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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1…5152545657…59

Comments

  • #2652
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Hate to say it, but some of the moderation on the 'Repeal the 8th' thread is a disgrace..............

    This is supposed to be a discussion forum but yet it's clear that users are only welcome on that thread if their views are prochoice (in the long term at least). Initially any users who are against repealing the 8th will be let post but slowly and surely they will have their views attacked, posts reported, and invariably end up thread banned (especially if arguments are being made which they struggle with). Which is why there are only a handful of users expressing prolife views left on the thread.

    Five weeks ago I was banned from the thread and accused of 'baiting' and 'flaming' . When I PM'd the mod (who coincidentally is the AH mod who has posted the most prochoice opinions on the thread) they replied citing the views I had posted on body autonomy, how I felt about abortion in the context of DS, that I didn't think people were 'real' who had unnecessary abortions. So basically I was banned for posting my views.

    I have tried to appeal the thread ban as I would like to take part in the discussion (what with the referendum mere weeks away now) but despite starting the thread over five weeks ago, it remains ignored (apart from Beasty doing what he could to try and get it looked at).

    Aside from thread bans the moderation of prolife users in general on the thread is ridiculous. Recently seen a mod (the same one) chastising a user for posting the same argument again and again. This shows just how biased *some* of the moderation is as surely they can see that prochoice users do that also. 'My body, my choice' just one example. It's hardly something prolife users have the monopoly on now in fairness. Also, prolife users have been actioned for making comments which are deemed to be insulting to those who are prochoice but yet it's seems perfectly fine to suggest that those with prolife views are 'evil' and 'sociopaths'.

    In the OP of the thread there is a link to a Prochoice propaganda site also (disguised as objective information). The site was set up by two feminist lawyers known for their prochoice views and who ignore all the pitfalls of what repealing the 8th will mean. They also link to many opinion pieces which are staunchly prochoice and contain a lot of misinformation.

    Look, I know the referendum is a polarizing topic, one which is bound to attract trolls and therfore must be a difficult thread to moderate (only likely to get more difficult over the next three weeks or so) but could we not just at least try to have a more balanced approach and impartiality. It's difficult enough trying to make an argument for it is why we should be voting No on a site which is largely populated by those who are prochoice without having other factors to contend with also. Users (on either side) looking to get those they disagree with banned doesn't help either (which was highlighted here).


  • #2653
    TheValeyard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,729 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    Id agree with Outlaw Pete. If pro life, keep your head down and stay quiet is the motto.

    All eyes on Kursk. Slava Ukraini.



  • #2654
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Hate to say it, but some of the moderation on the 'Repeal the 8th' thread is a disgrace..............

    This is supposed to be a discussion forum but yet it's clear that users are only welcome on that thread if their views are prochoice (in the long term at least). Initially any users who are against repealing the 8th will be let post but slowly and surely they will have their views attacked, posts reported, and invariably end up thread banned (especially if arguments are being made which they struggle with). Which is why there are only a handful of users expressing prolife views left on the thread.

    Five weeks ago I was banned from the thread and accused of 'baiting' and 'flaming' . When I PM'd the mod (who coincidentally is the AH mod who has posted the most prochoice opinions on the thread) they replied citing the views I had posted on body autonomy, how I felt about abortion in the context of DS, that I didn't think people were 'real' who had unnecessary abortions. So basically I was banned for posting my views.

    I have tried to appeal the thread ban as I would like to take part in the discussion (what with the referendum mere weeks away now) but despite starting the thread over five weeks ago, it remains ignored (apart from Beasty doing what he could to try and get it looked at).

    Aside from thread bans the moderation of prolife users in general on the thread is ridiculous. Recently seen a mod (the same one) chastising a user for posting the same argument again and again. This shows just how biased *some* of the moderation is as surely they can see that prochoice users do that also. 'My body, my choice' just one example. It's hardly something prolife users have the monopoly on now in fairness. Also, prolife users have been actioned for making comments which are deemed to be insulting to those who are prochoice but yet it's seems perfectly fine to suggest that those with prolife views are 'evil' and 'sociopaths'.

    In the OP of the thread there is a link to a Prochoice propaganda site also (disguised as objective information). The site was set up by two feminist lawyers known for their prochoice views and who ignore all the pitfalls of what repealing the 8th will mean. They also link to many opinion pieces which are staunchly prochoice and contain a lot of misinformation.

    Look, I know the referendum is a polarizing topic, one which is bound to attract trolls and therfore must be a difficult thread to moderate (only likely to get more difficult over the next three weeks or so) but could we not just at least try to have a more balanced approach and impartiality. It's difficult enough trying to make an argument for it is why we should be voting No on a site which is largely populated by those who are prochoice without having other factors to contend with also. Users (on either side) looking to get those they disagree with banned doesn't help either (which was highlighted here).
    Pure petty rubbish and an abuse of this thread to take cheap shots at moderators.


  • #2655
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,738 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Hate to say it, but some of the moderation on the 'Repeal the 8th' thread is a disgrace..............

    This is supposed to be a discussion forum but yet it's clear that users are only welcome on that thread if their views are prochoice (in the long term at least). Initially any users who are against repealing the 8th will be let post but slowly and surely they will have their views attacked, posts reported, and invariably end up thread banned (especially if arguments are being made which they struggle with). Which is why there are only a handful of users expressing prolife views left on the thread.

    Five weeks ago I was banned from the thread and accused of 'baiting' and 'flaming' . When I PM'd the mod (who coincidentally is the AH mod who has posted the most prochoice opinions on the thread) they replied citing the views I had posted on body autonomy, how I felt about abortion in the context of DS, that I didn't think people were 'real' who had unnecessary abortions. So basically I was banned for posting my views.

    I have tried to appeal the thread ban as I would like to take part in the discussion (what with the referendum mere weeks away now) but despite starting the thread over five weeks ago, it remains ignored (apart from Beasty doing what he could to try and get it looked at).

    Aside from thread bans the moderation of prolife users in general on the thread is ridiculous. Recently seen a mod (the same one) chastising a user for posting the same argument again and again. This shows just how biased *some* of the moderation is as surely they can see that prochoice users do that also. 'My body, my choice' just one example. It's hardly something prolife users have the monopoly on now in fairness. Also, prolife users have been actioned for making comments which are deemed to be insulting to those who are prochoice but yet it's seems perfectly fine to suggest that those with prolife views are 'evil' and 'sociopaths'.

    In the OP of the thread there is a link to a Prochoice propaganda site also (disguised as objective information). The site was set up by two feminist lawyers known for their prochoice views and who ignore all the pitfalls of what repealing the 8th will mean. They also link to many opinion pieces which are staunchly prochoice and contain a lot of misinformation.

    Look, I know the referendum is a polarizing topic, one which is bound to attract trolls and therfore must be a difficult thread to moderate (only likely to get more difficult over the next three weeks or so) but could we not just at least try to have a more balanced approach and impartiality. It's difficult enough trying to make an argument for it is why we should be voting No on a site which is largely populated by those who are prochoice without having other factors to contend with also. Users (on either side) looking to get those they disagree with banned doesn't help either (which was highlighted here).

    Stop acting the victim. The only person who can get you thread banned is yourself.
    To many pro lifers think they can post what they want, unsupported claims, outright lies, scaremongering etc and them cry they are getting attacked when this is pointed out to them.
    Just because a mod doesn't agree with you doesn't make it biased if anything they are far too lenient


  • #2656
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,738 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »
    Id agree with Outlaw Pete. If pro life, keep your head down and stay quiet is the motto.

    No they just need to support their claims, stop trolling and actually discuss rather than soapbox


  • #2657
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Hate to say it, but some of the moderation on the 'Repeal the 8th' thread is a disgrace..............

    Some was but now the standard of moderation on the thread has gone up quite a bit I might say, it would be unfair on the efforts made to improve it to say it's a disgrace.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    This is supposed to be a discussion forum but yet it's clear that users are only welcome on that thread if their views are prochoice (in the long term at least). Initially any users who are against repealing the 8th will be let post but slowly and surely they will have their views attacked, posts reported, and invariably end up thread banned (especially if arguments are being made which they struggle with). Which is why there are only a handful of users expressing prolife views left on the thread.

