Vatnik

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122959848#Comment_122959848

Oh but I did and for a few months. Problem is that frequent posters there are like - call it sect, brotherhood, comrades, fight club or whatever and they are not quite happy if they wont pick up a good fight every now and then so they frequently spill over to every thread they can trying to insert some russophobia.

Avatar in the Post

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122960801#Comment_122960801

There is one country committing Nazi level war crimes, not 80 years ago, but NOW, and you are surprised people are passionate about obvious pro Russian shilling?

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122960801#Comment_122960801

And if it's relevant to the thread you can report the posts. Having an issue with Russia invading Ukraine, committing genocide etc is not Russophobia btw.

CalamariFritti

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122960805#Comment_122960805

You obviously have no idea what nazi level war crimes were or else youre trying to spread disinformation or maybe you're being deliberately ignorant to further 'your cause' or something. Russia isnt even remotely in 'Israel right now' territory never mind nazi war crime territory.

You're not only making a show of yourself and spreading disinformation you also are making a mockery of the nazi victims. You realise by the time the Red Army took Berlin there were 27 million soviet casualties alone? The majority of them civilians.

Of course I'm sure terrible things happen in this war including war crimes and I'm sure they happen by the hands of Russians too. But those claims of systemic targeting of civilians and 'genocide' and whatnot just make you sound ignorant. If Russia went at it like the nazis we'd have millions of casualties not 10 or 20 thousand. Maybe you should read a history book or two or even just watch some documentaries.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122961209#Comment_122961209

I'm pretty sure most people are largely accepting of the fact that the Russians are committing genocide. Multiple human rights groups have raised it, in fact there's been accusations of genocide going back to the Crimea invasion. So nope, posters stating genocide is happening are not being remotely inaccurate. Those claiming it is not are engaging in disinformation and I also suspect if the Internet was a thing at the end of WW2, we would have plenty of people downplaying genocide cause invariably genocide denial always happens.

Spear

The original question has been asked and answered. After that this thread, like so many others in Helpdesk and Feedback, has now gone completely off-topic, so this is being closed at this point as it's already served its purpose.

Leg End Reject

We realise we were a little rash in making this decision and have taken all your feedback on board. It will be impossible to moderate all use of the terms outlined in the Feedback thread, so we are reversing the ban on the use of 'Vatnik'.

We would like to stress that Boards is a discussion site and that you may read opinions you disagree with or find offensive. We will therefore not attempt to censor discussion unless it is against Boards Terms of Use or the forum charter. It is up to users to refute posts they disagree with, or that they think are factually incorrect.

Spear

Re-opened to allow the above CA mod response given that it changes things, and I'll leave it open for responses.

But keep it strictly on-topic.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122961921#Comment_122961921

Thanks for the update.

I'd like to follow-up on this specific point from your post:

"It is up to users to refute posts they disagree with, or that they think are factually incorrect."

Can you explain how this relates to this line in the Forum Charter:

Do not post any material that you know or should know is hateful, abusive, harassing, false… and/or defamatory, inaccurate, vulgar, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or illegal."

Your post appears to contradict the content of the Forum Charter.
It is not just up to posters to refute posts they think are factually incorrect.
The Forum Charter places a responsibility on moderators specifically in relation to false or inaccurate material.

Are moderators actually enforcing this rule - in the context of claims made eg about Current Affairs topics such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Atrocities, for example, for which there is ample evidence available from reputable media sources.

Do not post any material that you… should know is false or inaccurate.

TheValeyard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122961617#Comment_122961617

So, if it's been answered, what's the answer?

Vatnik verboten, but Zionist fine?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122962065#Comment_122962065

The ban has been 'reversed' but the warning against it is still on the thresd opening post, for now at least.

So neither is verboten would be my reading of it.

TheValeyard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122962093#Comment_122962093

Ah grand. So, context is the key then?

eightieschewbaccy

I do think there's some stuff being posted by regulars in the Russia thread that would ordinarily be unacceptable. Eg a regular is now claiming the Bucha Massacre was a "false flag" and that it's an accepted fact. Is it really okay for posters to claim that the mass murder of civilians is a made up event?

I think this is somewhat relevant to the thread given the fact it relates to how the Russia discussion is being handled.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122961921#Comment_122961921

I appreciate the willingness to reconside and applaud the final outcome.

Especially since the satire on the thread rather made the point of the silliness pretty obvious.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122962189#Comment_122962189

Especially in the context of the part of the Forum Charter I highlighted:

Do not post any material that you know or should know is hateful, abusive, harassing, false… and/or defamatory, inaccurate, vulgar, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or illegal."

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122961921#Comment_122961921

The rethink is much appreciated and it is IMO the most workable approach.

CA is a pain for mods but it can't be let become a place where robust discussion is policed by decree. It's good to see that the flexibility to context & posters already extant in the charter is recognised, rather than trying to enforce a banned word list.

TheValeyard

Cheers to the mods for engaging with this and giving their time for it

I started the thread, and not sure what else needs to be discussed as it seems resolved.

Context is king.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122962762#Comment_122962762

Cheers for raising it.

I have an outstanding question relating to the Forum Charter Rule #2 as it pertains to the mod comment on this thread reversing the ban, I would like an answer to either here or on another thread.

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122962838#Comment_122962838

We are not mind readers, we cannot tell if someone is willingly posting something they know to be false, or whether they genuinely believe what they're posting.

The lighter touch moderation reflects that, it is now up to posters to refute claims on thread or to ignore posts.

It has previously been stated that mods are not fact checkers, and if we correct information on one side of an argument we will look biased.

We are looking at tidying up the charter and all the stickies, so please bear with us.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122962919#Comment_122962919

Well I would dispute you have to be mind readers.

The previous moderation regime were not mind readers either, but they were capable of enforcing rules against such claims.
That rule in the Forum Charter was in place for how long?
It is reasonable to expect someone posting about a particular current affairs topic, making claims, that they should be aware of an accepted body of information about the topic before making a major claim about it.
The Forum Charter specifically uses the phrase 'should', in an obligation on posters.
Setting a basic standard for claims and statements of fact would not make moderators look biased.

And the announcement of the 'lighter touch moderation' did not reflect that. It specifically said:
3. The forum charter is not going to change. 

That you are now saying you are looking at the forum charter contradicts that, if you feel you need to do that to reflect the moderation you are actually applying.

So, on the quiet, Rule #2 of the Forum Charter has in effect been changed, without communication to users.

Mickeroo

K, we're done here.