Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dispute with mod

13468937

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,400 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Haven't read all the posts today, but if that's directed at me

    By the way for the people complaining that the new rules were brought in to make life easy for the (volunteer) moderators. Of course they were!

    Not complaining, just pointing out the rules weren't brought in to satisfy a "vocal minority", as some would claim.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Never said it was solely text nor has anyone that I have seen.

    At least you acknowledge that other sources are there to back up actual discussion.

    I'm a user of this site, it's not contentious to me at all. The definition of link dump seems to only perplex a certain type of poster



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭TheChrisD


    >I'm a user of this site, it's not contentious to me at all. The definition of link dump seems to only perplex a certain type of poster

    Because it's not explicitly defined anywhere and thus is solely at the whim of the moderator. There's a stark difference between a post being nothing but a random link with no context; and a link posted in the topic of the discussion, relevant to the posts around it, and including opinions.

    ——

    Honestly, if I had to surmise my overall feedback from this thread:

    1. If link dumping is to become a warnable (and by extension in some forums, bannable) offense in any forum, then it needs to be explicitly defined in the forum's charter.
    2. CA still needs a large rework:
      1. New moderators dedicated to the forum
      2. All warnings to be appealable again
    3. All site administrators to step down from all standard Mod and CMod duties; with the exception being to moderate items that are violations of the site-wide rules, or are otherwise a threat to the safety of the site. It is not their job to be warning people, it's their job to manage the moderator team and to ensure that they are dealing fairly and that systems are working smoothly.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Without a user adding the discussion part. Both of your examples are the same thing. A link dump



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,528 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    I think the three issues are

    1) is the rule fair

    2) is the rule applied fairly

    3) what happens when it's not

    From my perspective I'd answer

    1) yes

    2) no

    3) there should be action, but instead nothing happens



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 867 ✭✭✭tommythecat


    4kwp South East facing PV System. 5.3kwh Weco battery. South Dublin City.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭The_Macho_Man


    Just so you know your post is absolutely unhinged.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    This thread has descended into an audition for wannabe mods.

    Seems Beasty has become more even handed in his moderation ans some here don't like it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭TheChrisD


    And that's why I'm saying that the moderators of whatever forum is punishing for link dumps need to explicitly define a link dump in their charter.

    Politics has somewhat of a reference: When posting or linking to a video please provide a summary of the content as not everybody has access to video sites or the time to view them.

    CA does not. Only saying link dumping [is] specifically not allowed but not actually defining it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,400 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    How about a poster backing up a post that was being questioned with a comment 'straight from the horses mouth' and a youtube video? All the context is in the thread already, what more comment would be needed to turn it from a link dump to a constructive post?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,418 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    A brief synopsis to save people from clicking the link would be nice. Links to videos or articles with a ‘can’t believe they actually said this?!’ or ‘showing their true colours here’ are just clickbate tags and, as such, are a pain.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭TheChrisD


    But if you're already reading and engaged in the thread at the point it's posted, you don't need a synopsis.

    If it was the OP of a new thread, I would understand. But it wasn't, it was 140+whatever pages in. The context should be clear and obvious from the posts leading into it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,418 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    Sort of excludes anyone “late to the game”, who’s just popped into the thread and those who don’t have the time to read over a hundred pages.

    A couple of lines outlining what is contained in the link isn’t too much to ask.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭TheChrisD


    If you're "late to the game" as you say, you have a lot of reading to catch up on then! Existing conversations shouldn't have to cater to the potential of new joiners. It's the same anywhere else on the site, if you join in a thread late, you're expected to have picked up on the general tones and topic of conversation that has gone on beforehand by reading some of the previous posts.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,685 ✭✭✭✭Jim_Hodge


    Says you (repeatedly). Not everybody feels the same about wading through a large thread to get the context of a particular link dropped with no intimation of it's content or relevance. I don't see a site rule, or even an advisory, that you're expected to read all previous posts and, while your assertion that some should be read is sensible, it wouldn't necessarily give context to a particular link that is without comment. Is it that difficult to put a link in perspective?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,400 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    With embedded tweets and links that give a preview of an article, sometimes it's very easy to work out what's being said,



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,418 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    Ok, what about the one other person who’s been discussing the “topic” with you over numerous pages? They might not be in a position to watch a YouTube link, or read a lengthy article, that’s relevant to what you are discussing because they are at work etc?

    Again, a couple of lines outlining what is in the link isn’t that much to ask. Would, even, go so far as to save other users the time, and effort, of dredging through it, themselves.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 925 ✭✭✭scottser


    There seems to be an issue where bans become exponentially worse on 2nd or 3rd offence. Unfortunately this is counter productive when bans are handed out so generously and rules are strict and numerous. So my Rapey Don comment led to my 3rd ban which is a week long but in reality, a heads up message from a mod would have been plenty. So I guess my next infraction will lead to a two or three week ban and if that happens I'd be in two minds about coming back. Longer bans aren't a good way to get posters back on track and keep discussions civil, they just encourage contributers to leave the site.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭The_Macho_Man


    For most somewhat educated, literate, rational adults I think it should be fairly obvious 1. what link dumping means and 2. that insulting derisive nicknames such as "Rapey Don" (or "Sleepy Joe," "Kooky Kamala" and so on) are incendiary when flaming is not wanted or needed.

    It's been said before that BEASTY clearly needs more help in running boards.ie but also, who would bother pitching in in political forums when grown adults need to be told over and over what link dumping without debate is, or that there is a difference between saying that Donald Trump is a proven rapist and calling him "Rapey Don?"

    Genuinely why can't people read the nuance and differentation within those cases? Like, what kind of person aged above the age of about fifteen needs to have those distinctions explained?

    For those utterly confused helpless people: do you need to be told every time you go to the bathroom why you need to wash your hands? We are not dealing with Mensa candidates here.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭Man Vs ManUre


    English or Spanish mods??



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 243 ✭✭L Grey


    Yeah, it's hard to fathom why people would interested in what is happening with the worlds only and unprecedented superpower; a superpower which has massive global power and influence in nearly every aspect of world society.

    Mind-boggling.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,007 ✭✭✭SteM


    What would a heads up message tell you that a weeks ban, or the 2 bans before it won't? All are a way of telling you to modify your posting style, there won't be another infraction if you do.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 613 ✭✭✭reclose


    how are you getting away with posting the stuff you do? You are clearly trying to wind people up and get a reaction.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,058 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    I honestly don’t know the Mods and Admins put up with this tto be honest.


    No support from owners, abuse from users and expected to be online at all hours and no pay.

    Someone else said, one day there will be a 404, everyone else will go about their business and the Mods/Admins will be left annoyed that they gave up so much personal time for this.

    Post edited by anewme on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,400 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Edit...

    I missed about 100 posts, is it worth reading back?



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,475 Mod ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    2 cheeks of the same arse you say? Ironically enough your post is a paraphrase of another poster.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭The_Macho_Man




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 925 ✭✭✭scottser


    We're all adults here and the mods could take a pragmatic view of things. There's absolutely nothing a further ban is going to teach me my about my 'posting style' or anything else. Again, I wasn't taking the piss and my ban was due to a throwaway term and wasn't even the main point I was making so if I'm banned again it won't really be any skin off my nose; there are plenty of forums to talk about current affairs on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,738 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,738 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    Not all X links posted though are embedded here ( have to be renamed as Twitter in order to do so which not everyone knows ) and in many cases people have to copy and paste the link to view what you are calling the summation. As for that summation ..is it clear who is writing it and whose opinion it is ? If I am discussing with you I want your opiniin not some blogger or some analyst .

    Also very often embedded summations do not describe what is actually contained in the link which may be a complete time waster . Not saying you would post something like that Flaneur but it happens .

    Also , why should a reader on a DISCUSSION forum have to open links on sites they don't subscribe to / don't want to subscribe to ? Same as with paywalled articles from regular or dodgy sources , no point talking about work arounds , there is a reason they are not allowed here .

    If Boards is to allow the above , it will soon become a "post your picture here,

    no comment " site on many threads with those who don't want to be reading X or other poorly moderated content from other sites, bombarded with it if they want to continue the conversation .

    I don't think its a big ask to discuss / explain your link in order to be inclusive ? I see you did try .

    As for "dumbing down " surely the whole point of not allowing link dumping is to to avoid just that scenario which is common on other sites ?

    Sorry posting late but as BBoC said it really was a beautiful day !



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,738 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,057 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    It was embedded.

    The description in the tweet was clear.

    It was in the flow of conversation.

    It had a shot of Kamala Harris and Brett Baier in the frame.

    I gave my thoughts on it, concise as they may have been.

    "I enjoyed this".

