been banned for among other things replying in kind to the type of post I replied to above.

Seems a lot trump supporters who posted in them normally did so in bad faith. Having multiple accounts etc, apparently worried about covid for example but have nothing to say about the Florida gov manipulating the states covid stats and hiring a conspiracy theory posting uber driver as the states covid data scientist when asked.

ExMachina1000

Right on cue. Here they come.

Hungry for argument ie you are wrong. "We" are right.

Report , ban ,repeat

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Right on cue. Here they come.

Hungry for argument ie you are wrong. "We" are right.

Report , ban ,repeat

Anything inaccurate or bullsh1t you can always report.

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Yet when same or similar is posted in reply it leads to mod action.

Check out any thread with "Trump " in the title. They have become almost echo chambers. Almost all opposing opinion posters have been banned. It's now the same half dozen or so posters with the same view posting the same comments over and over. The odd one will ask "where have all the Trump supporters gone" or " its quiet in here now " . They have all been banned for among other things replying in kind to the type of post I replied to above.

The Biden v Trump thread is gone that dull that currently posters including yourself are talking about the posts of "kid chameleon " from early November. Is it starting to get boring yet? Having nobody left to argue with.

For me, (Clive), it's more about the posting style than the opinion. The election threads are littered with certain posters just dropping links to youtube or twitter followed with a "Hmm, this look interesting" or "Next few days should be fun" without providing any input or reason as to why they believe the stuff they've just dropped has any pertinent bearing on the election. It gets boring after a certain point. I'd rather no-one replied to the threads so we could see the absurd stuff just get posted again and again and view it for what it is. But, I can also see why folks are going to want to counter that absurdity.

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Right on cue. Here they come.

Hungry for argument ie you are wrong. "We" are right.

Report , ban ,repeat

Tbf...if yous are going to make a point,surely you can expect to have to defend it??


Like i dont really see whats left to talk about american election,so prefer to stay well out of it


But you cant complain when someone has a differing view to yous (though i suggest just reply to 1 post,which is representive of a bunch of posts,)