A discussion on the rules.

K-9

blackwhite wrote: »

Does this mean that personal swipes, etc are acceptable in the Cafe?

Over the past weekend there's been a few posters whose only contribution has been name-calling a direct personal insults, with no action against them.

If this is what the cafe is intended for then it's going to turn into nothing more than the comments section from the journal

Well that isn't true, Lee is banned

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

Well that isn't true, Lee is banned

Has any action been taken over the post I reported?

blackwhite

K-9 wrote: »

Well that isn't true, Lee is banned

Thanks for the response.

My assumption was the reported posts had been ignored, given that there was mod actions later in the thread without any sign of the earlier post being addressed.

Seeing the mod note that I quoted above, together with the way the discussion this thread has been headed, seemed to imply that the Cafe was being allowed turn into an "anything goes" environment.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

blackwhite wrote: »

Does this mean that personal swipes, etc are acceptable in the Cafe?

Over the past weekend there's been a few posters whose only contribution has been name-calling a direct personal insults, with no action against them.

If this is what the cafe is intended for then it's going to turn into nothing more than the comments section from the journal

I was the person to whom the edited swipe was aimed at. I didn't see it as it was edited before I saw the post. I do note the following.

K-9 wrote: »

Well that isn't true, Lee is banned

This has me confused because it was posted at 2.00 today suggesting "Lee is banned" yet here is a post from him at 16.20

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94610901&postcount=117

And another at 13.07

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94607693&postcount=112


Maybe I am mixing up the wrong poster and the wrong thread but there was nothing on the thread at any stage to say he was banned and the first I saw was K-9's post at 14.01 which technically isn't true. It is also possible he had a very short ban and it had expired.

I don't really care about the ins and outs but one of the real problems with the forum is not the quality of the modding but the visibility of it. If you are to return now to the thread on which Lee Majors was warned, you will see the post he made (and the thanks) and the warning, you won't see the offence (so no guidance to future offenders) as it was snipped but you will not see any clear action against the offence even though on this thread we are told he was banned.

blackwhite

Godge wrote: »

I don't really care about the ins and outs but one of the real problems with the forum is not the quality of the modding but the visibility of it.

This is the nub of the issue with the Café at the minute.
Unless people click into this thread (which isn't even in the Café), all they will see is the trolling, the personal abuse, and the general petty rubbish that threatens to drag it into the sewer.

Just taking the SF thread, there is a massive number of abusive and/or trolling posts which have been left untouched, with no indicator anywhere in the thread, or the Café in general, that these are unacceptable or that any action has been taken.

Whether or not behind the scenes action is taking place, this stuff all adds to the perception that the Café has no rules, no standards, and serves no more than a place for trolls to abuse to their heart's content.

Nodin

Godge wrote: »

................................
This has me confused because it was posted at 2.00 today suggesting "Lee is banned" yet here is a post from him at 16.20

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94610901&postcount=117

And another at 13.07

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94607693&postcount=112

Given the discussion, presumably he means banned from the Café.

Godge

Nodin wrote: »

Given the discussion, presumably he means banned from the Café.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94606779&postcount=2040

But the post that started the discussion on that poster references a post and thread in the main forum

as far as i remember the cafe was established so it would act as a shunt, diverting all of the poop from Politics forum?

what do we expect? just slip on your safety goggles and overalls when you go in there and wash them down before coming back to the main forum.

johnnyskeleton

blackwhite wrote: »

Does this mean that personal swipes, etc are acceptable in the Cafe?

Over the past weekend there's been a few posters whose only contribution has been name-calling a direct personal insults, with no action against them.

If this is what the cafe is intended for then it's going to turn into nothing more than the comments section from the journal

If you have a specific issue with a moderation decision youcan take it to PM. Personal abuse is not allowed in any politics subforum, including the Cafe. The above quote relates to the type of one liner jibe against another poster short of personal abuse that is not permitted in the main forum but is given more latitude in the cafe.