    The description in the embed was clear, "Kamala Harris takes him down!"

    I said that this would encourage me to watch the full video.

    I praised her for not taking any of his sh*t.

    (I have said all this already, but apparently, it bears repeating.)

    Also , why should a reader on a DISCUSSION forum have to open links on sites they don't subscribe to / don't want to subscribe to ? Same as with paywalled articles from regular or dodgy sources , no point talking about work arounds , there is a reason they are not allowed here .

    To put it simply, they don't have to. I don't subscribe to twitter (anymore). I can still view videos and see tweets embedded on boards.

    They don't even have to play the video I embedded, although many did as it had over 20 "likes". Those people had no problem seeing that it wasn't a "linkdump".

    If Boards is to allow the above , it will soon become a "post your picture here, no comment " site on many threads with those who don't want to be reading X or other poorly moderated content from other sites, bombarded with it if they want to continue the conversation

    But boards DOES allow the above. On many, many, (dare I say it), MOST threads. Just apparently, not on the one I was warned for, because I had the audacity to think people could use their good sense and see that an embedded link, called "Harris takes him down", with a still of Brett Baier and Kamala Harris, mid interview, in a thread where the previous 10-20 posts had been discussing the FOX interview, didn't require a further description from me as I would have (wrongly, according to the site administrators) assumed that people could put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4.

    As for "dumbing down " surely the whole point of not allowing link dumping is to to avoid just that scenario which is common on other sites ?

    No mod or admin has given me a straight answer as to if I had posted the following, would the warning have been issued.

    "The following embedded link contains a clip from the FOX interview between Harris and Baier"

    And if that's all they wanted the post prefaced with, then yes, it's dumbing down boards. It's very obvious what the short clip was about.

    There's also the fact the we can't call an adjudged rapist, "a rapist" in a thread bout his run for President is further proof. We still have his supporters say, "It was only sexual assault", like that somehow makes it better.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,485 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    Compared to what we have here? CA and AH are just a step above the comments section on a theJournal article.

    For all the talk of boards.ie being a discussion site, it's two most popular forums have very little discussion. Mainly cranks and from either extreme of an argument trying to one-up each other with whataboutery,reductive reasoning, trolling and name calling.

    Link dumping is probably the highlight of what CA threads can offer. I follow the Ukraine threads, but by follow I mean I skim the thread for links people have posted. The posts themselves are useless.



  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,475 Mod ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    I agree with you and understood what you meant from your first post about it on this thread. This is entirely different to someone starting a thread with a link and asking what others think of it. In that scenario the OP should offer an opinion to get the discussion started.

    Again, context is important rather than just imposing a blanket rule.



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,865 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hellrazer


    @weisses

    It's the fact that myself, you and other mods are getting banned all of a sudden while the purpose of change to CA was supposedly made because of to strict moderating ...

    So do you think mods of other fora should get special treatment for being a mod?

    In my case I acted like a bit of a dick to be honest and deserved the ban- ok its annoying that I got my first ban after 23 years. Ive always tried to stick to the rules of the forum I was posting in but why I felt hard done by was that one side of the debate were allowed to make posts that werent sanctioned yet when I posted a differing view I was probably over-sanctioned. I deliberately posted something (that wasnt my true views on it) that I knew would stir people up just to see what the reactions would be - an experiment so to speak.

    Maybe as a mod of another forum I should be held in a higher regard and after much thought I came to the conclusion that Beasty was bang on with his decision.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,261 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    By the way for the people complaining that the new rules were brought in to make life easy for the (volunteer) moderators. Of course they were!

    Thank God for that, because the reason stated that it was because a vocal minority of users wanted the rules changed didn't make any sense whatsoever.



  • Administrators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 14,866 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    No mod or admin has given me a straight answer as to if I had posted the following, would the warning have been issued.

    "The following embedded link contains a clip from the FOX interview between Harris and Baier"

    Yes



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33 ZedCar


    Hard for me to fathom but obviously not you L.

    I’m definitely interested in what is going on there but not as passionate as some people in Ireland seem to be.

    Not saying it’s wrong to feel passionate about it just that it baffles me the amount of peoples thoughts and worries are engrossed in it.


    Anyway as you were comrade.



  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,475 Mod ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    Was it not obvious given the context of the thread?

    I think everyone agrees with stopping pointless link dumping, but if it relates to the ongoing discussion that would be obvious to everyone. You said in the last thread that mods always use their discretion.

    We know there's a shortage of mods in CA, but if ordinary posters are being hit by bans because there isn't time to read a bit of the thread for context this new style of moderation will create more problems than it solves.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33 ZedCar


    Hard for me to fathom but obviously not you L.

    I’m definitely interested in what is going on there but not as passionate as some people in Ireland seem to be.

    Not saying it’s wrong to feel passionate about it just that it baffles me the amount of peoples thoughts and worries are engrossed in it.


    Anyway as you were comrade.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,418 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    Nothing would have changed had not a vocal minority complained, excessively, about “how things were” on the site.

    They took the changes as a win, as it would give them more freedom to spout their odious, angry, hate-filled bile, with fewer “consequences”.

    Now they are grumbling because, while they’ve been given more freedom for these opinions, they can’t seem to stay within the new, even looser, “rule structure”.

    It really is a case of no matter what the mods, and admins, do the ones who, continuously, breach the rules, in whatever “format” they come, refuse to change. This refusal to change is reflected in their world view, impotent rage at the changing world and a, terrified, fear of being “left behind”.

    What more can the mods do to cater to this “cohort”?

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • Administrators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 14,866 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    The title of the link would tell everyone what the link is about. What we want is the poster of the link to tell us WHAT THEY THINK about what is in the link. Not just post the link. If the title is enough to tell everyone everything they need there'd be no need for any content at all. All media outlets could just post headlines, and then everyone will know exactly what's going on.

    You say there shouldn't be a blanket rule for everyone. When there's not a blanket rule you get calls of mod bias, rules not being applied evenly etc. We have to cater to the lowest common denominator. Even when it has been spelt out, very plainly, in this thread, a number of times, we still have people saying "Yeah, but….."

    The rules are there for all. Most seem able to abide by them.



  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,475 Mod ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    But I believe the poster did add some text. The link was directly related to the discussion, the link identified what it contained and the poster says this was added:

    The poster says they enjoyed this and it may make them watch the full interview as she didn't take any sh*t from him.

    Link dumping is throwing in a link, or starting a thread with a link and not engaging any further.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,261 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Nothing would have changed had not a vocal minority complained, excessively, about “how things were” on the site.

    That isn't why the rules were changed though.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,727 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    If a central position here is that 'Boards is a DISCUSSION site', then one of the things that is central to Boards being a discussion site is the presence of the back and forth that discussion involves.

    Posters dropping in a post full of nonsense, and getting perhaps a half-dozen or more well-intentioned and well-researched replies which completely disproves the claims they've made, only for them to ignore each any every one of those posts and just move on to the next shitepost, does not, in any way, constitute 'discussion'.

    This has always been a fundamental issue in CA, and I've never seen anything done to improve it, or even acknowledge it as a problem and suggest a means to remedy it.

    The reasonable position that 'nobody is obliged to respond to any post' is horribly manipulated by shitposters.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,725 ✭✭✭weisses


    No we are hopefully all held to the same standards ... the point I was making is that there are more posters who didn't got a ban for years suddenly were on the wrong end of the stick.... Now add the fact that moderators felt CA was moderated to strict and applied changes to address this issue. Clearly more posters are being sanctioned after the changes made. To me it doesn't make any sense.



  • Administrators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 14,866 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    I have addressed this a number of times in the thread. Specifically post 245



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    You know what a link dump is.

    Context in the thread doesn't change that



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,894 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    There seems to be a contradiction here.

    Link dumping isnt allowed because its a discussion site.

    Yet on previous threads you were stating nobody in CA has to answer questions put to them in the discussion... to paraphrase - nobody owes an answer to anyone.

    Doesnt seem like 'discussion' if you dont actually have to discuss the original claim made or respond to followup queries. You can just post and run.

    My understanding in Politics forum is that you do, open to correction on that.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,725 ✭✭✭weisses


    You tried to explain it .. but it didn't make much sense

    One must expect from participants in the discussion that the Kamala vs Baier interview was a big thing ... it was a discussion point for a couple of pages .. some argued she did poorly, others found she did great... an important section of that interview was that the interviewer tried to pull a fast one and Harris wasn't having it .... that little clip showed that .... that is the context ... everyone participating in the thread knew what it was about ..... Again CONTEXT is the key .... if a moderator would have followed the discusson that person would not have reached the conclusion of link dumping .... if said moderator only checked a report post while waiting in some airport lounge it maybe have looked different



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement