nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Over zealous, and inconsistent modding on the politics cafe forum.

Alf Stewart.

Sorry lads, but I had to start this thread.

Its becoming I increasingly confusing and mysterious as to how the modding works on the site, in particular forums, and what might get you carded or banned.

Now I am no angel, I've had a few bans or cards in my time that were totally justified (even if ii didnt think so at the time) I can assure you, most have been for pretty trivial offences in the grand scheme of things.

Any, of late I seem to have upset a few mods in the cafe or something because that's where my cards usually originate in.

Tonight I received an infraction, an infraction because I posted about my intention of buying a poster a flash light for Christmas, because that poster mentions shining a light into dark corners in about one in every five posts he ever makes on the site.

Off topic, personal dig I was told.

I firstly would like to point out that I post in the cafe as I take an interest in politics, but I do not care much for the high brow, stuffy atmosphere of the more serious politics forum, hence why I post in the cafe.

Now, I know the cafe isn't AH, but it is somewhere where you're encouraged to wonder slightly off topic, and discuss politics in a light hearted manner.

If you want to discuss something political in AH it gets shunted to the caf, if you have a laugh there you oftimes find yourself on the wrong end of a card/ban, despite posting in the manner you assumed the forum was intended.

A few of the cards I received where totally over the top.

I received a yellow for telling someone "they were careless with the truth" which they were being.

A yellow for "digging through a persons posting history" because I linked to something they had posted a few days previous.

But I suppose the jewel in the crown would have to be when I got a perma - ban (which was quickly overturned I should add) for something which I am not prepared to post about in public, but lets just say the mods made a complete and utter haimes of something, and completely jumped the gun after repeated offences against my account.

If there's a concentrated effort in pushing me out, I say just say so and go for it and do it.

Been on the site since 2006, Over three accounts, not sure if I'd bother with a fourth one if I'm totally honest.

That is all.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Lovely Bloke

Bias does not mean everyone is the same, but it is very obvious that from the top down, Boards.ie leans to the left.

Can anyone seriously dispute that?

Wibbs

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I did. Well I suggested he had a tendency to be a thundering gobshíte and wondered how did the hard left of Irish politics get so toned down enough to be populist. I've also clearly stated that I think modern feminism is a crock, stuffed with half truths and some outright lies. That I consider abortion to not only be a "women's issue". That I have doubts about how transexuality is handled, particularly among minors. That I have major doubts about open borders(both the "left" and "capitalists don't like that) and that the EU handling of the "refugees" is daft at the core on so many levels. In short I'd be the polar opposite of much of the so called "left bias" on Boards.ie. Still here. I'd not be the only one either.

Lovely Bloke

Harking back to the Soccer Forum for inspiration.

There is a blanket ban on "name calling" of anyone, players, managers, journalists, fans, even in the face of leg-breaking tackles, you can't jump in with "effing scumbag" - that's an automatic card leading to a ban.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Special Circumstances

Wibbs wrote: »

It never ceases to fascinate me to read almost the same opinion near word for word from some on both sides of the perceived "bias". Neither seem to get the irony.

I worded it as much as I could in a way that could be applied to either side. It's not my fault that Permabears post was proved pretty quickly by someone with their steering wheel way off centre

That's what it is though. And that's what led to the upset in America IMHO.
Some people are so far over to one side that they lose track of where the center is. It looks as though the centre in the US was to the right of where a lot of people thought it was.
Note - for the hard of thinking - I'm talking relative positions here not absolute.

Wibbs

Special Circumstances wrote: »

People are genuinely so so biased deep down, and so incapable of critical thinking that they genuinely don't see it.

It never ceases to fascinate me to read almost the same opinion near word for word from some on both sides of the perceived "bias". Neither seem to get the irony.

Wibbs

gallag wrote: »

Laughable, dangerous right wing opinion = near instantly actioned. Safe left wing opinion = we just don't see it, it must be reported.

There is another obvious explanation G, or certainly part of one. "Safe left wing opinion" posters are more likely to report such posts? How many who don't hold such views actually report such actionable posts? Having modded fast moving forums in the past - and I was more hands on than many with it - it's pretty much impossible to keep track of fast moving threads without reported posts. Now relying on them to mod is a bad plan IMHO, but you'd be screwed without them.

You literally have a mod a few posts up explaining how all trump supporters are kkk so it's no wonder they get sanctions.

Would you report that kinda post in the cafe? Genuine question G(and it goes for others who would take umbrage at such a post). If not, then the chances of actioning will drop and more, the mods won't get an overall feel for the direction of the community. As far as reported posts go, IME it can be a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. I've also noted down the years that some mods near automatically action reported posts if they go beyond one report and if reported by regular posters they "know".

Boards is to discussion boards as the guardian is to news print,

That's far more a perception and too much of an easy foregone conclusion to come to IMHO. Take Dav's post you reference. It got some thanks on the day, but has been also roundly quoted and questioned, even condemned since. I personally thought it meant in earnest, but daftly naive. I can't recall any censure on that score either.

It's long been my view that both the "right" and the "right on" on Boards who see "bias" in almost equal measure, shows that the bias where present is hovering around the centre with twitches to either side, just like wider Irish society.

Special Circumstances

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

yeah, this.

It's way too easy for moderators to throw out the line "we can't read everything" when being criticised, it's a sacred cow around here that you are not really allowed to say anything remotely bad about how mods carry out their "duties" without hearing the tired old clichés like "all mods are volunteers" and "sometimes things fall through the cracks". Yeah we know. Nobody is questioning that. We're just looking for a bit of fairness.

It's funny how certain things are seen and certain things are missed.

As for that disgusting post above tarring 63m Americans as Klanners and Neo-Nazi's going without mention from Admins/CMods, it's exactly the type of bias and atmosphere you get on Boards.ie. "Generally accurate", would you ever piss off.

You can be guaranteed that if someone came with a similar diatribe against one of the Boards.ie protected class there certainly would have been some kind of BOLD note from someone, at the very least.

To get back on topic of the PC(!), I strongly disagree with the point that mods with entrenched views should somehow be muted, it's like the Soccer Forum and United fans whinging that Pool fans are mods.

I thought that post you refer to was actually somebody proving permabears point by posting "typical attitudes" ironically.

I had to read it again. Not a trace of irony. "Hillary/democrats/liberals are sugar and spice and all things nice. The opposing deplorables are slugs and snails and puppy dog tails. So that's why certain things can be said about one side without any backup."

People are genuinely so so biased deep down, and so incapable of critical thinking that they genuinely don't see it.

Lovely Bloke

gallag wrote: »

Laughable, dangerous right wing opinion = near instantly actioned. Safe left wing opinion = we just don't see it, it must be reported.

yeah, this.

It's way too easy for moderators to throw out the line "we can't read everything" when being criticised, it's a sacred cow around here that you are not really allowed to say anything remotely bad about how mods carry out their "duties" without hearing the tired old clichés like "all mods are volunteers" and "sometimes things fall through the cracks". Yeah we know. Nobody is questioning that. We're just looking for a bit of fairness.

It's funny how certain things are seen and certain things are missed.

As for that disgusting post above tarring 63m Americans as Klanners and Neo-Nazi's going without mention from Admins/CMods, it's exactly the type of bias and atmosphere you get on Boards.ie. "Generally accurate", would you ever piss off.

You can be guaranteed that if someone came with a similar diatribe against one of the Boards.ie protected class there certainly would have been some kind of BOLD note from someone, at the very least.

To get back on topic of the PC(!), I strongly disagree with the point that mods with entrenched views should somehow be muted, it's like the Soccer Forum and United fans whinging that Pool fans are mods.

gallag

Laughable, dangerous right wing opinion = near instantly actioned. Safe left wing opinion = we just don't see it, it must be reported.

It's BS, I could go to the cafe, make a post about Clinton or immigrants etc that definitely crosses the line and get an email within minutes explaining why I have been carded. You literally have a mod a few posts up explaining how all trump supporters are kkk so it's no wonder they get sanctions.

Boards is to discussion boards as the guardian is to news print, at least just have the balls to admit it like Dav did.

Stheno

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We genuinely don't have enough mods, there are plenty of days where I am completely offline from the minute I get up until maybe 7pm due to work circumstances tbh.

We'd appreciate you reporting more posts, and if you believe they are not being actioned highlight that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Stheno

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Actually no we don't for all of the threads.

We've the Irish Water thread, usually at least one or two SF/Loyalist related threads, now the Trump threads, the ongoing immigration threads, and whatever is the cause celebre of the day.

We rely extremely heavily on reported posts to action threads tbh.

It would be a rare day that I would have time to check posts on even a couple of those threads, let alone them all, and deal with reported posts as well.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

To be fair he is demonstrably an "absolute fcuking tool" and links that illustrate his toolism won't be hard to come by. So long as links are given I suppose. Just like links backing up the well dodgy demographics and intentions of quite the number of "refugees". I'd like to see both on show myself.

Stheno

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I've no doubt there probably are examples. However if they are not reported it's extremely easy to miss them.

What do you propose would be a solution here? If posters don't report posts, then it's unrealistic to expect that mods will read every thread every day looking to pick up forum breaches tbh, particularly where you have multiple very large, and very fast moving threads.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Stheno

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ok glad we cleared up that it wasn't in the cafe.

Report posts, it's there for a reason.
Reported posts tend not to be ignored, it might take a while to see them being actioned, but on huge threads like the likes of the Trump threads, oftentimes it's the only way for mods to be aware of posts that need action.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Stheno

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear,

I went looking for that thread/post earlier and I'm fairly certain it was actually in Politics rather than the Politics cafe? I can't find similar wording in the Trump thread in the cafe tbh that matches what you've referenced.

I think it's this one here?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=102449468

Reporting such posts is the only way to get them actioned, or pming a mod/s

ancapailldorcha

If I had the time, I'd like to go through the threads on the US election for the last 18 months or so. I'd divide everyone up into Pro-Trump and Anti-Trump camps and I would be very surprised if I found out that less than 90% of the reported posts came from the anti-Trump camp. I barely ever see any anti-Trump supporter posts reported so I don't think it's entirely fair for people to say we're not doing anything about it when the topic is so busy that we can't read every single post. Look at the Politics fora at the moment and you'll see multiple threads about the new President. Those are exactly the sorts of threads where objectionable posts which don't get reported will end up flying under the radar.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brendan Bendar

Zaph wrote: »

You highlighted only the part of my sentence that I suspect you wanted to hear. Just to be clear, I said that we recommend that mods refrain from moderating threads they're participating in, but they are not expressly forbidden to do so. As I said in my last post, there are instances where it is appropriate for them to take mod action.

I heard the full message Zaph, all understood.

Appreciate the response

Thanks.

jameorahiely

Zaph wrote: »

Please bring it to the attention of one of the other forum mods or the CMods. They can review any moderating decisions made by the mod to see if they are appropriate. That said, sometimes it is patently obvious that action should be taken, in the case of personal abuse for instance, and there wouldn't be an issue with the mod infracting or banning a poster on that basis.

What you're telling me is the exact opposite of what I've seen happen.

I'll contact the cmods, I'm not allowed to discuss it here

Zaph

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Excellent Zaph, that's what I wanted to get at.

Thanks.

You highlighted only the part of my sentence that I suspect you wanted to hear. Just to be clear, I said that we recommend that mods refrain from moderating threads they're participating in, but they are not expressly forbidden to do so. As I said in my last post, there are instances where it is appropriate for them to take mod action.

Zaph

jameorahiely wrote: »

Some of them don't do that though, the post and mod in the same thread.

What do we posters fo about incidents like that?

Please bring it to the attention of one of the other forum mods or the CMods. They can review any moderating decisions made by the mod to see if they are appropriate. That said, sometimes it is patently obvious that action should be taken, in the case of personal abuse for instance, and there wouldn't be an issue with the mod infracting or banning a poster on that basis.

Brendan Bendar

Zaph wrote: »

That's not something we would ever ask of our mods. As has already been mentioned, mods are selected for the very reason that they have an interest in their particular forums. That interest wouldn't last long if we were to tell them that should they accept the role they'd have to stop posting there. However we do recommend that if a mod is an active participant in a discussion they refrain from moderating that particular thread and leave it to their co-mods.

Excellent Zaph, that's what I wanted to get at.

Thanks.

jameorahiely

Zaph wrote: »

That's not something we would ever ask of our mods. As has already been mentioned, mods are selected for the very reason that they have an interest in their particular forums. That interest wouldn't last long if we were to tell them that should they accept the role they'd have to stop posting there. However we do recommend that if a mod is an active participant in a discussion they refrain from moderating that particular thread and leave it to their co-mods.

Some of them don't do that though, they post and mod in the same thread.

What do we posters do about incidents like that?

Zaph

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Thanks for that Kersplat, however I feel that having a Mod in charge of a forum with a very specific viewpoint and very prolific in promulgating that view, kind of gives a lack of confidence to those who would like to offer an alternate view.

I realise that a Mod posting on other forums is just a 'poster' I just might query the wisdom of letting Mods who have very entrenched views have full freedom to post on their own fora.?

Maybe it's something that they might have to give up, or perhaps, restrict on accepting a Mod role?

What do you think?

That's not something we would ever ask of our mods. As has already been mentioned, mods are selected for the very reason that they have an interest in their particular forums. That interest wouldn't last long if we were to tell them that should they accept the role they'd have to stop posting there. However we do recommend that if a mod is an active participant in a discussion they refrain from moderating that particular thread and leave it to their co-mods.