AH Gone to the Dogs

Fr_Dougal

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Let’s face it, D. The “powers that be” at boards.ie are always going to be happy enough with the traffic these threads generate.

Sure, until those, inane, threads started appearing they had a mod that would put up similar threads that were reminiscent of a teacher asking primary school children what they did on their holidays or for their “news”.

As with those threads, the best way to be rid of them is not to post in them. For some reason these threads get pages, and pages, of responses. Users, constantly, telling the OP their an “idiot” or giving out about their crap threads, all that does is keep the thread on the first page and causes more people to post in it.

As long as these users are staying within the rules those threads will be with us. Encouraging others not to post on them might be an idea but that could be seen as being “exclusionary” and against the “spirit” of the site.

Either way, it’s the users, themselves, who seem to be at fault here.

There’s a bit of a difference between a mod starting harmless threads for a bit of banter and a poster, who seriously needs professional help, posting threads about euthanasia/suicide/drinking antifreeze/self mutilation etc.

EmmetSpiceland

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

There’s a bit of a difference between a mod starting harmless threads for a bit of banter and a poster, who seriously needs professional help, posting threads about euthanasia/suicide/drinking antifreeze/self mutilation etc.

Is it though? Each is as “inane” as the last. The users decide what stays relevant and what doesn’t.

If people stopped posting things like “it’s past your bedtime” etc. the threads would just disappear.

anewme

I must post here about the Marian Finucane thread this evening and the quality (or lack thereof) on the thread.

The thread was allowed continue way too long before it was shut.

Given the standard, this thread should be deleted out of respect.

Beasty

anewme wrote: »

I must post here about the Marian Finucane thread this evening and the quality (or lack thereof) on the thread.

The thread was allowed continue way too long before it was shut.

Given the standard, this thread should be deleted out of respect.

Mods have deleted it.

Please give them a little time to consider requests. Sometimes a decision may be straightforward, but often mods will seek input from others rather than acting unilaterally. That takes time

MrMusician18

Beasty wrote: »

Mods have deleted it.

Please give them a little time to consider requests. Sometimes a decision may be straightforward, but often mods will seek input from others rather than acting unilaterally. That takes time

That thread shouldn't have been deleted.

If AH had been moderated properly for the past year or so instead of the decision to let it be overrun by the same rereg trolls we would be able to debate Marian Finucanes legacy.

We went from everything getting shut down in AH three years ago, to a free for all today. That forum needs professional paid moderation.

Beasty

and I would suggest AH is not the best place for such a discussion. There is a thread in Radio and another in Television where posters can pay their respects

anewme

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That thread shouldn't have been deleted.

If AH had been moderated properly for the past year or so instead of the decision to let it be overrun by the same rereg trolls we would be able to debate Marian Finucanes legacy.

We went from everything getting shut down in AH three years ago, to a free for all today. That forum needs professional paid moderation.

Given the quality of that thread, there were not many options open to Mods other than delete.

In general, Boards needs to clean up its act, and maybe as you say get professional moderators to halt the spread of hatred and misogyny.

Another recent example (not After Hours) is in the Television Forum where Una Healy New Year Special Program has numerous degrading sexual comments, nothing whatsoever to do with Television.

a modest proposal:


a graph of all moderator actions taken, but with the user thus action placed on their respective position on the political spectrum (best-guess will have to do, obviously, and possibly a four-axis rather than a simple line).

weighted for repeat actions against the user, obviously.

it would be interesting to refer back to over time.

ive a feeling, from looking on, that theres as many mod interventions affecting any one side as the other, rather than the picture commonly painted here (and other such threads) of a right-wing troll invasion of misbehaviour.

long may it continue so, that mods react to poor conduct and not "people having the wrong opinion" which seems rather more to be the complaint made in here by posters holding hankies up to their noses.

oh i didnt say "cesspit". sorry!

Beasty

Just a reminder - you need to have been on the site for 3 months and have a minimum postcount of 100 to post in Feedback

Just to clarify one point that was raised in a deleted post, beyond our regular re-regs, 2 posters are currently sitebanned for posts made in the various RIP threads - in one case it triggered a breach of probation and the other it was for the posts themselves. The second will regain access before too long but their cards are well and truly marked. Further sanctions were handed out at forum level

Raconteuse

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That thread shouldn't have been deleted.

If AH had been moderated properly for the past year or so instead of the decision to let it be overrun by the same rereg trolls we would be able to debate Marian Finucanes legacy.

We went from everything getting shut down in AH three years ago, to a free for all today.

Absolutely.

Deleted User wrote: »

"people having the wrong opinion" which seems rather more to be the complaint made in here by posters holding hankies up to their noses.

No it isn't at all. That phrase just gets used to dismiss views - ironically simply because of disagreeing with them.

It's plain as day that there is an increase in malicious content. Nothing to do with difference of opinion. It's a discussion forum - of course there has to be difference of opinion.

Beasty

Another post plus response deleted because the poster has not been on the site for 3 months

Please note these rules were put in place as part of the process for re-opening this forum. It's not up for debate here, but please do not post if you do not satisfy the relevant criteria as you efforts will be wasted when the posts are deleted

Thanks

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

and I would suggest AH is not the best place for such a discussion. There is a thread in Radio and another in Television where posters can pay their respects

That's a good point actually. With the move to AH and current affairs, maybe RIP threads are best not done in AH anymore or just place them in current affairs which has a bit more of a stricter forum charter.

Beasty

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a good point actually. With the move to AH and current affairs, maybe RIP threads are best not done in AH anymore or just place them in current affairs which has a bit more of a stricter forum charter.

The Gaybo one seemed to go fine in AH, but the Marian Finucane one was worse than a car crash. CA does not have that much of a stricter charter though, but people really should not take that sort of approach in RIP threads anywhere on the site. Arguably in both cases the Entertainment forums of TV and Radio were better places for them. We have discussed this in Feedback a few years ago IIRC and concluded that RIP threads should be limited to expressing condolences and not a place to dissect characters. Of course there are occasions when people can be remembered with some humour, but it should be respectful humour and if people do not feel then can be respectful they should, IMO, stay out of such threads

hatrickpatrick

Beasty wrote: »

Another post plus response deleted because the poster has not been on the site for 3 months

Please note these rules were put in place as part of the process for re-opening this forum. It's not up for debate here, but please do not post if you do not satisfy the relevant criteria as you efforts will be wasted when the posts are deleted

Thanks

Is it not possible within vBulletin to actually apply such exclusions to an individual forum on the server end, such that anyone attempting to post without satisfying those criteria would have their "post reply" button greyed out and get a "you do not have permission to post in this thread" message if they tried to access the newreply.php page directly?

I could be thinking of BB or a similar forum software as opposed to vB, but I'm almost certain this was possible back in the day.

Just a thought as opposed to having to remind people manually in this way, that it might be possible in the forum software to pre-empt this by simply blocking the site from allowing those accounts to post messages at all in the first place. I could easily be wrong, I haven't administered a forum in years

Beasty

It's been suggested/requested numerous times and to date there has not been any feedback from the office or developers that it's feasible. Hence we have access processes for various forums where the default is no access and people have to request access from somewhere else on the site

Boards.ie: Niamh

Unfortunately no it's not possible to exclude users from posting based on their post count or how long they have been registered for so we have to do it manually.

anewme

I am not sure why blatent misogyny is tolerated.

Raconteuse

anewme wrote: »

I am not sure why blatent misogyny is tolerated.

Expect dismissal or radio silence.

Beasty

anewme wrote: »

I am not sure why blatent misogyny is tolerated.

Raconteuse wrote: »

Expect dismissal or radio silence.

Please PM me with details of any posts you have reported from AH over the past few weeks that you consider have not been adequately dealt with and I will have a look

Raconteuse

Will do.

Meanwhile on the Prince Harry Meghan Markle thread: "I can only conclude that females ‘ inner bitch ‘ want to see one of their own get one over on the world here . The ‘ inner bitch ‘ may be strong here !"

Raconteuse

Raconteuse wrote: »

Will do.

Meanwhile on the Prince Harry Meghan Markle thread: "I can only conclude that females ‘ inner bitch ‘ want to see one of their own get one over on the world here . The ‘ inner bitch ‘ may be strong here !"

Same posters in the new thread regarding food banks?

Certain threads are automatic assh0le magnets.

There’s too many people now using this to complain about opinions they don’t agree with rather than stuff that’s actually against the rules.

