Dispute with mod

Quantum Erasure

I wouldn't call them link dumping, they read perfectly coherently in the context of the thread, they're backing up points previously made, you can understand what they're about and miss nothing if you don't click on them.

I want to respond to this post with video evidence but I face a three day ban if I do...

Edit:

Quoting myself again:

If I post "he said it, it wasn't taken out of context. He said it, and he meant it" that to me would be 'discussion', but "straight from the horses mouth" isn't? That's a ridiculous level of over moderation, imho

EmmetSpiceland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122789249#Comment_122789249

Applogies, GG, was just thinking out loud. Wasn’t directed at you.

Flaneur OBrien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122789577#Comment_122789577

No, they don't.

I hope the mod team don't mind me interjecting here, but as the person who first brought up mad linkdump warnings, I'm well versed at this stage.

The message on the OP is:

And there are to be no link dumps. If you wish to post a link set out what it is about and your own views on it.

Looking at what RTD posted,

Christ above, Economic bloodbath ffs.

Does that set out what the video is about? It's also an embedded YouTube video, so there's no description offered on the clip itself.

Does it offer RDT's own views on the video?

Again, no it does not. 100% a linkdump.

Secondly, Sweet Emotions:

From, the big guys mouth

Does that set out what the video is about? Not at all. It's another embedded YouTube clip, so no description offered.

Does it offer SE's own views on the subject? No it does not.

100% link dump.

I do think the definition of a link dump could be worked on.

My offer would be:

A linkdump is where the poster is relying on the link provided to make their main argument or provide all the information for them.

Boards is primarily a text based website. A poster should be encouraged to set out what a link is about, how it's fitting in the context of the thread, and their opinion on it.

A link should be considered supporting evidence for your post, not the main content.

Feel free to add/subtract/argue

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122789674#Comment_122789674

I noted above a breaking news situation where someone posts a line X has happened and links to a news article detailing the story or latest developments. It is said without any opinion element.

Or someone might ask a question about where can information on X be found or what is your source for claim X. The reply may just be eg More information may be found here.

Again no opinion element in the post.

I just dont want us to get to a state of rigid rules and mods have no discretion. Not every short post with a link is a link dump.

I suggest Mods also should watch out for what is almost the opposite of a link dump. Making a vague claim about reports or polls or "Im hearing that" without providing any clue as to the source. It just derails threads as posters seek clarification.

Big Bag of Chips

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122789652#Comment_122789652

I don't care what you'd call it. What you'd call it is irrelevant. The moderators are the ones who make and enforce the rules. People are calling for clarity of rules. This is one extremely clear rule.

A link with a one liner "here you go", followed by a link saying "I don't think so", followed by a link saying "from the horse's mouth" followed by a link saying "she gave as good as she got" is not discussion, and if it's allowed in certain contexts it has the potential to escalate into a thread full of links with meaningless one liners.

Rules of the forum are there to make life easy for the moderators. Having to sift through threads to see if this link dump is more of a link dump than that link dump is not something they should have to do. So there's a blanket rule.

End of story.

Any further discussion on link dumping will result in a warning.

Flaneur OBrien

Putting this out there (as an aside), but I think boards could do with a glossary of terms that mods and users could refer to.

It could include some fun in-jokey stuff as a bit of an archive as well. Atari Jaguar anyone?

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122789674#Comment_122789674

Whatever about mods seeing a post -stripped of context- in the reported posts forum, you'd think posters reading a thread would be able to pick up what's being said without starting from first principles in every post.

I posted this in the 'Clarity on new Current Affairs rules' thread a couple months ago:

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?

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122789674#Comment_122789674

also “from the big guys mouth” is against the threads mod instruction, deriding Biden as “the big guy” as part of the Hunter Biden conspiracy which those posters never want to seriously engage in anyway (as shown by the particularly dead Hunter Biden thread)

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122789708#Comment_122789708

there used to be a boards wiki maintained

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122789708#Comment_122789708

Putting this out there (as an aside), but I think boards could do with a glossary of terms that mods and users could refer to.

Please no, it’d just lead to rules lawyering and being used as an attempt to dispute infarctions when it’s pointed out to the user that they’re just being a dick. Everyone’s familiar enough with the English language that those sorts of things aren’t necessary for adults, they’re only useful to people who are determined to make themselves out to be a simpleton, don’t understand why they’re being punished sort of nonsense.

It definitely wouldn’t be used in a jokey way, no matter how many wisecracks or boards in-jokes were in there. That sort of thing only works within particular contexts and times - Atari Jaguar, coke and hookers, etc, they’re nostalgia, should be left at that IMO, recognise that times have changed and Boards isn’t what it was then, if Boards is ever to to attract new members.

Flaneur OBrien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122790968#Comment_122790968

I don't understand this fear. I'd love to have sitewide confirmed definitions (that change with the times) on

Trolling

Transphobia

Flame-baiting

Linkdumping

Civil behaviour

What infuriates me is the attitude, "You should know what they all mean". What if English isn't my first language and it's my first time seeing those words?

Also, what constitutes dickish behaviour on one site, does not mean it's the same all over the net.

And also, whats the harm in keeping an archive of the terms boards have used over the years? Chances are it won't be around for long, then again it might be sold to someone who wants to expand the place and it could end up lasting 100 years (I doubt it as well). Maybe it's just my love of finding historical things, but I know that people love discovering weird things from the past, and that's not going to end anytime soon.

Goldengirl

I tend to read and post late in the evening and sometimes very anti social hours as I am a bit of an owl and throwback to my past life , so I often don't see warnings, mod notes etc until the following day .

Very surprising to see mods in action recently in the wee hours !

Burning the candle at both ends , not I hope ?

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122792433#Comment_122792433

I made a suggestion earlier on the thread that a new way of delivering mod instructions or directions on threads needs to be found.

Just as the mods don't read entire threads, there shouldn't be an assumption that every poster has read the entire thread and seen any warnings issued. It's very easy to miss if someone joins in on a thread that is already a few pages long.

I know Boards says this is a private site and they don't have to allow "free speech" but I also think banning specific phrases at the risk of incurring an immediate site ban is just way OTT. 🤐🤐 JMHO.

Goldengirl

I have no problem with warnings on thread …makes people sit up and straighten up a bit but I take your point that people may not see them .

Maybe if Vanilla would allow them put an asterix / marker at top of thread for a few pages or days as well ?

EmmetSpiceland

It might be an idea to always copy the warning into the OP.

Having a tag on the thread title about the mid note being in post #123 is only really useful to “legacy” desktop users.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122792488#Comment_122792488

I suggested all warnings be copied to the OP, with a link to the post containing the warning (every post has its own url).

Then the onus falls on the poster to check the OP for new warnings.

Goldengirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122792520#Comment_122792520

Ah fair enough .

Sorry , not getting notifications at the top of the page since yesterday for some reason .

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122791021#Comment_122791021

What infuriates me is the attitude, "You should know what they all mean". What if English isn't my first language and it's my first time seeing those words?

Your first point is invalidated by your second point. It’s because English is most users primary language that they’re expected to understand the meanings of various terms, and even have the ability to determine the meaning and intent of what is being conveyed by the use of those terms. If it’s anyone’s first time seeing those words, regardless of whether or not English is their primary language, there’s a whole internet at their fingertips with which they can discover the joys of the English language! A glossary or an archive on it’s own will be of no use whatsoever in that regard, and it’s not a fear, it’s a fact that attempts to define terms in such limited fashion enables the sort of tedious rules lawyering that was prevalent in the ‘00s and ‘10s, and has only gotten worse since with people pretending that they don’t understand what a term being used in a particular context means, pretending that it could mean anything. Mod discretion allows for Mods to make that decision.

Also, what constitutes dickish behaviour on one site, does not mean it's the same all over the net.

True, it doesn’t, and often dickish behaviour is lauded and applauded on other sites, but the only site that Boards has to be concerned about, is Boards, and the standards and expectations of users behaviour on the site is already well established in the Terms of Use which they agree to be bound by when or if they sign up to use the site and be given access to be permitted to contribute to discussions, and have those privileges revoked or limited when they fall below the standards expected of the site, or any particular forum, or the most contentious forum on the site by a long-shot being Current Affairs.

No harm whatsoever in keeping an archive, it’s the idea that the archive should be relied upon to resolve disputes over terms and their constantly evolving use that would not only be a futile exercise, but it would be Boards making a rod for their own backs. Already it has been pointed out in one way or another that the amount of specious reports are often overwhelming, to the extent that they can’t even be relied on any more as an indication of anything more than posters trying to get posters whose opinions they disagree with, excluded from the conversation or discussion.

Btw it has been mentioned before, and I’m not sure if it’s still an ongoing project since the Founders abandoned the site, but I remember there being mention of Boards being archived in some sort of a digital time capsule, if you’re genuinely interested in what Boards was like 20 years ago or whenever. I wouldn’t be expecting to find a lost Shakespeare tbh 😒

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231107-the-420-year-search-for-shakespeares-lost-play

Irish Aris

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122792520#Comment_122792520

Thank you for the suggestion Ezeoul.

