A discussion on the rules.

Nodin

RecordStraight wrote: »

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

.....

I feel we'd have to start with "visible" before we got to "more" as things stand.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RecordStraight

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It does look like they have rather given up, doesn't it?

Sand

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

True, RecordStraight is more likely to pick up a card for trying to keep the thread on topic than anyone who tries to drive it off the rails going by the rules of the forum.

Politics Cafe is lowest common denominator though - I don't think that in itself is the problem. I think the "relaxed" atmosphere aimed for is more likely to result in unrelaxed and tetchy atmosphere but whatever. Its when the Politics Cafe standards branch out to other forums that a problem arises. As it is, low standards in a thread in the main forums just serve to encourage a transfer of the thread to the Politics Cafe rather than moderation within the charter the thread was begun under.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

conorh91

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Will, or does?

It doesn't sound sensible to clamp down on the Politics Cafe because of some conjectural justification that its standards might, someday, seep into and devalue this forum.

Surely one could justify a clamp-down in After Hours on the very same basis.

Nodin

I'd suggest that's something that could be argued over when the more basic issue at hand is addressed, though given the feedback thus far that may never occur.

FreudianSlippers

Nodin wrote: »

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"

If you don't see that it is because many pro-SF posters are purposely bringing threads off-topic to avoid such a discussion.

gandalf

conorh91 wrote: »

Will, or does?

It doesn't sound sensible to clamp down on the Politics Cafe because of some conjectural justification that its standards might, someday, seep into and devalue this forum.

Surely one could justify a clamp-down in After Hours on the very same basis.

The problem is that this is a sub forum of Politics and not After Hours, it is being used as a dumping ground from After Hours for Politics related threads that spring up there. This has happened without any additional resources being put in place to police it. The moment the decision was made to transfer this significant level of traffic from the busiest forum on the site additional mod resources should have been put in place. It also needs a hybrid charter that is more than "don't be a dick" and not the full politics charter so there is a more "relaxed atmosphere".

Like others my fear is that the low standards that have taken hold in the Politics Cafe will osmotically transfer to the main forums and given the attitudes I have seen here from the mods and privately I don't believe they have the will to take this on.

I already know we have more lax standards in the main forum given the leeway that obvious shills and thread de-railers are being given.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

I'd suggest that's something that could be argued over when the more basic issue at hand is addressed, though given the feedback thus far that may never occur.

It will get addressed, we aren't putting our fingers in ears here!

And the cafe isn't a dumping ground!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If you don't see that it is because many pro-SF posters are purposely bringing threads off-topic to avoid such a discussion.

Well I can see you've taken the balanced view.....

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

It will get addressed, we aren't putting our fingers in ears here!

And the cafe isn't a dumping ground!

I remain to be convinced. You could of course just allow personal abuse. The only answer to many statements made there at the moment is "fuck off, you [Insert appropriate term]" so that would solve my problem, in a sense.

FreudianSlippers

K-9 wrote: »

It will get addressed, we aren't putting our fingers in ears here!

And the cafe isn't a dumping ground!

The rules certainly seem to have been relaxed since I was banned and thread-banned

FreudianSlippers

Nodin wrote: »

Well I can see you've taken the balanced view.....

I've taken the realistic view. I bet you can show examples of deflection and off topic posting from non-anti-SF POSTERS?

Nodin

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I've taken the realistic view. I bet you can show examples of deflection and off topic posting from non-anti-SF POSTERS?

This paraphrases a number of the remarks. Moderators would be familiar with the threads in question
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94633807&postcount=2064

I see my efforts to keep this is as a bipartisan discussion haven't ameliorated the attack dog ethos in the least.

FreudianSlippers

Nodin wrote: »

This paraphrases a number of the remarks. Moderators would be familiar with the threads in question
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94633807&postcount=2064

I see my efforts to keep this is as a bipartisan discussion haven't ameliorated the attack dog ethos in the least.

Well, I for one have never engaged in such a discussion regarding SF or another party. I have, however, called (on probably hundreds of occasions at this stage) for someone who supports SF (particularly the blind "shinnerbots" as there are some moderates) to discuss economic policy using numbers or examples.

They are more interested in deflecting those queries (or mainly ignoring them) by going down a different topic and dragging the debate into a ground they feel they can twist (i.e. the examples you noted). It's effectively trolling to invite such a discussion and then to complain about it.

Nodin

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Well, I for (................) about it.

Yes, its all utterly one sided isn't it? Who knew the modern world could be so black and white?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

It's good to see people putting differences aside and you are being heard. <br />
<br />
The ideal for me is a thriving cafe, I'd my doubts it would attract the numbers it has, now it has I think there's great potential there and most users are contributing to the style we want. That is much easier said than done in a politics forum, particularly one that is do busy, has divisive issues and more relaxed moderating. <br />
<br />
Ideally we'll have a busier, less strewn out main forum, with a choice of posting there or if the mood takes you, the cafe for a break!

FreudianSlippers

I do think the main politics forum would be much better if it was narrowed down to the main forum being all of Ireland, an International sub-forum and an EU subforum

Happyman42

As long as threads like this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057393382
are allowed to be posted in Politics Café without questions as to the motive, then there is going to be problems.
If you look at the thread, there is clearly only one reason why it was posted there, that being that the OP wanted to be able and wanted others to able to rant un-moderated or with lax moderation, when it suited them.

If I am wrong, could somebody give a good reason why it wasn't posted in the main forum, as it is a serious and good question? (as the OP is contributing here, maybe they can chip in too?)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Your post reminded me of this stellar contribution to that thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94595317&postcount=22

"Your question is...'how will a 'mass exodus' affect the health service?'

My answer is, there won't be a mass exodus, therefore very little affect."

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Instead of attacking your perception of the quality of my contribution, can you explain, (and I think you may need some self awareness about the quality of some of your comments on that thread, I can post the comments I mean, if you don't understand and it is allowed) why a serious question like that was not asked in the main forum?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Your post reminded me of this stellar contribution to that thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94595317&postcount=22

"Your question is...'how will a 'mass exodus' affect the health service?'

My answer is, there won't be a mass exodus, therefore very little affect."

And the same to you Godge. I didn't ask for your thoughts on the quality of the contribution.
I asked what where the motives for posting a perfectly fair and reasonable question for debate in the Politic Cafe.
Mods move stuff into the Cafe all the time, should they not also do vice versa?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

The, I don't see any particular reason why it shouldn't be there.

I would add some consistency from users with horses in the race would help mods greatly and improve the forum experience.

FreudianSlippers

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Here's a good case in point.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I looked at it, it makes no sense . Yet you seem to ignore evidence and factual posts because you're incapable of debate and supporting the position.

maccored wrote: »

more insults - is that all the anti shinner element have? weak insults?