ancapailldorcha wrote: » I think what you have to bear in mind, especially someone with beliefs as atypical of the average Irish person as yourself is that this site is mainly populated with younger-middle aged Irish people who'd be of a predominantly left-centrist persuasion so the opinions of your average American Conservative would be very much an anachronism. On the subject of Trump threads, a lot of the discussion happened in the main Politics forum which was odd. Unsurprisingly, most of the posters were anti-Trump. We did have some pro-Trump posters and some of them caused issues. I'm not saying their counterparts on the other side didn't but those counterparts were much more vigilant when it came to calling out the other side by reporting posts. I haven't noticed any cracks at Israelis here to be honest but I've not noticed too many threads on the subject. Then again, I tend to spend a lot of time in the main (?) Politics forum. No worries. I know that. Feedback is feedback. I think sites like this where opinions aren't protected is the answer. I have no interest in protecting anyone or any group from criticism. The issues arise in the manner in which specific opinions are put across.
Turtyturd wrote: » Have said it before but I think boards' function has changed (at least for me) from discussion to providing information.
Yourself isit wrote: » There's a confusion about the term "echo chamber" here. It's not a too and fro between two opposing sides but where one side dominates entirely, each post echoing the next. There's quite a few threads like that in politics, as it happens - interminable boring monomaniacal postings - generally about Russians. The new McCarthyites. Let's ban the word "alt right". It's another Americanised phrase that doesn't apply here ( and barely applies there).
Outlaw Pete wrote: » A while back there Boards (AH in particular) seemed to be picking up again and it felt as if there was a concerted effort to do whatever it took to keep discussions going, to moderate threads without bias and to not infract users for posts which might offend (heaven forbid) but I have to say that of late it seems to be slipping back again, particularly with regard to threads being needlessly locked. The 'Hirsute Women - Yay or Nay?' thread is one example and the 'Madeleine McCann' thread another. Both of those threads should still be open. When a thread is no longer wanted by the userbase, it will fall off the front page naturally. Until such time, it has not run it's course. If users are attacking one another on a personal level on those threads and turning them into being about them rather than the topic (which I appreciate is an issue) then they should receive warnings to stay on topic, to attack the post and not the poster.... if they don't heed such directions, ban those users from posting on those threads. What I don't think is being considered is how the other users (the ones who can take part in threads, stick to topic, and without getting personal with one another) feel when such threads get locked.
Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
Calhoun wrote: » Labelling is a tactic used to shut down debate that is not liked, i think we should ban it on both sides.
foxtrot101 wrote: » You keep making assertions about Donald Trump threads that bears no resemblance to the actual threads. The treads in question are mostly made up of reactions to ongoing events. The only people who get carded or banned are those who break the rules as set out by the charter of whatever forum the thread is in. Spouting vitriol is bound to end up in action being taken no matter what side of an argument you're on.
Turtyturd wrote: » On the discussion front it's pretty much a second rate Reddit
Books4you wrote: » Honestly I think it's this kind of attitude from mods that is killing Boards. They seem to knock anyone down who stand up to them any little bit. I'm not a big poster but i am here a lot but for me reddit is the place to be. I understand it in some cases but other times (quite a lot of the time) it just seems to be certain mods on a power trip. I do respect the mods but from an outsider looking in a lot that's what i see. Just my opinion on it.
Yourself isit wrote: » Yeh. Snowflake too.
Insect Overlord wrote: » Tell me, have you read many of the OP's posts elsewhere on this site? Have a quick look at their recent contributions to After Hours, for example, and then think again about what kind of content you really want to see here on Boards.
Yourself isit wrote: » The trump thread is the epitome of an echo chamber. And it's basically a duplicate of the "alt right and Russian interference in the American elections thread". Both largely same people parrotting each other. Threads with different opinions are less likely to survive.
Jobs OXO wrote: » What? 30 accounts ?
Jurgen Klopp wrote: » This place is like the bloody Guardian at this stage, demonising everyone that strays from the "correct" ways of thinking and wondering then why the custom base is dwindling. Next thing they'll be begging for donations like the Guardian is now.
Books4you wrote: » While I might not agree with op's posts in AH or elsewhere he still has a valid point with this thread. And as you can see from the replies I'm not the only one who thinks the mods are too quick to close threads. But yet again in swoops a mod to knock me down for having an opinion. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Tbh I'm surprised this thread is even still open.
Jobs OXO wrote: » Wow just wow ! The paranoia & bitterness is strong in this one.... As a Mod you should really know better. Undermining me as OP - and I have had a few lighthearted posts in AH like we used to do in the good old days (so what BTW !) - and derailing this tread should not be acceptable.
Cornelius Crow wrote: » Technically that's already long been happening in the form of subscribing. I subbed once a few years ago to change my name and decided to keep it up afterwards as I liked the increased PM allowance and being able to PM up to 15 people at once which was handy as a hmod when attending to forum housekeeping. Something happened to the payment system over a year ago and while our payments were being collected, our subscriptions were not being renewed automatically. A thread was started in feedback and is still running, the problem still isn't fixed. In theory, if you did a one-off non-recurring one month sub and weren't aware of the issue, your money would be collected but if you never actually asked then for your sub to be activated you'll just have given boards a fiver for absolutely nothing. Someone here mentioned the "distant, middle management feel" and that's what I get from that thread- every time anyone asks the community managers why the issue hasn't been sorted, a bland corporate response is given. I cancelled my sub a few months ago on principle because I felt like boards.ie are more than happy to take my money but aren't in the slightest bit interested in addressing such a basic issue and that speaks volumes to me.
Insect Overlord wrote: » I am merely suggesting that you consider your opinion. To quote one of my favourite poets, "...changing your mind is one of the best ways of finding out whether or not you still have one." I cannot help it if you feel that being asked to think about how you feel equates to being knocked down. Ye both seem to be missing a very important point - I am not posting here as "a mod". My status as the caretaker of two very quiet niche forums has nothing to do with this discussion. I am me. I am posting my opinion. And my opinion is that a) it's an incredible coincidence that a self-confessed re-reg posted a thread almost identical to one that was started in the same calendar week one year ago and b) the kind of character who posts repeatedly about "sex sticks", "vageens", and his "lass/biatch" is not one to be taken too seriously.
Wibbs wrote: » This very much mirrors my own long held view. Too often Boards can moderators mistake nannying for moderation. I've been guilty of it myself. Too often some mods have had a humour/nuance bypass. Too often mods action a post or thread just because it got a reported post in their inbox*. Too often mods close down threads because they're more work to look after. I hate to have to spell this out, but that's our role. Moderation in everything, especially in moderation of forums. To be fair this is really only an issue in the more divisive forums/threads, but it is having an impact IMH. A light hand on the tiller is needed more than ever. Things have changed and as OP notes if this site is looking to thrive, or stay relevant it needs to take this on board. It's not as if it hasn't been like that before. When I joined up, in the general forums like AH and beyond moderation was generally more human. Flaws and all. Now it's more by rote, middle management, a little distant TBH. And TBH part II, I've seen more and more of that kind of thinking in the recent past. If a thread is active and ongoing leave it alone. If there are troublemakers, action them, don't close the thread. That has become too much the norm IMH. There's not much we as posters, mods/cmods/admins or not can do about the (IMHO frankly mystifying) top down changes to the site. we're all here by choice and invitation, but we can at least seek to change what we can change for the better.
GLaDOS wrote: » I agree with what you've posted here, but from my time modding AH, I found if you go with the soft touch approach, you'll get complaints about how threads full of hate are allowed to continue and nothing is being done. So you go with the hardline approach, and you're nazis that are censoring free speech.
Some people will scoff, but I know the AH team is genuinely very perceptive to feedback about moderation and tries to incorporate it as best they can. No doubt the likes of the politics fora are much the same. The problem is you've have a huge spectrum what people actually want from moderation, it's just not possible to please everyone.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is the mods are human too. You pull them every which way in terms of feedback and you get "middle-management" style modding as a result. I'm not sure what the solution to this is really though, because as I have said, you are never going to please everyone, so you ended up only half-pleasing as many people as possible. The way of the internet these days is people feel they should be able to post whatever they want no matter how vile or abusive and nothing short of complete absence of moderation will please this cohort.
*This isn't directly specifically at you Wibbs! You just brought up a relevant issue so I quoted your post.
Calhoun wrote: » Regardless of you being a mod of this forum or others, you do understand the general principle of boards of attack the post not the poster? You are being cynical if you think otherwise. Is that rule only good enough when it suits you?
Insect Overlord wrote: » Of course I'm cynical. Anyone who peppers forums with utter rubbish, and then runs to Feedback to complain about the lack of good content across the website, is obviously on a wind-up mission. To suggest that pointing out the OP's hypocrisy is some sort of "personal attack" is laughable.
Calhoun wrote: » This is prime example of whats wrong with boards, a mod who knows very well the concept of attacking the post and not the poster does just that. The ends justify the means however so its ok in this case.