Could I please clarify that you talk about general warnings/instructions that are applicable to every poster on a thread? And not every single warning issued i.e. if the discussion gets too heated and we ask people to cut it out?

I think we do the former as a "rule of thumb".

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122795495#Comment_122795495

Yes, only if it was a direction to all posters on thread. (I actually mentioned that in my original post, sorry, I should have thought to include that again).

I think a clickable hyperlink to the post containing the warning would be useful for posters who only use Boards on their phones, as page and/or post numbers are only visible on desktop.

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122795638#Comment_122795638

Yes, "Mod warning in post 542" is as useful to mobile users as a chocolate teapot. It would also be a handy way to alert everyone to what isn't acceptable, the onus is then on posters to get themselves a warning or avoid one.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122796591#Comment_122796591

Claiming Asylum is a legal right. So anyone entering the county and claiming asylum is a legal immigrant. That is a fact. Please don't suggest I am a liar.

I have no issue with my posts being reported, if you wish to do so, go ahead.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122796752#Comment_122796752

IME, mods do and don’t take context into account at their discretion/as needed.

The report system will generate a thread in a specific private forum for the report, the report will generate an automatic title and OP of who reported whom, where and why per the text they give in the report. The post in question is given a hyperlink and the text of the reported post is produced but iirc nested quotes are not all included. At best it would be the same as quoting someone else in a public forum, you’d get their body of text not necessarily what they quoted (at best a hyperlink to what they quoted). Anyone else who reports the post will show up as replies to the first thread generated as a reported post thread. This is how it worked in vanilla anyway

In short the only way a mod gets more context is clicking through to things which might not always be practical if they’re on mobile or don’t have the time to go investigate a chain of posts across multiple pages for example in a main thread being reported about. If users think the mods should have more context for a report it would be better to give relevant explanation as part of the report (you can include links to other posts but they won’t “embed” like they do when you regularly author posts, the report text field is plain text)

Deregos.

I reckon the mod(s) in question are sitting back, reading through this thread and having a right laugh at you lot, all continuously snarking and bickering away at each other's every utterance. Its not achieving anything good either, only causing further division amongst the regulars, whilst making Boards a less inviting place to engage with others.

Big Bag of Chips

****It has been spelled out. It is absolutely crystal clear. Tell us something about the link. If I click on to the thread after 24 hours of not being online and your post is the first post I see and I'm not interested in reading back 4-5 pages of discussion, will your post tell me anything without me having to read your link, watch your video, visit a different site?

The link should back up your point, not make it for you****

75 posts deleted!

There is no appealing CA warnings. Do not try to bring them into this thread.

I've posted the above because lots of you seem to have very real difficulty understanding. That will be the last time it is discussed or explained. Anybody who still doesn't get it, doesn't want to get it. And we will not waste anymore time trying to get through to you.

I've deleted posts rather than applying the forum bans that I said I would (there I go again, not doing something I said I would - how consistently inconsistent of me!)

Can someone tag me if there's actually something worth reading in this thread. You know, like actual feedback or genuine queries.

Otherwise, we'll just leave you to it.

odyssey06

In terms of Current Affairs and other forums, previously it was the case that making statements of facts \ claims needed to be supported with evidence, questions about such claims engaged with.
That is different to expressing an opinion.

There appears to be an increase in CA of what might be termed conspiracy theories, but at the very least are vague and dubious specific claims supported by no direct evidence, or with vague reference to something (that if drilled into does not directly support what is claimed).

So there is then a spate of posts looking for the evidence, the poster may or may not engage with the followup queries etc. Are those posters looking for evidence \ answers 'badgering'? It is ok to make such specific claims without evidence?

I think that clarity on this and enforcement would reduce some of the thread de-railing \ back and forth which might be seen as bickering which appears to be on the increase on threads. Especially as there are new mods involved.

erlichbachman

There needs to be clarity on who exactly reports posts, there is a high probability that mods are correlating particular reportees with valid infractions without any context, essentially lazy moderating. The anonymity leaves the door open for misuse, some transparency is required on such a heavily moderated site, at least some statistics on mods action on particular reportees flags should be visible.

Yvonne007

Would be interesting if there was an option to put "how many posts reported" underneath the post count, which would show how many posts that particular poster has reported.

Would really stem the serial reporters from being so trigger happy.

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122798500#Comment_122798500

So do you want A to see that B reported one of their posts? Or what all posts B reported? If so, it would only lead to tic for tat vendettas. If a report is legitimate then it doesn't matter what member(s) report it.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122798500#Comment_122798500

No, there doesn't.