So yeah, one liners like:

I dont believe a word you say, bro.

etc are given more latitude in the Cafe because it is intended to have a much more relaxed/bantering atmosphere than the main forum.

The Cafe is not intended for direct personal abuse so if you see actual personal abuse please report it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Tbh I don't know why we'd do all that for a forum that, focusing on the positive, most posters seem to get and has plenty of potential to be very good. There will be teething problems but nothing that can't be solved without redrawing a beautifully simplistic charter.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Well I don't think mods have had any appeals about the charter or rules lawyering, which suggests to me the charter isn't an issue.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

The charter isn't an issue for me or the other mods by my reckoning. You think it is, that's all there is to understand.

No point complicating and tinkering with something that has nothing wrong with it. There are things to sort out in the cafe, the charter isn't one of those.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Which part of "there are things to sort out in the cafe" did you just completely ignore? You decide to go on a rant instead, with the added bonus of a dig at the mods. Fair enough if that's your thing, it just obscures some of the good points you do make.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RecordStraight

The standard of post in the politics cafe, particularly from the Sinn Fein attack team, does seem to suggest it's a bit of a free-for-all. Perfect for their ridicule/attack/divert strategies.

Right now, LeeMajors has stopped posting in the general 'Sinn Fein' thread and carried on posting irrelevant rubbish in the Sinn Fein/Health Service policy thread for no reason other than to throw it off track and drag it down into the usual mudslinging, rather than actually discussing a particular policy platform of Sinn Fein.

I think more visible modding is desperately needed or the politics forum is just going to become a Shinner echo-chamber.

Nodin

RecordStraight wrote: »

The standard of post in the politics cafe, particularly from the Sinn Fein attack team, does seem to suggest it's a bit of a free-for-all. Perfect for their ridicule/attack/divert strategies.

Right now, LeeMajors has stopped posting in the general 'Sinn Fein' thread and carried on posting irrelevant rubbish in the Sinn Fein/Health Service policy thread for no reason other than to throw it off track and drag it down into the usual mudslinging, rather than actually discussing a particular policy platform of Sinn Fein.

I think more visible modding is desperately needed or the politics forum is just going to become a Shinner echo-chamber.

I'm not seeing how naming individual posters will help matters generally.

You might also take a step back and look at some of the 'anti-SF attack team' as well, and the language they use, and consider whether that helps the tone at all. Two to tango etc.

RecordStraight

Nodin wrote: »

I'm not seeing how naming individual posters will help matters generally.

No point in being coy.

Nodin wrote: »

You might also take a step back and look at some of the 'anti-SF attack team' as well, and the language they use, and consider whether that helps the tone at all. Two to tango etc.

The ridicule, abuse and diversion come from the Sinn Fein fans. I think the tone of the replies from non-SF fans is inevitable - which is why they use this tactic. It drags the discussion into a slanging match which they are very comfortable with. It prevents a serious examination of what SF stand for and their policies and turns off the casual reader.

Just for a laugh, I could start (another) serious thread on Sinn Fein and I guarantee you the RAD tactic would be deployed by the SF fan club within half a dozen posts. You can see it on the very first page of the Health Service policy thread, and the thread spirals downhill once a few more SF fans pile in.

Nodin

RecordStraight wrote: »

No point in being coy. .

There is, but presumably somebody else will explain it to you.

RecordStraight wrote: »

The ridicule, abuse and diversion come from the Sinn Fein fans. I think the tone of the replies from non-SF fans is inevitable - which is why they use this tactic. It drags the discussion into a slanging match which they are very comfortable with. It prevents a serious examination of what SF stand for and their policies and turns off the casual reader.
.

Yes, jaysus forbid there could be two sides in it.

A good deal of what I see and am complaining about has little or nothing to do with "a serious examination of what SF stand for and their policies"

Really? If somebody starts a thread about a party you support (and, purely as an example, we'll say its the Greens) and remarks start to fly about it being a pro-child abuse party, tasteless remarks re victims and so on to get a dig in at Green party members, a sneering attitude to a Green party member who was the victim of domestic violence....what do you think the response is going to be from Green party members and voters?

RecordStraight

Nodin wrote: »

Really? If somebody starts a thread about a party you support (and, purely as an example, we'll say its the Greens) and remarks start to fly about it being a pro-child abuse party, tasteless remarks re victims and so on to get a dig in at Green party members, a sneering attitude to a Green party member who was the victim of domestic violence....what do you think the response is going to be from Green party members and voters?

That's comparable to starting a thread about the the possible implications of health policy...how, exactly?

Nodin

RecordStraight wrote: »

That's comparable to starting a thread about the the possible implications of health policy...how, exactly?

I was speaking generally. Simultaneous threads roughly related often see a leak of sentiment from one to the other though, the same people being involved.

Have you any thoughts on my other remarks?

RecordStraight

Nodin wrote: »

I was speaking generally. Simultaneous threads roughly related often see a leak of sentiment from one to the other though, the same people being involved.

I've looked back at the first page of that discussion and there are no barbs at SF for their terrorist past, their recent rape coverup controversies etc. - the type of stuff you seem to be suggesting. There are comments about how the attack dogs seemed to be leaving the thread alone for some reason, and the only SF fan poster was adopting the usual deflection tactic.

Nodin wrote: »

Have you any thoughts on my other remarks?

Any remark in particular?

Nodin

RecordStraight wrote: »

I've looked back at the first page of that discussion and there are no barbs at SF for their terrorist past, their recent rape coverup controversies etc. - the type of stuff you seem to be suggesting. There are comments about how the attack dogs seemed to be leaving the thread alone for some reason, and the only SF fan poster was adopting the usual deflection tactic.

The "Sinn Fein" thread?

RecordStraight wrote: »

Any remark in particular?

"If somebody starts a thread about a party you support (and, purely as an example, we'll say its the Greens) and remarks start to fly about it being a pro-child abuse party, tasteless remarks re victims and so on to get a dig in at Green party members, a sneering attitude to a Green party member who was the victim of domestic violence....what do you think the response is going to be from Green party members and voters? "

RecordStraight

Nodin wrote: »

The "Sinn Fein" thread?

The medical policy thread, as I mentioned. The 'Sinn Fein' thread is a mire of mudslinging pointlessness, with no specific point or topic.

Nodin wrote: »

"If somebody starts a thread about a party you support (and, purely as an example, we'll say its the Greens) and remarks start to fly about it being a pro-child abuse party, tasteless remarks re victims and so on to get a dig in at Green party members, a sneering attitude to a Green party member who was the victim of domestic violence....what do you think the response is going to be from Green party members and voters? "

I imagine it would be quite bad.

But then that has nothing to do with the thread I am talking about, does it?

Nodin

RecordStraight wrote: »

The medical policy thread, as I mentioned. The 'Sinn Fein' thread is a mire of mudslinging pointlessness, with no specific point or topic.

I imagine it would be quite bad.

And it is, hence my general complaint, fully acknowledging that there are some on the other side equally as goading.

RecordStraight wrote: »

But then that has nothing to do with the thread I am talking about, does it?

It does, re the 'cross contamination' I referred to earlier. And in the general atmosphere, everything is bound to go to shite lets face it.

RecordStraight

Nodin wrote: »

And it is, hence my general complaint, fully acknowledging that there are some on the other side equally as goading.

This is where the more visible modding approach would be beneficial.

Nodin wrote: »

It does, re the 'cross contamination' I referred to earlier. And in the general atmosphere, everything is bound to go to shite lets face it.

Again, if you look at the thread, I specifically tried to steer it back to health policy between 5 and 10 times, and I think was somewhat successful in doing so. I'd suggest that that sort of discipline, if it became habitual, would go a long way towards creating readable debates that resist the slide into anti-SF mud-slinging and pro-SF RAD tactics.