Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

People with a different opinion
Ban 1 and 10 more appear. Ban the 10 and 100 more appear

So do you think racist posts should be allowed? There's plenty of other sites on the internet that cater to that tbh.

osarusan

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

People with a different opinion
Ban 1 and 10 more appear. Ban the 10 and 100 more appear

A handful of busy reregs.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So do you think racist posts should be allowed? There's plenty of other sites on the internet that cater to that tbh.

People with a different opinion are not racists.

Racists who post racist content are racist.

"So you think racists posts should be allowed?"
You made that up . I said nothing of the sort.

Thanks
Jim

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

People with a different opinion are not racists.

Racists who post racist content are racist.

"So you think racists posts should be allowed?"
You made that up . I said nothing of the sort.

Thanks
Jim

They were banned for racism, not different opinions...

Smee_Again

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

People with a different opinion are not racists.

Racists who post racist content are racist.

"So you think racists posts should be allowed?"
You made that up . I said nothing of the sort.

Thanks
Jim

You equated racism and opinion.

No one was banned for having a different opinion, they were banned for racist posting.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They were banned for racism, not different opinions...

And so they should be.

It's a shame that other companies such as Twitter etc dont act like boards and ban racist content from their platforms too.

Thanks
Jim

Edit: Is it time for CA to have politics forum style moderation?
It's a tight leash over there.

Beasty

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Edit: Is it time for CA to have politics forum style moderation?
It's a tight leash over there.

That completely defeats the whole purpose of the forum

Politics Cafe did not work
Politics Cafe 2.0 did not work
AH as a host for such discussion did not work

ExMachina1000

Beasty wrote: »

That completely defeats the whole purpose of the forum

Politics Cafe did not work
Politics Cafe 2.0 did not work
AH as a host for such discussion did not work

I wasn't around for the days of politics cafe 1 or 2.

It's a bit like the war on drugs really. Huge mod resources (time) poured in but cant catch everything and people will continue to want to say these racist things so the market is alive and well.

So options just like the wod the options are heavier enforcement(more jail time) or people say whatever they like (legalisation)

You can see why the likes of Twitter are so desperate to hold onto their section 230 statuses. It relieves them of responsibility for policing their forum. Perhaps they know that just like the war on drugs the war on posting cant be won.

sydthebeat

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I wasn't around for the days of politics cafe 1 or 2.

It's a bit like the war on drugs really. Huge mod resources (time) poured in but cant catch everything and people will continue to want to say these racist things so the market is alive and well.

So options just like the wod the options are heavier enforcement(more jail time) or people say whatever they like (legalisation)

You can see why the likes of Twitter are so desperate to hold onto their section 230 statuses. It relieves them of responsibility for policing their forum. Perhaps they know that just like the war on drugs the war on posting cant be won.

You have a very warped view as to what boards.ie actually is.

Its a small privately owned message board where the owners could be legally prosecuted for what's posted here.

Moderation here will always, and should always, be leaning on the side of "let's not take any chances" and I for one certainly agree with it.

ExMachina1000

sydthebeat wrote: »

You have a very warped view as to what boards.ie actually is.

Its a small privately owned message board where the owners could be legally prosecuted for what's posted here.

Moderation here will always, and should always, be leaning on the side of "let's not take any chances" and I for one certainly agree with it.

"Its a small privately owned message board where the owners could be legally prosecuted for what's posted here"

That's the important part so.

Fair enough and understood

Thanks
Jim

KyussB

AH did not work for much of the identity politics type discussions, and ones which touched anywhere near race - but it worked very well for a lot of other types of discussion that end up on CA.

CA has the big improvement over Politics of mod action being lighter in severity and more leniant, but brings the bad side of Politcs modding in that it is often arbitrary and a pain in the ass to try and divine what random things will be considered a rule breach - and challenging or seeking clarity is futile 95+% of the time.

It is very far from AH level of relaxed moderating, which was a mixed bag, but is what CA was implicitly going to be based on - and CA doesn't tend to draw in regular/common-sense type posters as often as AH, it seems to end up in concentrated tribalism more than before, with added cancel-culture style post reporting grudges (but that could just be what online discussion in general is like, now - and that's always been present on other forums in some amount, just seems a lot more so on CA across a much bigger variety of topics).

Insect Overlord

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

"Its a small privately owned message board where the owners could be legally prosecuted for what's posted here"

That's the important part so.

Fair enough and understood

Thanks
Jim

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Yes.

Edit :I don't understand why you want to argue with me. I dont want to argue with you. Please leave me alone.
Thanks

Thomas

Which name is it we should be using to address you, sir?

ExMachina1000

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Which name is it we should be using to address you, sir?

Theodore is fine

Regards
Peter

Discodog

Deleted User wrote: »

I find a lot of posters here unpleasant. Wouldnt dream of requesting they were banned.

There's a lot of people on both sides of the aisle that post purely "to bait" people into "an argument" so they can "report them".

But I get where you are coming from, I just wouldn't like to see it happen as it would turn into an echo chamber.

I am all for opposite opinion & I think it's good that some views as in the open. But I disagree. A lot of "normal" people just don't bother expressing an opinion in a toxic atmosphere, which moves so fast & changes topic within the thread. Real discussion gets buried.

I am not suggesting closing CA but I would like to see another forum which is chartered & modded as 95% of the other Boards fora. I can see the appeal of an after hours style CA - that's why I proposed it.

Discodog

Smee_Again wrote: »

You equated racism and opinion.

No one was banned for having a different opinion, they were banned for racist posting.

Maybe Boards need to make it clear what is & is not racism - shouldn't be necessary but ?

Maybe along the lines of if you post this, you will be banned, permanently.

Some may not like it but Boards has always had to be careful.

Smee_Again

Discodog wrote: »

Maybe Boards need to make it clear what is & is not racism - shouldn't be necessary but ?

Maybe along the lines of if you post this, you will be banned, permanently.

Some may not like it but Boards has always had to be careful.

If you need that explained for you then maybe boards isn’t the place for you.

(Not you you )

To use an example, if you're even to raise the issue of the man who was shot having mental health issues, you will get a pile on. The thread basically operated on a basis of he deserved to die and that he's a scumbag. I'm not even sure if you'll get huge amounts of reports for threads like it since most posters are simply avoiding the thread, myself included after glancing at it.

ExMachina1000

Discodog wrote: »

Maybe Boards need to make it clear what is & is not racism - shouldn't be necessary but ?

Maybe along the lines of if you post this, you will be banned, permanently.

Some may not like it but Boards has always had to be careful.

It's a fine line. Unacceptable comments must be sanctioned and repeat offenders removed.
The crossing of the line is at mods discretion but mods are people who naturally have opinions and dare I say it biases of their own so too much heavy handed action on one side results in an echo like chamber. Then the rot sets in as posts dry up. For the site to earn money to survive it needs traffic. Echo chambers are traffic killers.

The funny thing about it is when some threads do become echo chambers you see remaining posters commenting that the thread has gone quiet. Almost as if people actually really do want others to argue with.

It's not easy

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To use an example, if you're even to raise the issue of the man who was shot having mental health issues, you will get a pile on. The thread basically operated on a basis of he deserved to die and that he's a scumbag. I'm not even sure if you'll get huge amounts of reports for threads like it since most posters are simply avoiding the thread, myself included after glancing at it.

Very true and I can counter that with an example of a trump thread you frequent. If anyone appears with a pro trump or anti biden comment they also get an immediate pile on. You know what I'm talking about.
Now I stay away and leave you all to it

Just the way it is

Discodog

Smee_Again wrote: »

If you need that explained for you then maybe boards isn’t the place for you.

(Not you you )

Very many either don't know, pretend not to or do it deliberately.

Smee_Again

Discodog wrote: »

Very many either don't know, pretend not to or do it deliberately.

They all get plenty of warnings, some heed them and some don’t.

Harakiri by mod is fairly common.

Annasopra

osarusan wrote: »

A handful of busy reregs.

And a lot of people who were regulars and not reregs too

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Very true and I can counter that with an example of a trump thread you frequent. If anyone appears with a pro trump or anti biden comment they also get an immediate pile on. You know what I'm talking about.
Now I stay away and leave you all to it

Just the way it is

Not exactly the same at all, one relates to a man who was shot and died who likely has family members or friends on the site. The other is a Trump thread which for the most part is incredibly tame and not comparable to threads rife with racism.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And a lot of people who were regulars and not reregs too

Can think of some pretty prominent regulars that have said some pretty terrible things.

Discodog

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

It's a fine line. Unacceptable comments must be sanctioned and repeat offenders removed.
The crossing of the line is at mods discretion but mods are people who naturally have opinions and dare I say it biases of their own so too much heavy handed action on one side results in an echo like chamber. Then the rot sets in as posts dry up. For the site to earn money to survive it needs traffic. Echo chambers are traffic killers.

The funny thing about it is when some threads do become echo chambers you see remaining posters commenting that the thread has gone quiet. Almost as if people actually really do want others to argue with.

It's not easy

Yes but maybe they need some help to ensure consistency - the lack of which is one of the most common complaints. It can't be that difficult to get the Mods together & agree what will & what not be allowed.

Annasopra

Discodog wrote: »

Maybe Boards need to make it clear what is & is not racism - shouldn't be necessary but ?

Maybe along the lines of if you post this, you will be banned, permanently.

Some may not like it but Boards has always had to be careful.

Its difficult to be that prescriptive

Discodog

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

It's a fine line. Unacceptable comments must be sanctioned and repeat offenders removed.
The crossing of the line is at mods discretion but mods are people who naturally have opinions and dare I say it biases of their own so too much heavy handed action on one side results in an echo like chamber. Then the rot sets in as posts dry up. For the site to earn money to survive it needs traffic. Echo chambers are traffic killers.

The funny thing about it is when some threads do become echo chambers you see remaining posters commenting that the thread has gone quiet. Almost as if people actually really do want others to argue with.

It's not easy

That's exactly what happens when you moderate too lightly - the mob drown out opposing opinions producing an echo chamber.

"pile on" tends to be a weasel word for "i seem to be in the minority here"

Nothing wrong with lots of people disagreeing with you. Maybe you're wrong, maybe you're the only right person- either way you probably need to reflect on what you're looking to achieve by continuing.

Describing the *situation* of everyone disagreeing with you as the problem is revealing imo.

Annasopra

Its very clear to me though that with the numbers of posters banned from the forum and the site in the last week or two there is a big problem with racism. And this "excuse" that it was 1 or 2 people reregging is drivel.

Discodog

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its difficult to be that prescriptive

Yes. Necessary things are often difficult. The alternative could be problematic. Advertisers like clicks & footfall but as has already been shown, they don't want to be associated with the "wrong "opinions.

Discodog

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its very clear to me though that with the numbers of posters banned from the forum and the site in the last week or two there is a big problem with racism. And this "excuse" that it was 1 or 2 people reregging is drivel.

It's actually scary how posters, that you interact with pleasantly on other fora, really have some extreme views.