Quantum Erasure

I think you're wrong there, I don't agree with that at all....

EmmetSpiceland

Raconteuse wrote: »

Will do.

Meanwhile on the Prince Harry Meghan Markle thread: "I can only conclude that females ‘ inner bitch ‘ want to see one of their own get one over on the world here . The ‘ inner bitch ‘ may be strong here !"

There’s been a large over-spill of “current affairs” posters into AH recently. I, personally, believe this is due to threads not being moved over quick enough.

A thread like the ‘Wolfe Tones number 1’ attracted a large number of them and when it is allowed to continue without getting moved they stick around instead of slithering back to CA.

The forum was created to protect the likes of “After Hours” from the misogynist incel, the bigoted racist and the moaning malcontent but, of late, it is not doing its job. Not by a long shot.

Raconteuse

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

There’s too many people now using this to complain about opinions they don’t agree with rather than stuff that’s actually against the rules.

This does happen but you (and the others who have said it here) are either being extremely dishonest or missing the point by miles - or both - when applying it in this particular case.

Disagreeing with someone = not sharing the same view. So you have a discussion, debate, argument. All of that is great. It's the life blood of public discourse. It helps people to learn new things, to see different perspectives. It has certainly opened my mind.

But what in the name of god does posting about how sh1t women are have to do with the above? I don't mean criticism of feminism or addressing inequalities experienced by men, because those are actual discussions.

What on earth is the discussion purpose to woman hating? Just seems like those who object to that being pointed out are raging that they might not be able to say vile things about the female sex, or cyber-bully or ruin discussions. They are the ones who cannot handle disagreement. There are plenty of sh1tholes around the internet where they can say terrible things about women to their hearts' content, and wish terrible things on women (including some who have wives and daughters - it's not just "incels") but women frequent Boards and boo hoo if it upsets you that they express an objection to woman hating venom.

EmmetSpiceland

Raconteuse wrote: »

(including some who have wives and daughters - it's not just "incels")

Have to say, I always have my doubts around the claims of wives, daughters or, even, girlfriends coming from these types of “posters”. I just don’t buy it.

Raconteuse

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Have to say, I always have my doubts around the claims of wives, daughters or, even, girlfriends coming from these types of “posters”. I just don’t buy it.

No it's true. Imagine your parent hating the sex that you're a member of...

Fr_Dougal

Raconteuse wrote: »

Will do.

Meanwhile on the Prince Harry Meghan Markle thread: "I can only conclude that females ‘ inner bitch ‘ want to see one of their own get one over on the world here . The ‘ inner bitch ‘ may be strong here !"

I’ve seen women post their opinion on that thread, and they’ve been less than complimentary. But when men post it’s suddenly misogyny.

I reported a troll thread about Irish women a couple of days ago and will continue to do so, but you can’t throw around misogyny claims to shut down debate.

Raconteuse

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

I’ve seen women post their opinion on that thread, and they’ve been less than complimentary. But when men post it’s suddenly misogyny.

I reported a troll thread about Irish women a couple of days ago and will continue to do so, but you can’t throw around misogyny claims to shut down debate.

But why do you say I'm doing that? Going on about how sh1t women are is not debate. Saying that Meghan Markle is various awful things based just on her being a woman (there is zero evidence of any of these awful traits she is being imbued with)... is not debate.

Oh and women who say that kinda stuff are even worse! Don't know where I said otherwise.

It's those here who keep saying "This is just people not wanting to read opinions they don't like" (such pigheaded bullsh1t) who want to shut down debate.

Fr_Dougal

Raconteuse wrote: »

But why do you say I'm doing that? Going on about how sh1t women are is not debate. Saying that Meghan Markle is various awful things based just on her being a woman (there is zero evidence of any of these awful traits she is being imbued with)... is not debate.

Oh and women who say that kinda stuff are even worse! Don't know where I said otherwise.

It's those here who keep saying "This is just people not wanting to read opinions they don't like" (such pigheaded bullsh1t) who want to shut down debate.

Why is women making those comments even worse? You do realise that women are not of the hive mind? They should be allowed to express their own options, we’re not living in the 1950s.

The thread is probably better suited to some Celebrity forum, but it’s hilarious to see how worked up some people get about multimillionaire celebrities.