Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The slow death of forums *see OP for Admin warning and update 28/02/18*

1…7879818384…98

Comments

  • #2402
    Pepefrogok
    Site Banned Posts: 406 ✭✭Pepefrogok


    baylah17 wrote: »
    One only has to look at how this current thread is degrading into the usual name calling and circle jerking to see why contentious political threads should not be in AH
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057854798
    This is not me reporting anyone or anything , I'm just trying to show an example of what must be a moderating nightmare.

    But that's just your bias and wanting a conversation that goes against your opinions shut down, you want to see a thread that is as you describe? Trump thread in the politics forum! I wouldn't call for it to be closed down though, only one side seems to do that!


  • #2403
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,256 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    jmayo has hit it on the head there IMO - I've posted myself in the past about the issues with the main politics forum, and the subsequent resentment from some of the regulars/mods when the Cafe started to draw traffic away from what was perceived as "their domain"

    Yes, some of trolling in the Cafe (and some of the moderation) ultimately got out of hand, but the response was a ridiculous "nuke it from orbit" reaction rather than just addressing the real troublemakers involved.

    And thus, like happened with Feedback, we have threads in AH


  • #2404
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    Pepefrogok wrote: »
    But that's just your bias and wanting a conversation that goes against your opinions shut down, you want to see a thread that is as you describe? Trump thread in the politics forum! I wouldn't call for it to be closed down though, only one side seems to do that!

    Look at this lads username. He's clearly here to troll just like he was under his previous identity.

    This is what pisses people off. Not the reregs, the low level trolls like this. These guys are solely here to get members carded and create long term trouble for the mods.


  • #2405
    jmayo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,224 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    Look at this lads username. He's clearly here to troll just like he was under his previous identity.

    This is what pisses people off. Not the reregs, the low level trolls like this. These guys are solely here to get members carded and create long term trouble for the mods.

    This is what always gets me.
    Someone is accused of having a new identity and trolling.

    I wish someone would outright say who they think their previous identity was.

    Maybe it is me, but I don't think this guy/gal is a troll.

    They continously post on certain topics, don't just start a contentious thread and then disappear, don't just lob a hand grenade in and then leg it to the hills and don't outright goad others.

    They appear to have strong opinions on certain matters, a lot of which I would share.
    Now you might not agree with them, but does that make them a troll ?

    I can think of a couple of long term posters who engaged in continous sniping and were seen as trolls.

    If anyone said they were trolling, they immediately reported the post and then the claimant was slapped with an infraction.
    For some odd reason these posters were tolerated.
    Granted they usually shared the same opinions as the moderators so maybe that had something to do with it.

    One of these disappeared a number of months back and some have accused new reregs of being them.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • #2406
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,498 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    With so many new threads appearing over the last while from the likes of PUA guy, wouldn’t a minimum post count before posting in certain forums? This would ensure that they have a good posting history before starting a thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #2407
    KERSPLAT!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,152 ✭✭✭✭KERSPLAT!


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    With so many new threads appearing over the last while from the likes of PUA guy, wouldn’t a minimum post count before posting in certain forums? This would ensure that they have a good posting history before starting a thread.

    Boards is losing posters, putting further barriers in place won't help. I don't think Scanlas is a big issue anyway. Usually gets nuked in minutes and his threads can be funny for as long as they last


  • #2408
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    Look at this lads username.
    I don't get it? Am I missing something obvious?
    He's clearly here to troll just like he was under his previous identity.
    This might be a bit of a case of the kettle calling the teapot blackass, something that I find fairly sad tbh, people who drop into a thread, speculate whom someone's old account might be , then lurk in the background, adding shag all else to the debate, except the occasional "thank" to people they may consider to be on the same "side" as him or herself.

    Then low and behold.... they pop up again in a different thread, within a different forum doing the very same thing.

    You've been at this petty behaviour yourself a good few times recently actually

    And I'd consider that to be a bit of "low level trolling/goading and baiting" myself.

    Either debate a poster on his or her merits, and what he or her posts rather than speculate who their old accounts may or may not have been.

    It's childish, it's petty, and it definitely adds nothing of note to any debate at hand.


  • #2409
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    I don't get it? Am I missing something obvious?

    This might be a bit of a case of the kettle calling the teapot blackass, something that I find fairly sad tbh, people who drop into a thread, speculate whom someone's old account might be , then lurk in the background, adding shag all else to the debate, except the occasional "thank" to people they may consider to be on the same "side" as him or herself.

    Then low and behold.... they pop up again in a different thread, within a different forum doing the very same thing.

    You've been at this petty behaviour yourself a good few times recently actually

    And I'd consider that to be a bit of "low level trolling/goading and baiting" myself.

    Either debate a poster on his or her merits, and what he or her posts rather than speculate who their old accounts may or may not have been.

    It's childish, it's pretty, and it definitely adds nothing of note to any debate at hand.

    You certainly are Johnny. Very simply put Pepe the Frog was a character from a comic strip co -opted and used as a meme by white nationalists. The author of the character killed the character off recently.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/08/pepe-the-frog-creator-kills-off-internet-meme-co-opted-by-white-supremacists

    Worried about thanks. You really shouldn't be . You should be concentrating on the post content Johnny. You can't control thanks, its really something you should not worry about. Its out of your control. Don't let it get to you.

    Hey I'm not perfect and deserved to be called out. I was spring chicken here once, but being involved in such forums as politics cafe and soccer , they certainly open your eyes to way people try and communicate to each other. For instance the politics cafe was a disaster. Consisting of certain posters who's sole purpose on the forum was to try and insult the 'other side' . Hid behind non extent humour .That was a while ago and you probably missed all that. There where some very bitter guys on that forum. Thankfully the mods eventually perma-banned a few them. The dispute resolution thread was a laugh to read so I suppose all well that ends well.

    And anyway it wasn't me who first related you to a previous poster. It was another inquisitive poster.

    ;)


  • #2410
    Kuva
    Closed Accounts Posts: 870 ✭✭✭Kuva


    KERSPLAT! wrote: »
    At the moment it's not a case of relaxed moderation but instead, in my opinion, easy moderation. Thread moves, thread locks, personal abuse, actioned and done pretty quickly. Any difficult moderating seems to be just left. The Buncrana thread is one of the worst I've seen on boards in 8 years here. And no, I didn't report the posts, mods were well aware of it. I can't see the reports forum but I can only imagine the amount generated from it.

    Relaxed doesn't mean down the tools and let anything fly. Moderating doesn't mean smashing everything in sight. There is a balance.

    Good post.

    We've been told I think 3 times in the last few months that we got what we wanted and we're still not happy....we wouldn't be here if we got what we wanted.


  • #2411
    TerryDublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7 ✭TerryDublin


    Signed up as I wanted to post in the 8th Amendment thread but I am quite apprehensive about doing so now now as it seems only one view is welcome there with those holding fort. So many of the users I have agreed with on the thread have got yellow and red cards. Why do some moderators always go with the majority? I dont feel thats right. Majority is not always right.


  • Advertisement
  • #2412
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,734 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    TerryDublin wrote: »
    Signed up as I wanted to post in the 8th Amendment thread but I am quite apprehensive about doing so now now as it seems only one view is welcome there with those holding fort. So many of the users I have agreed with on the thread have got yellow and red cards. Why do some moderators always go with the majority? I dont feel thats right. Majority is not always right.

    I can safely say that the current crop of AH mods do not do this. It's probably the most mixed in terms of view and stances, but they step away from moderating a thread that they are involved in and allow others to step in.

    Post away is what I say.


  • #2413
    TerryDublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7 ✭TerryDublin


    Thank you for your reply and I respect your view but I know what am seeing. Earlier I seen one user call those with pro life opinions sociopaths. Please don't think I am saying this of all the after hours moderators but there one or two who are pushing out users just after prochoice users argue with them. When they remove them they quote their post and so everyone can see the reason is not for breaking charter rules. I will think about what you said anyway and maybe post tomorrow.


  • #2414
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    Pepefrogok wrote: »
    baylah17 wrote: »
    One only has to look at how this current thread is degrading into the usual name calling and circle jerking to see why contentious political threads should not be in AH
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057854798
    This is not me reporting anyone or anything , I'm just trying to show an example of what must be a moderating nightmare.

    But that's just your bias and wanting a conversation that goes against your opinions shut down, you want to see a thread that is as you describe? Trump thread in the politics forum! I wouldn't call for it to be closed down though, only one side seems to do that!
    Jeez
    Every thing has to be a personal attack with you dosent it.


  • #2415
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    Pepefrogok wrote: »
    baylah17 wrote: »
    One only has to look at how this current thread is degrading into the usual name calling and circle jerking to see why contentious political threads should not be in AH
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057854798
    This is not me reporting anyone or anything , I'm just trying to show an example of what must be a moderating nightmare.

    But that's just your bias and wanting a conversation that goes against your opinions shut down, you want to see a thread that is as you describe? Trump thread in the politics forum! I wouldn't call for it to be closed down though, only one side seems to do that!
    Jeez
    Every thing has to be a personal attack with you dosent it.


  • #2416
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Kivaro wrote: »
    They are created in AH because of the laughing stock that the Politics Cafe became after the creation of the private club they formed over there.


    kin A buddy

    You want to sort this rotate the mods in places like AH and politics regularly so no one mod gets to make a hames of it for too long or turn it into their own little treehouse club.

    Also stop mods building forum empires, limit the amount of forums like a AH and politics that a mod can overlord simultaneously.


  • #2417
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Bambi wrote: »
    kin A buddy

    You want to sort this rotate the mods in places like AH and politics regularly so no one mod gets to make a hames of it for too long or turn it into their own little treehouse club.

    Also stop mods building forum empires, limit the amount of forums like a AH and politics that a mod can overlord simultaneously.

    Yeah, I'm not modding a politics forum, thanks.


  • #2418
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm not modding a politics forum, thanks.
    You D man:D
    but seriously, why should you have to?


  • #2419
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm not modding a politics forum, thanks.
    no, no no you don't get rotated into the politics from AH you just get rotated out of AH.


  • #2420
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Politics don't belong in AH full stop ,
    Threads only attract the worst of characters who are hell bent making sure discussions are shutdown to suit agendas ,for me it's the same posters on the same threads ,
    It's got to the point of your either pro putin or anti American anything else in the threads I'm involved in is twisted and spun so far off topic you literally get days of posts with nothing to do with the actual subject ,
    Non stop nonsense and conspiracy theories ,

    It's past a joke at this stage ,

    And I've also seen how a few people can shut down discussion when they were allowed in the PC forum when I was told my posts generated the majority of reported posts in the entire pc forum ,and yes I'm no angel
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #2421
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    gandalf wrote: »
    Restarting this again because to be frank the standard of moderation of political divisive threads in after hours is none existent. At this stage it is obvious that all political threads need to be diverted to politics and be dealt with there under its tougher standards of posting rules.

    Absolutely not. The Politics forum, last time I looked a few years ago, was nothing but an incredibly overcensored circle jerk for a coterie of economically rightwing and politically anglocentric sorts who killed all debate that didn't share their worldview. It was an echo chamber, with a very, very strong Fine Gael flavour. Your proposal is just another attempt to control what views should and should not be expressed - which is the very reason why the Politics forum has effectively died. Proposing a return to the very moderation that has effectively killed the Politics forum in the first place is, needless to say, not the solution.
    gandalf wrote: »
    At the moment the craven limp wristed moderation is destroying any sort of discussion on this site.... and the fact the current mods, admins and management are allowing it to occur is a betrayal of all those who volunteered for those roles in the past.

    The so-called "craven, limp-wristed moderation" is a million times better than a group of ideological soulmates who take themselves far, far too seriously running a forum into the ground by censoring posters with alternative views. No matter what you do with the Politics forum, people will avoid it for as long as they see the moderators are actively involved in punishing posters who don't share their views and, worse, who have the temerity to disagree with them in public. Grudges powered that whole forum.

    jmayo wrote: »
    Then suddenly you were finding that the line toted by moderators was that particular discussions and opinions weren't deemed worthy of the main politics thread.
    It appeared that one had to either discuss political theories or to a level worthy of a university masters to be left in the Politics forum.
    Lesson one in how to shutdown disliked opinions.

    So the Politics Cafe was used to take all the stuff not worthy enough anymore.
    The Politics forum became a bit of a ghost town where those with lofty opinions, especially of themselves, could hold sway.
    .... Then over time the Cafe became a hotbed of discussion on contentious topics like EU, Brexit, Trump, Refugees, Immigration.
    Now some posters did step over the mark, but what ruined it was the moderation.

    You had heavy posting by moderators in threads, always taking one particular side of the argument on most of the above issues. Then there was the demanding links and references to every single statement by the other side.

    And then suddenly posters on the opposing side to the very vocal moderators would get chastised, infracted and banned.
    The ultimate came one evening when one moderator banned in quick succession about 5/6 posters that were of the opposing opinion to them.
    It was so laughable and so blatant that the moderator was quickly removed.

    Now people may call me one sided, but it was freaking noticable to anyone with half a brain that some posters, who posted some very questionable stuff, got away with it purely because the moderators held a similar opinion on the matter at hand.

    Then there was a revamp and clampdown of the Cafe so as to "weed out" certain posters and according to mods perform a clean up.

    The result was that a huge chunk of posters vanished and it is now a ghost town with tumbleweed.

    And then the threads started appearing in After Hours, the last refuge so to speak.

    If they are stopped in After Hours and the Cafe is left as is then boards are going to lose a big chunk of traffic.



    Remove the sign up from the Cafe and that might happen.

    Couldn't agree more with this analysis.


  • Advertisement
  • #2422
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Bambi wrote: »
    no, no no you don't get rotated into the politics from AH you just get rotated out of AH.

    Wouldn't mind a holiday actually!


  • #2423
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    With any emotive political topics the posters have to be willing to discuss their point of view. What is obvious in a lot of the politics threads in AH is this is not happening. Ones about particular subjects have contributors (and I use that word loosely) who are only interested in deflecting and derailing the topic being discussed. Alternative views are welcome and when I modded politics the mantra was if you could back up your opinion logically you were given a platform to express your views. Now I stopped modding there back in 2008 so I can't comment on moderation since then apart from being an occasional poster on there. I've had run one with mods there and yes I agree if you have too many mods from the same background group think can happen.

    I'd like to hear how you would solve the situation you see now where a small number of posters are derailing threads and creating a lot of noise?

    I certainly don't think a forum in Social and Fun should have six politics threads on its first page and a couple of news stories as well.


  • #2424
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,320 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The Politics forum, last time I looked a few years ago, was nothing but an incredibly overcensored circle jerk.../...The so-called "craven, limp-wristed moderation" is a million times better than a group of ideological soulmates who take themselves far, far too seriously running a forum into the ground by censoring posters with alternative views.
    TBH I have to say and speaking as a not particularly "political animal", at least along any defined lines, that was long my impression of the main Politics forum. Any medium length foray into it did at times and more than should be in play, feel like a user base of self satisfied, oft to the point of smug posters broadly agreeing they were "right" and where any alternatives were summarily mocked, or ignored, or at times banned. Now the Politics Cafe could be a right sh1t show on so many levels and I don't envy either the mods or posters on that forum, but surely there's a balance to be struck. New mods maybe? Those who apply the "don't be a dick" rule while exercising the DGAF rule on the politics themselves?

    Politics is a bear pit at the best of times. It makes Soccerball fan types look measured. But I say better to have a bear pit(to some degree) than an echo chamber of smug.

    And I'm saying all this as someone who a chap like Fuaranach would find little enough common ground between us. Not such a stretch and IMHO it's not a "political side" problem.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #2425
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,599 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Gatling wrote: »
    Politics don't belong in AH full stop ,

    95% of threads in AH could easily be shunted to other forums, I don't get the obsession with having to shift politics threads but at the same time leaving a lot of the others instead of tossing them to sports or religion or TV or what have you...


  • #2426
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,256 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    jmayo wrote: »
    The ultimate came one evening when one moderator banned in quick succession about 5/6 posters that were of the opposing opinion to them.
    It was so laughable and so blatant that the moderator was quickly removed.

    I think I remember who you're referring to there and if I'm right the same Mod was somehow deemed worthy of overseeing threads discussing his employer as well - despite the fact that said employer has pretty strict terms about social media usage and how staff represent themselves (said Mod stopped replying to a PM discussion when I pointed this out...)

    That to me goes beyond one single Mod, but how Mods are selected and vetted and is arguably a far more serious issue. If you don't get that right from the start, it poisons any subsequent efforts to create a welcoming and constructive environment.. a perfect example being TerryDublin's (above) reluctance to join in on a topic he/she feels passionate about (and signed up to do so) because the Moderation is so wildly different from page to page, thread to thread.

    That said, Boom_Bap's comment on Mods not moderating threads they're actively involved in is one I advocated for previously so I'm glad to see it here.. although I'd go one further and suggest the modding should be left to the next level up so as not to cause situations where Mod B feels obliged to back-up Mod A.. or where the perception of such causes further in-thread/forum issues.


  • #2427
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 78,458 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    That said, Boom_Bap's comment on Mods not moderating threads they're actively involved in is one I advocated for previously so I'm glad to see it here.. although I'd go one further and suggest the modding should be left to the next level up so as not to cause situations where Mod B feels obliged to back-up Mod A.. or where the perception of such causes further in-thread/forum issues.
    It's been encouraged across the site for some time that mods should try and avoid modding threads they are actively contributing to. Sometimes though there may not be another mod around, and it does depend on the forum and nature of topics.

    However in most forums mods have a lot of interest in the underlying topics - that's one of the reasons they are likely to have been chosen. Getting someone from the "next level" to do the modding probably passes75% of modding onto CMods (and/or Admins). It's simply not practicable.


  • #2428
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    TerryDublin wrote: »
    Thank you for your reply and I respect your view but I know what am seeing. Earlier I seen one user call those with pro life opinions sociopaths. Please don't think I am saying this of all the after hours moderators but there one or two who are pushing out users just after prochoice users argue with them. When they remove them they quote their post and so everyone can see the reason is not for breaking charter rules. I will think about what you said anyway and maybe post tomorrow.

    Post away Terry, that particular thread is in some dire need of pro-lifers who can actually hold a reasonable and intelligent discussion. Instead it's been trolled and flamed constantly, I don't agree that people with pro-life opinions are sociopaths whatsoever (I'm pro-life but I'm voting to repeal for my own reasons listed in the thread) and not a single soul from the folk voting to save the 8th (bar one person in particular) actually contributed anything other than drivel, it was mainly trolling, soapboxing, flaming and just plain stupidity.

    I don't think it's a case of unfair moderation, sure I was banned for calling someone a prick after they completely disregarded how I lost some of my children just so they could push their own agenda so the mods aren't just banning pro-lifers from the thread. I can't reply to whatever you post in that particular thread but I can and will view it as I'd like to see what you've got to say.


  • #2429
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    Beasty wrote: »
    It's been encouraged across the site for some time that mods should try and avoid modding threads they are actively contributing to. Sometimes though there may not be another mod around, and it does depend on the forum and nature of topics.

    However in most forums mods have a lot of interest in the underlying topics - that's one of the reasons they are likely to have been chosen. Getting someone from the "next level" to do the modding probably passes75% of modding onto CMods (and/or Admins). It's simply not practicable.

    As much as it's encouraged though it is difficult for some mods to remain impartial.

    It can't be faulted I mean it's human nature but still, it's okay to do a lot of talking if you're willing to do a lot of listening, there are some mods that actively contribute to threads and are fantastic at moderating them and to be brutally honest others should look to them and follow suit.


  • #2430
    pleas advice
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭pleas advice


    KERSPLAT! wrote: »
    Boards is losing posters, putting further barriers in place won't help. I don't think Scanlas is a big issue anyway. Usually gets nuked in minutes and his threads can be funny for as long as they last

    Is 'chore sex guy' the same lad? what was he banned for originally does anyone know?


  • Advertisement
  • #2431
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement