Vatnik

Big Bag of Chips

@odyssey06 this is a point you repeatedly bring up, and you always get the same answer: You can't force someone to discuss something with you.

Moderators can't force someone to discuss something with you.

If someone wants to post something and then walk away from the thread, there's not a lot that can be done about that. Moderators are not going to chase someone around asking them to come back and back up what they've said. Even if we did, we can't enforce it.

Posters should be able to discuss topics, debate topics, disagree with each other without the need for moderators to intervene. There is a lot of posts reported as "Disinformation" and expecting the moderators to follow up on it. If a poster thinks something is "disinformation" then disagree with it on thread. Question it on thread. Post why you believe it is wrong on thread. That's discussion! The other poster can reply or ignore your post if they wish. They can not reply to you if they wish. The thread will move on and there will be other things to discuss and debate.

As I've mentioned before, as a poster who rarely picks up a warning you seem to know exactly how to discuss a topic without coming to the moderators attention. So just continue doing that.

I think what is expected from moderators here regularly borders on "babysitting". Fight your own battles. Just do so without name calling or being a dick and you'll be fine.

Irish Aris

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122955699#Comment_122955699

No, no, that's not what I said. That's your interpretation.

What I said was that if I can't/can't enable civil discussion, I'd rather have no discussion at all than have an uncivil discussion. Take this discussion we have here for example: I think both of us have engaged with each other civilly, in good faith and exchange ideas. If you were uncivil towards me or your posts were coming across as bad faith, I wouldn't engage with you at all.

If I understand your comments correctly, you don't agree. And that's fine. I still don't understand why you would waste your time engaging with people that don't engage back or engage in bad faith, instead of spending your time discussing with people that contribute in good faith even if you don't agree with them, but you do you.

On the last paragraph, I'm confused. The vatnik was a discussion/decision made at mods level. The rest are part of a feedback thread: people brought them up and I expressed on opinion on them - and hopefully more people will express an opinion, so we can form an educated decision. I'm not sure I follow the thought process that made you equate the two.

Polar101

It's a result of the less than brilliant idea to allow threadbanned users to post their lies all over again. I've put the (a word that's in the title of this thread)s on ignore list, but it's fairly ridiculous to except genuine posters to have a reasonable discussion with people who only post disinformation.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122955795#Comment_122955795

I bring it up continually because I get contradictory information each time.

Recently you said if a statement of fact is made it must be supported - either with evidence and/or followup.

Is that still the case? Yes or no?

Is it discussion if someone makes a specific claim, doesnt support it or engage with replies? Yes or no?

Moderators in Politics do enforce such engagement. And previously on CA mods enforced that specific claims of fact must have evidence/support. S

Also, if excerpts are taken from an article must a link be provided as per previous fair use guidelines? Yes or no?

And I did challenge such posts without name calling, or use of phrases such as vatnik... and was reprimanded on thread for bickering - after a single reply. I will DM you the post in question if/when I track it down.

I really have no idea what was meant by the more 'robust' discussion supposedly allowed under new CA rules. Banning vatnik while allowing propganda dumps and runs so genuine posters cant even call out the conduct for what it is. Not looking for babysitting, either moderate the content or else allow robust language such as vatnik which is not personally abusive. Babysitting is what is goimg on now, babysitting and protecting the propagamda dumpers.

We now have worst of both worlds.

TheValeyard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122955795#Comment_122955795

The problem is certain posters (we all know who they are:

1. Link dump pro russian statement or twitter info
2. Provide some random ramblings
3. Continue to recite Kremlin lies
4. Repeat ad nausum

And just in case I've read it wrong:

Vatnik is on the Verboten list, but Zionist is not? Seems like double standards.

extra-ordinary_

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122955860#Comment_122955860

No protection for the Zionists, anti-Semitism at it's finest.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122955093#Comment_122955093

Thank you for the effort of the long response, but I think only your last notable paragraph is actually on point.

I re-read the original instruction on the thread to make sure I hadn't misunderstood, and I hadn't. The instruction was a blanket prohibition on the use of the word, regardless of context. Yet the word (which I have never personally used) has a reasonably clearly defined definition as someone who parrots Russian propoganda which, in itself, is a reasonably neutral noun. Is there any other short word for such a thing, or should we always type the long-form of "one who is parroting Russian propoganda?"

Of course it's often used as a perjorative. Many words are primarily used as a perjorative, like "idiot". Yet though the appellation of another poster ("You are an idiot") is reasonably enough banned the use of the word itself ("it is an idiotic idea") is not. Further, unlike 'idiot', which requires claims not in evidence, comparing and contrasting with Russian propoganada talking points is fairly easily identifiable: The Russian government itself puts it out for all to see. If one espouses socialist ideals, one can be described as a socialist. If one espouses ideals demeaning or degrading of women, one may perhaps be described as a misogynist. "Vatnik" may be a relatively recent addition to the vocabulary, but I don't see the subjective application of such as any different.

IMO the ruling was un-necessary. There are already instructions in the charter governing personal insults and the good conduct of the board. The ruling seems to me to add little to the powers of the moderator in reducing strife, whilst un-necessarily prohibiting legitimate efficiency of discourse (and casting shadow on moderator neutrality).

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122955930#Comment_122955930

I don't agree with you that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Indeed if it were so, the Torah Jewish orgs would be quite an irony.

I do agree with you though that it highlights what others have already pointed out, massive and glaring inconsistencies.

Irish Aris

Thank you very much Manic Moran, you make very valid points. We'll take them on board and see what we can do to improve the situation.

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122955699#Comment_122955699

It was also my understanding that if an article was cited \ excerpted, a link to that article should be provided.

This is no longer being enforced.

That's a result of the no link dump rule

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122955809#Comment_122955809

I don't see it as wasting time, when I reply, my reply is visible not just that posters, but to everyone reading the thread.
It is a public social media forum, not an exchange of private messages or letters.
My reply contains counter-points, challenges etc about a topic I feel strongly about intended for that wider audience as much as the poster I'm directly replying to.
Such an 'instinct' (for want of a better word) I imagine is common enough among frequent contributors to forums such as Current Affairs.

On the second point, I was unclear on your earlier comments, I just wanted to make sure the banning of vatnik is the start of a process, not the end. That the feedback on this thread both about vatnik decision and other similar terms will be considered by the mod team.
I have to say I'm a little surprised that when the mod group discussing banning this single term, there was no consideration of how it looked as a precedent for other terms in use on the forum in similar space. But we are where we are.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122956073#Comment_122956073

It does seem to be,which in and of itself is quite odd as if anything? Surely that's precisely how links ought to be used?

Developing ones position and argument via sourcing information and sharing it in support of a position?

Versus a link dump, of just sharing a link and not using it to develop or reinforce one''s viewpoint.

Huge difference between supporting ones position and link dumping IMHO.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122956073#Comment_122956073

I suspect as much but it can also be used to misrepresent information by cherry picking excerpts from an article with a vague reference to eg Twitter or the BBC, with no direct link other posters cannot easily validate the information.

As far as I'm aware, this is supposed to be the state of play, which has not been superseded to my knowledge:

2) copy and pasting a full piece of an article from a newspaper or blog etc will not be allowed. You may copy a paragraph of the piece and must provide a link to the source under what we hope will be seen as a common sense and fair use approach.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2056565895/changes-to-policy-regarding-copyrighted-material-on-boards-ie/p1

Kermit.de.frog

Just don't react to name calling is the best policy in my opinion. In relation to the thread in question there is a gaggle of posters there who want to bully other posters off the thread for either giving a realistic fair appraisal of the situation that doesn't exist in the lala fantasy land that they inhabit themselves or just simply don't accept contrarian points of view.

Just ignore it and make your contribution. What will happen in the war will happen regardless of what posters on Boards think.

extra-ordinary_

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122955986#Comment_122955986

I don't agree with you that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism

As a Zionist, I would argue otherwise.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122956193#Comment_122956193

And you're welcome to 👍

Irish Aris

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122956077#Comment_122956077

Thank you very much Odyssey.

Yes, that's a fair point. It is good that we can have this discussion. I think you and others have made valid arguments to consider where we go from here.

The particular word really felt like a low hanging fruit. I fully understand though your comment about setting a precedent. So we will definitely look into it. I still maintain that this and other terms are uncivil and I wouldn't want to see them used left right and center. I guess we need to find a way to moderate these terms in a meaningful way, but not over-moderate them.

Just to also touch on your point about people copying and pasting without citing sources: very very annoying. Personally I don't accept that this is due to the link dump rule. I think it should be clear that if people post a link and then a quick comment and/or excerpt on it, it would be OK. We just don't want "mysterious" links, if that makes sense. I have the opinion that as a mod I can use the option offerred by the charter to delete posts, especially for serial copy/posters. But I'd really like to listen to your thoughts as you may encounter it more than me.

Thanks again for the discussion.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122956226#Comment_122956226

Yes I think we are coming to an understanding. As posters we don't have to agree with all mod decisions but some understanding of the whys, and implications is beneficial to community engagement and respect for mods. Which has benefits in long run.

I would add some further points, to be taken under advisement, no reply is required, I know ye are busy.

What is to be avoided is posts just containing links or eg Here is why you are wrong… followed by one or more links.
Especially links used as part of an argument or opinion based pieces. You shouldn't need to click the link to get a sense of its content or how it supports the argument.

A poster may ask for a source on something, eg do you have more info on X, and receive a one line reply with a link - that should be ok imo.

If there is a breaking news scenario, a poster may post a one liner with X happened… and link to an article with more detail on it. That should be ok imo.

A poster may claim the Daily Mail (or similar clickbaiters) said X. But we are all familiar with the phenomenon of the headline not matching the content… this can catch out even good faith posters. This is another reason why the link to the source article is important.
They may claim something, and the media article may have said that - at the time. But the media source may have retracted or corrected the story subsequently. Another reason why an actual link to the source is important.

Discodog

In a World, where we know categorically that Russia are spending fortunes trying to influence foreign media including social media, surely all discussion sites should be very aware of any attempts to tone down criticism. This decision just encourages others to complain & has set a precedence.

As an absolute point no one should be banned for using a word unless they have specifically been pre warned. In a big, fast moving thread, it's easy to miss a new rule.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122957019#Comment_122957019

Yes.

Rules that work in eg Soccer, Personal forums are not always transferrable to a forum where there are bad faith actors pushing an agenda across social media eg Russian propaganda, far right agenda on immigration, anti vax conspiracy theories.

A naive / too open policy on 'discussion' is just an open door for such agendas to be pushed.

I think the feedback on this thread has raised major issues with the Vatnik decision and demonstrate why declaring that CA warnings as not appealable was a dubious eapproach at a time of rule changes and personnel changes. In practice I have no idea which of the new CA rules are or are not actually in force. It seems to exist only in mods heads and on request in threads like this. In practice the actual moderation applied bears little or no relation to them.

Slava_Ukraine

Beasty, is he gone? A very fair moderator. Banned me when I rightly deserved it

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122955417#Comment_122955417

So I recall a poster literally saying they were gonna report the use of the term "vatnik" and shortly after it ended up banned. But terms that are as bad if not worse aren't viewed to be as serious to get banned?

On top of that, we have posters that enter these threads and deny Russia are engaging in genocide, they then disappear from the thread for a few days upon being provided with evidence. These posters then repeat this behavior over and over cause they can drop in a load of propaganda. These posters do not get banned, it just seems like a free for all.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122957088#Comment_122957088

Taking a long break, hopefully. If anyone's earned it, it's him.

Irish Aris

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122957967#Comment_122957967

Thank you @eightieschewbaccy. Your point is well noted.

We have already started a discussion about reversing the decision - allowing the term, but frame it around the 2 basic rules of "don't be a d**k" and "attack the post, not the poster".

The discussion here has brought up a couple of other points we are also looking into. We hope to have everything ironed out in the next couple of days. Please bear with us while we finalise this.

Thank you again for your contribution to this thread.

patnor1011

Perhaps split it to two threads. One for people who want to follow ukraine victories and other for people who want to discuss other side of things. That way both sides can have their own space without feeling excluded or persecuted. It can work but only if people wont try to go to the other side to derail discussion there.

It semi work in Assad Syria thread where people for the most part discuss in civil manner even though there are attempts to export ukrainian issue in there too.

Avatar in the Post

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122958188#Comment_122958188

There used to be a rant forum where you could post the most outlandish rubbish and nobody could disagree with you.

Maybe have a Pro Russia/poor misunderstood Putin thread where anybody can post their undying admiration for war crimes, rape and child kidnap and ban it elsewhere. That would quarantine these “contributors” and leave the Russia thread for those to discuss the Russian invasion and Russian war crimes.

The word Vatnik wouldn’t get any mentions. Everybody would be happy, surely. 🤔

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122958364#Comment_122958364

There you go.

One thing though you failed to understand is that not everyone share your point of view and despite your firm belief that you are right other people may have different view on the problem at hand. That does not mean that what they say is outlandish rubbish, its their opinion and while you can disagree there is nothing much you can do about it anyway.

All this outrage about things we cant change is fairly unhealthy.

Avatar in the Post

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122958456#Comment_122958456

The common view point is that the actions of Russia are war crimes. The common view is that war crimes are bad. If you have contrarian views they can be shared to your hearts desire in the Rant forum.

I.am.Putins.raging.bile.duct

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122958188#Comment_122958188

Great Idea. You and like-minded posters on here could fester away in a corner and keep each other company discussing noble russian traditions and virtues such as murder, torture, terror, persecution, deportation and forced transfer, enforced disappearance, child abductions, rape, looting, unlawful confinement, inhumane acts, unlawful airstrikes and attacks against civilian objects, use of banned chemical weapons, and wanton destruction.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122958456#Comment_122958456

A thread where posters can freely post denials of genocide and war crimes alongside claims that NATO is responsible for the invasion without feeling "persecuted"? The reality is such views are very much so much Russian propaganda, the conspiracy theories forum honestly sounds like the most suitable location at this stage.