Clarity on new Current Affairs rules

odyssey06

There have been some dramatic new rules announced for the Current Affairs forum only as per below linked post. I have started this thread to get clarity on these. This is not intended as a thread to discuss pros and cons, but to get clarity on what is intended by them.
If clarity is not available at present, I suggest locking this thread until such time as it is.

Given that warnings are no longer subject to discussion \ appeal, this makes it extra important that rules are clear to follow.

1 Piling On Posters

What is "piling on posters"?
I had a quick google of discussion etiquette but there was no clear definition, and it seems to clash with the statement that "debate can be more robust".

2 A Posters Previous Posts

"bringing up a posters previous posts from other threads/forums"

Does this include across threads on the CA forum discussing similar subjects e.g. immigration, US politics, Irish party politics. There can be overlap in thread content. The current rule as written means it would not be possible e.g. to point out contradictions or inconsistencies in such similar post content across the forum by a poster.

3 Meandering versus Off Topic

"threads will be allowed to meander"

Is it possible now to ever be "off topic" in CA or to "derail" a thread?
Or is there still a distinction between "off topic" and "meandering"?

4 Mod Warnings Still Relevant?

Mod warnings in the opening posts of the most active long running CA threads may need revision in light of the new rules e.g. the Zero Refugee thread has very strict rules on its scope which does not seem to permit any "meandering".
Or are they are still in force on their specific thread?

5 Coronavirus Forum

The coronavirus forum is a sub-forum of Current Affairs.
Do the new rules apply there?

Note, posted in Help Desk as per forum charter:
If you have a query, need help, or wish to discuss issues with a forum or moderation, please use the Help Desk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058368026/new-rules-for-the-ca-forum

odyssey06

Re: Concern Trolling which is also mentioned.

I am assuming this definition is broadly correct

https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/concern-troll/

Spear

On a similar note, I've also asked how they want to deal with Helpdesk complaints about warnings/bans etc instead, or if they're also ruled out.

Witcher

It would be interesting to know how the new rules were arrived at and who decided them.

On Page 53 below on the 21st August, Big Bag of Chips said - 'People have overwhelming voted for there to be a clamp down on bickering, aggressive posting, derailing threads. Aggressive language and aggressive language directed at another poster falls under this. Posters are now aware to try to be more civil in their replies.'

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058361419/site-is-a-graveyard-how-can-boards-save-itself-any-update

Yet the new rules are essentially the complete opposite of this and are now a hands off, lunatics running the asylum job.

From what I recall one of the themes of that feedback thread was that people felt the middle ground was being eroded in CA discussions and that people taking the piss posting across multiple threads and shitposting was the primary cause of it. The new rule set only serves to remove whatever was left of that middle ground imo and the place will just be left to the usual shitposters and trolls now.

What was needed was more mods and people causing issues removed, permanently. Instead we've the same amount of mods but the rules softened. The change to the forum access rules was good but the latest changes re to a hands off approach is a step backwards imo.

nachouser

Early days, but on the whole it seems like a good approach to me. No DRP for CA, no back and forth in PM's for mods, and a clear cut way for users flagged as "being a d*ck" to cool off for a day, three days, etc. I'm sure it'll hit me at some point, but hey ho. I think we can already see the 7 day / 50 post thing has worked well. I'm going to side with the folks giving up their free time to have decided how best their free time should / can be used.

Edit: I also think the recent posting restrictions go someway toward answering the question about quantity over quality regarding posts / traffic.

Tell me how

From the new Rules thread.

Low level snark/ personal abuse, concern trolling, sealioning, victim blaming, piling on posters, link dumping and bringing up a posters previous posts from other threads/forums are specifically not allowed , as these seem to have operated in a grey area until now.

I don't see how a more hands off approach to modding and this point are compatible. Whether or not something falls foul of this rule is going to extremely subjective and will lead to a lot of cases where some posts are being actioned, but more not when the content is essentially the same in both posts. I feel this will lead to warnings being issued just because a poster wishes to report a post and it is not feasible for a mod to accurately determine is this valid content or not and they'll likely issue a warning with the justification, it's just 1 day ban or whatever.

What is 'piling on' for example? One poster in the feedback thread claimed it whenever more than one poster challenged them? They also gave a lot of examples of just how difficult it is for them to tolerate views that don't agree with them, how is their claim of piling on going to be assessed?

I hoped we'd end up with a more adults being adults type of environment, this rule makes me think it may instead be a step in the opposite direction. Why shouldn't a posters posts from another thread be mentioned? Why should they not be asked to stand by a statement they have made?

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122595453#Comment_122595453

It seems to be a way to allow the regular trollers get away with tanking threads for longer if they are allowed to constantly get a clean slate every thread. Serial offenders will be let run wild.

nachouser

Give it a week or two lads before you already make your minds up:-)

I see it as giving posters the ability to hang themselves more easily and get a ban for it. Without unnecessarily tying up those giving the ban days of back and forth.

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122595013#Comment_122595013

Thanks for posting that, I would have thought it was performative 'social justice warrior' -ing

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122595259#Comment_122595259

Rules were changed because a very small number of posters on a thread kept banging on about what they didn't like. I read the new rules as a free for all. I'd love to hear the rationale behind them. And an amnesty was madness.

Ten of Swords

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058368153/clarity-on-new-current-affairs-rules

I want to address a few of the questions posted here, and address what appear to be a couple of misconceptions, but I cant write out a long post right now so I'll be brief

1- Piling on is where two or more posters talk directly about another poster (who may or may not be part of the conversation) generally making personalised remarks about them

Eg. Poster X said this previously, they're clearly wrong/stupid/misguided etc.

Yeah I agree, Poster X is a moron...

Yep, look what they said/did here...

And so on. Do not discuss other posters on thread as this is often the end result.

2- Bringing up a posters previous comments kind of ties to the above example too. You don't need to get personal with posters to challenge their views. Also, we have had situations in the past where people have brought up sensitive issues that were posted about in confidence on the old platform (from the PI or RI forums) for petty point scoring and that is extremely unfair.

3- Meandering. Threads will be allowed to go slightly off topic into semi related areas without a flurry of warnings and bans being issued. An example would be the recent thread about the stabbings in Germany thread that began to lean heavily into an immigration discussion. There have been plenty of arguments put forward for allowing the natural evolution of discussion (but we don't have Reddit style comment stacking so it can be convoluted to follow). This does not mean the thread starts as one topic and ends up as something completely different

4- Mod warnings are still relevant but where there is confusion it will be looked at on a case by case basis. Threadbans are no longer being issued and all existing threadbans in CA are now void. It would be helpful if posters could report threads that still have a threadban list so it can be deleted. Please also report any thread that you think has instructions that may conflict with the updated rules.

To my knowledge the only thread that has a custom rule is the Zero Refugee Policy thread which specifically forbids anecdotes.

5- Covid forum is not affected by these updated rules

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122595646#Comment_122595646

I guess the rereg ban caused a drop in activity so the gates got flung open with all threadbans binned.

Be interesting how long the free for all will last anyway or if the small number demand all moderation be removed next.

Quantum Erasure

I think the main takeaway from the previous feedback thread was, it was the lack of consistency that really annoyed people.

I'm just back from a 24 hour ban over a trivial matter, but the two posters in the chain of comments before mine, and at least one after it, should have been hit if my comment triggered a ban

I don't want anyone banned for such trivial ****, I didn't report any posts because there was absolutely no need to

And I can't have this conversation in private with the mod, so here I am...

To keep this 'on topic', I was banned for going off topic in directly rebutting a point made on thread

1. In response to multiple claims that the moderation in CA is too strict, we are going to reduce moderation to a more hands off level

- threads will be allowed to meander, debate can be more robust and warnings will not be given for very minor infractions. 

This is it

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122595871#Comment_122595871

I'm a bit lost on this point

"2- Bringing up a posters previous comments kind of ties to the above example too. You don't need to get personal with posters to challenge their views. Also, we have had situations in the past where people have brought up sensitive issues that were posted about in confidence on the old platform (from the PI or RI forums) for petty point scoring and that is extremely unfair."

No personal attacks is a site wide rule on boards, I'm pretty sure mentioning PI/RI outside of those forums is also banned.

Your new guideline specifically states "threads/forums", can you clarify if a poster claims one thing in a CA thread, and then completely contradicts that in another CA thread, are they allowed to be called out for it? Your guideline would suggest not, which would make no sense to me.

Bobson Dugnutt

A very small number of posters cause all the issues. Ban them and understand that the volunteer moderators are more important to the site than the obsessive and deeply obvious opinions of some middle-aged man who has spent almost 20 years exposing himself to the outrage industry.

odyssey06

Also asking a technical question in relation to:

6 Duration of CA warnings & Prior Warnings

Do any previously applied warnings in CA count towards the new regime or are they outside the scope of this, but still part of general boards points warnings etc?

Do warnings applied under the new scale expire or are they permanent within CA?
e.g. someone in 5 years time who picks up 1 warning a year, would then face an automatic 3 month ban on next warning, not subject to appeal.

7 Helpdesk Forum Use \ Appealing

And I'll echo the point made by Spear - can the initial warnings or potential threat of next sanction be appealed \ queried via Help Desk forum?

Should the 7th & 8th warnings be appealed via DM and standard Dispute Resolution Process?

EmmetSpiceland

The mods, and admins, can’t be accused of not trying now. Obviously, not everyone is going to agree with them, and I, personally, think the “vocal minority” will be the ones to suffer the most, but these changes are a step forward.

Puts it all out there, if you want grown up current affairs/political discussion go to the “Politics” forum. If you want the comment section head to “Current Affairs”. It’s the bottom half of the internet.

I know they’re going to complain, still, when they cross the line, but with the changes to the dispute resolution process, it means the “Dispute Resolution” forum won’t be clogged with time wasters whinging about a “bias”.

Hats off to those in charge and good luck to all who post in there now.

pjohnson

it just allows time wasters more free reign to troll unaprehended like @This is it points out if they can freely flip flop they can troll even more?

And again as @Quantum Erasure highlighted unless theres more moderators than before if a thread is trolled into the bog then a lot of people could get caught out by the troll and end up sanctioned rather than the troll.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596238#Comment_122596238

I'm not so sure.

I find rule number 3 quite baffling. It's basically making it a lot easier for posters to get each other removed from threads but now with the added bonus that mods can't be asked to explain it?

This Is like the Premier League dealing with complaints about refereeing by giving players their own whistle.

Quantum Erasure

Not counting the most recent, I've had 4 warnings since i opened this account 5 years ago, (all in CA/IMHO I think). 2 of those have been overturned. A third should have been IMHO, but the mod never replied to a PM.

Some of these were zero point warnings, tbf, so I'm only on my third pointed warning now, but I'd have no way of appealing any of them, untill I rack up 7....

On my 7th warning, can I appeal any of the previous 6? What if it's the one in four that I'd think "you know what, I deserved that one" am I just **** outta luck?

odyssey06

It will just kick the can down the road for the mods in terms of work if the 7th warning can be appealed, and then the previous ones reviewed in scope of that.

Another reason why important to get clarity on whether the warnings expire at all after a year or whatever.

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596752#Comment_122596752

That's a good point. When someone has enough points for an appeal do the Mods then have to review all the posts that led to that total regardless of the time lag, threads or forums they were accrued in?

pjohnson

It seems it really wasn't thought out...

Ezeoul

These rule changes will affectively allow the lunatics to take over the asylum.

If minor infractions will no longer receive warnings - then just call it what it is - they are no longer infractions.

BETTER and more CONSISTENT moderation was what was needed, not LESS.

Raichų

in all fairness where did ye expect more mods to come from? It’s not as if Odhran can throw up an ad on indeed.

I would argue it’s only fair to give the idea a few weeks or possibly a few months to see how it all pans out. Maybe it will work splendidly and maybe it won’t.

I think some people just won’t be happy unless the mods all become nazi mods and even at that they’ll only be placated provided that nazi mod never touches them. Then it’s a big problem again and the next idea is being trialled.

Give it some time and then make a judgement on what a disaster it is if indeed it becomes one.

Place hasn’t fallen apart yet so that’s a good sign at least.

Quantum Erasure

I posted this in the 'Site is a graveyard, any update?' thread just a month ago

They don't have to read every post, but they should at least read the context in which a post is made if they're handing out warnings

Maybe with the time freed up from not having to engage in back and forth PM exchanges, this would be possible?

Candlel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596187#Comment_122596187

What about younger men? Or older women. Is it only middle aged men are at fault?

EmmetSpiceland

Yeah, the appeal after the 7th and 8th warning wasn’t a great idea. Should be no appeals.

They’ve made it more difficult to receive a “sanction” so anyone racking up multiple ones really doesn’t deserve any appeals.

Bobson Dugnutt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596959#Comment_122596959

Very few young people use this site. The demographic is very mid 30’s to late 50’s. You can also tell in the “anger forums” like Current Affairs and Radio that you are dealing with/reading the deeply obvious opinions of an internet addicted middle-aged man.
Just the way it is.

Ahwell

I honestly can not believe what I'm reading. How anybody looking at the recent feedback thread could conclude that Rule 1 & 2 were the way to go is just beyond me. You are pandering to a group of posters that did not deserve to be pandered to. You've just made a bad situation even worse.

Ten of Swords

People seem to be equating hands off moderation with no moderation at all, that is not the case.

Anyway I will try to answer some more queries as they have come up

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596033#Comment_122596033

That's nice

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596166#Comment_122596166

Maybe, but nobody can seem to find these rules written down when they go looking for them so, as I mentioned earlier, issues like these have been a grey area and we are clarifying that they are explicitly not allowed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596188#Comment_122596188

Prior warnings - we are trying to start everyone off on the same footing but the mods know who the serial troublemakers are and who has already accumulated lots of warnings already and they will be actioned as and how we see fit. If we need give a poster a lengthier ban due to their past behavior then that's what they will receive.

Do warnings on the new scale expire - no

Helpdesk - Initial warnings cannot be appealed and mods/admins won't engage if they are. Spear and Shield can decide what threads the Helpdesk/Feedback and DRP forums host but my understanding is constructive feedback and suggestions. If there is mod feedback or complaints then the helpdesk forum would be the correct place to lodge it but warnings will not be discussed there by any of the CA moderation team.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596752#Comment_122596752

That's nice

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596780#Comment_122596780

Any warnings prior to the 7th (ie a 6 month ban) are absolutely out of scope and trying to bring them up will likely end the appeal

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597002#Comment_122597002

That's nice. Any thoughts on this?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596929#Comment_122596929

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596923#Comment_122596923

How many people did they ask?

In one weekend, I have already seen a difference in some of the threads and not in a good way.

Anyway, it's done now, the die is cast. Time will tell if this "light-handed moderation" causes CA to improve or implode.

Though I guess it also depends on what your definition of improves is.

This is it

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597002#Comment_122597002

You haven't answered the question though...

"can you clarify if a poster claims one thing in a CA thread, and then completely contradicts that in another CA thread, are they allowed to be called out for it?"

Ahwell

The Elon-Muskification of the CA forum. Fan-fucken-tastic.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596961#Comment_122596961

I disagree.

You'll have people getting sanctioned right and left because someone is offended that their opinion was challenged so they'll report posts claiming a 'Pile On'. or personal insult, or cross thread reference, or any of the other completely subjective things that are now apparently going to be enforced.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597002#Comment_122597002

Any warnings prior to the 7th (ie a 6 month ban) are absolutely out of scope and trying to bring them up will likely end the appeal

Huh? So you've no recourse whatsoever about warnings 1-6 and warnings 7 and 8 will judged in isolation?

Maybe, but nobody can seem to find these rules written down when they go looking for them so, as I mentioned earlier, issues like these have been a grey area and we are clarifying that they are explicitly not allowed

You can't be explicit about something that will be subjective.

Raichų

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597012#Comment_122597012

they don’t need to ask this isn’t a democracy?

TheChrisD

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122595259#Comment_122595259

What was needed was more mods and people causing issues removed, permanently. Instead we've the same amount of mods but the rules softened. The change to the forum access rules was good but the latest changes re to a hands off approach is a step backwards imo.

It sounds like CA moderation has become what most people consider to be a stereotypical Reddit sub moderation — iron fist ruling, all mod opinions/decisions are final, tough shite, get insta-muted when you try appeal.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596923#Comment_122596923

in all fairness where did ye expect more mods to come from?

I think most people expected the current batch of mods to put a bit more effort in, rather than decide that their meagre amount of time spent on the site per week was better spent in fora other than CA.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597002#Comment_122597002

Do warnings on the new scale expire - no

Well that is incredibly silly; and definitely needs to be explicitly mentioned in the rules post. Especially since all warnings come with immediate bans, even the first one.

That's nice

Not helping the mantra and opinions that the users already had on moderators from the previous feedback thread there…

Any warnings prior to the 7th (ie a 6 month ban) are absolutely out of scope and trying to bring them up will likely end the appeal

But given that it's only the accumulation of all the warnings that cause the ban, and that one can't appeal them until that point; surely all should be appealable, since if the previous warnings were ruled to have been frivolous the user in question wouldn't have such an accumulation of them by then, no?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597012#Comment_122597012

How many people did they ask?

Almost undoubtedly, zero. Or no-one responded when (if) there was a request for more current mods to also jump into CA.

Quantum Erasure

I think this is the biggest change to how the site works that I can remember, and I'm including the 'responsive site' rollout and move to vanilla in that, they were mostly just cosmetic

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597118#Comment_122597118

You're right they don't, but if the objective was to increase traffic onto the site I can't see it working. Imo, it's going to alienate more people than it will appease.

Bobson Dugnutt

I think it would really help a small but very passionate cohort around here if they realised 2 things:

1). The ignore function now allows for you to mute up to 200 posters.

2). You are never going to change the mind of the anonymous stranger you are arguing with. It’s a total waste of time. His mind is already made and it ain’t for changing.

Ezeoul

They don't have to ask people to become mods?

Or would you prefer the word "invite"?

Raichų

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597238#Comment_122597238

sorry I thought you were talking about the rule changes.

I don’t know either way if they have asked posters if they’d like to be a mod or not. Maybe they did and no one wanted to. In all fairness I couldn’t say I’d blame anyone for saying no as being a CA mod doesn’t seem like a lot of fun.

Raichų

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597141#Comment_122597141

they are all volunteers man you can’t reason expect people to give up their free time even more than they already do just to satisfy your desires for the forum to be moderated a certain way.

Jim_Hodge

@Ten of Swords

Any warnings prior to the 7th (ie a 6 month ban) are absolutely out of scope and trying to bring them up will likely end the appeal

That seems absurd. So somebody could face a ban based on previous infractions that could possibly have be justifiably been disputed?

Arghus

I think the time limit and post count steps were great ideas.

On the face of it, this other aspect of the changes, seems like it could lead to CA becoming close to a wild west type of environment.

It's fair to say that a certain amount of people in the feedback thread wanted something like that, but, I'd be doubtful if that was really what the majority of users were after. I think those that shouted the loudest got what they wanted.

Look, I generally don't care about CA really and, sure, let them at it if you want.

I'm just quite surprised at the pace - which probably more interesting in and of itself - at which a significant change like this is being implemented: it's quite a radical change of approach. Very un-boards.

But, hey, who knows. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't with these kind of things.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597012#Comment_122597012

I experienced this for the first time yesterday, I'd generally do my best to follow guidelines and treat everyone with the same level of respect that I'd want to be treated with but there were contentious issues and people were being piled on and there was no moderation, when the pre warning came I bowed out of the conversation and hoped that would be it.

Instead, the poster contacted me privately to continue their personal crusade. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, answered their questions, explained my point of view and they just continued raging at me at which point I politely asked them to" go away." If this is self moderation then I'm ok with that but I won't tolerate harassment in private. It took two requests before they stopped contacting me and even gestured for me to contact a mod on the second. I won't be contacting a mod in this instance but I expect this will become a more common result of unmoderated on thread contention.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597286#Comment_122597286

Fair enough!

EmmetSpiceland

My only fear with these new rules is now that the “usual suspects” have been given enough rope they’ll head over to, more, normal forums like AH once they’ve gotten banned from CA.

Any chance ban from CA could extend to all “Social & Fun” forums? Or, at the very least, AH?

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597401#Comment_122597401

No, you don't have to put up with that. If someone harassed me like that I'd contact a mod, Cmod or Admin, immediately by PM, and forward the aggressive PMs to them too.

In fairness, I believe they'd act on that kind of aggressive behaviour.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597477#Comment_122597477

I genuinely have zero confidence in the admin who gave the pre warning so chose to deal with it myself. They stood back hands off in a thread until no words were spoken and then gave a warning shot which resulted in it being taken to pm. Zero confidence that it would be dealt with privately and I'd have no desire to do that anyway.