    That is not the case at all, posters from both sides have been unable to keep it reasonable and have ended up threadbanned, myself included. The sensible users expressing pro-life views so far have been open and honest and do contribute fairly, there's one in particular who just nips in and out and doesn't respond to queries or challenges on people looking to have his statements and claims address, but that's about it.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Five weeks ago I was banned from the thread and accused of 'baiting' and 'flaming' . When I PM'd the mod (who coincidentally is the AH mod who has posted the most prochoice opinions on the thread) they replied citing the views I had posted on body autonomy, how I felt about abortion in the context of DS, that I didn't think people were 'real' who had unnecessary abortions. So basically I was banned for posting my views.

    Ah Pete come on now. You absolutely cannot make statements like this - "
    A healthy woman (who is pregnant from consensual sex) that would choose to have her healthy preborn baby's heartbeat stilled, is not a real woman to me, no." that's far too insulting and misogynistic and you know full well it is, that's a horrible thing to say about a woman, comment on the circumstance, not the individuals! We exchanged PM's and I was more than happy to talk to you pleasantly and I think overall you're a damn decent bloke who is usually spot on with posting, but that wasn't right man.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Aside from thread bans the moderation of prolife users in general on the thread is ridiculous. Recently seen a mod (the same one) chastising a user for posting the same argument again and again. This shows just how biased *some* of the moderation is as surely they can see that prochoice users do that also. 'My body, my choice' just one example. It's hardly something prolife users have the monopoly on now in fairness. Also, prolife users have been actioned for making comments which are deemed to be insulting to those who are prochoice but yet it's seems perfectly fine to suggest that those with prolife views are 'evil' and 'sociopaths'.

    If it's who I'm thinking about, he was banned for being a bollox and giving other people's views and opinions instead of his own, he wasn't actually contributing and was avoiding questions asked to him left right and centre. People like that have no place in a reasonable discussion. Some pro-life views have been very, very extreme Pete, with someone suggesting a "rape panel" to judge whether or not a woman was actually raped if she was pursuing that grounds to gain access to abortion, I don't agree with some of the name calling and I make a point of asking the pro-choice posters to nip that in the bud.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    In the OP of the thread there is a link to a Prochoice propaganda site also (disguised as objective information). The site was set up by two feminist lawyers known for their prochoice views and who ignore all the pitfalls of what repealing the 8th will mean. They also link to many opinion pieces which are staunchly prochoice and contain a lot of misinformation.
    There is no misinformation provided and all of the links put up have been scrutinised, just because they are pro-choice doesn't mean they cannot be impartial, you know that.

    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Look, I know the referendum is a polarizing topic, one which is bound to attract trolls and therfore must be a difficult thread to moderate (only likely to get more difficult over the next three weeks or so) but could we not just at least try to have a more balanced approach and impartiality. It's difficult enough trying to make an argument for it is why we should be voting No on a site which is largely populated by those who are prochoice without having other factors to contend with also. Users (on either side) looking to get those they disagree with banned doesn't help either (which was highlighted here).

    Of course it's polarizing Pete and you know yourself there has been a heap of pro-life trolls (you are not a pro-life troll whatsoever so please don't think I'm making this assumption towards you) that have come on purely to stir the pot, and that shouldn't be allowed, because that then increases the hostility (shouldn't even be any) towards genuine pro-lifers looking for a reasonable discussion, it puts up an air of suspicion. Pro-lifers are more than welcome in the thread but there has been numerous that have tried to spout off opinion as fact, lie about things, and when confronted with impartial evidence refuting their claims, they blank it! That's detrimental to a discussion and if that's how people want to carry on, then they should not be posting in that thread.

    I am more than happy to discuss pro-life views but there has been an unholy amount of horrific misogynistic attitudes shown towards women in that thread and it isn't right. One poster mentioned what about the father (this poster was pro-life) and it was buried amongst the crap spewed out by the trolls.


  • #2658
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,530 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    I have tried to appeal the thread ban as I would like to take part in the discussion (what with the referendum mere weeks away now) but despite starting the thread over five weeks ago, it remains ignored (apart from Beasty doing what he could to try and get it looked at).
    Apologies for that HD thread Outlaw Pete - I've just provided an update over there and hopefully one of the CMods will be along shortly

    On the topic of the 8th, I have simply not been following the thread (I don't get a vote). I fully recognise it is a very contentious topic with very polarised views being expressed. I know at least one Admin has been keeping quite close to the discussion, but I'll have a look through a few pages later on.

    Having seen some comments resulting in challenges to mod actions in that thread, my suspicion is that in allowing such a contentious topic to be discussed in a place like AH, we will inevitably see some extreme points being made. I will say very clearly now that I would be definitely on the Yes side of the argument, but I will try and look at it objectively. However I would not want this thread to turn into a discussion of moderation of that thread. That is one point that should be dealt with in the Help Desk forum

    Equally the topic itself is probably one that would better sit in the "Current Affairs" forum being requested by Discodog. It's arguably far too serious for many who look for a bit of light heartedness in AH, and it's possible that the mods are acting as much out of the reactions some comments are getting, be it in the thread itself or reported posts (and I've just mentioned elsewhere that topic, within 2 or 3 threads in AH alone, has resulted in around 500 reported posts since the turn of the year)


  • #2659
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    Ah Pete come on now. You absolutely cannot make statements like this...

    Then why did you PM me saying you hoped my threadban was reversed? :P

    Look, the point is, prochoicers have said much much worse about prolifers on that thread (like they're 'evil', 'sociopathic' etc). I merely said those who choose abortions (when everyone concerned is healthy) aren't 'real' to me. Prochoicers have been called murderers on that thread for heaven sake. Thread banning a user for saying what I did is laughable in that context.

    Anyway, I'll leave it there and see how I get on with the appeal.
    Beasty wrote: »
    Apologies for that HD thread Outlaw Pete - I've just provided an update over there and hopefully one of the CMods will be along shortly

    No problem, Beasty, that's grand, thanks.


  • #2660
    feargale
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    I'm on the fence re Repeal the 8th and I have paid very little attention to the main boards thread on the issue.
    Having said that I would like to see a respectful free and fair debate.
    I have read OutlawPete's "offending" post and the comments on it by the offended mod and I find the latter's comments ridiculous.

    Here is post 9996 in that thread by DublinMeath:

    "Well maybe you have to look at the some of the people/organisations who make up the retain group to get an answer to that.
    Take Justin Barrett for example, youth defence apparently now claim he never had a leadership role in the organisation, bit strange as hes on record as having been so, as are his and their links to neo nazi organisations
    John McGuirk a f*ckwit since his student days, enough said.
    The Sherlocks, well pretty much anti everything
    David Quinn, Breda O'Brien just as bad, and religion hasn't ever had a positive view of women having power or choice.
    Basically you've a group of people who believe in discrimination against people as a fundamental core of their being. People that twisted can't fathom other people not being as twisted as they are."

    Now I ask you, has OutlawPete posted anything as offensive as that? Yet that post is allowed to pass without any reaction or infraction.

    If a mod has strong opinions on an issue should he or she not leave the modding of the relevant thread to those who can moderate it without favour or disfavour to either side?


  • #2661
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    No problem, Beasty, that's grand. Thanks.



    Then why did you PM me saying you hoped my threadban was reversed? :P

    Look, the point is, prochoicers have said much much worse about prolifers on that thread (like they're 'evil', 'sociopathic' etc). I merely said those who choose abortions (when everyone concerned is healthy) aren't 'real' to me. Prochoicers have been called murderers on that thread for heaven sake. Thread banning a user for saying what I did is laughable in that context.

    Anyway, I'll leave it there and see how I get on with appealing it.

    Because I do hope it's reversed! For the reasons I've previously stated regarding your posting history and overall demeanour :)

    I don't agree with any name-calling on the thread from either side and the ball needs to be played rather than the man but the sheer volume of posts in that thread alone is enormous, it's a lot of content that probably takes ages flicking through.

    I wish you the best with appealing it, I do disagree with you on several things but I look forward to (hopefully!) discussing them with you on the thread if the ban is lifted dude.


  • Advertisement
  • #2662
    TheValeyard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,729 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    uptherebels wrote: »
    No they just need to support their claims, stop trolling and actually discuss rather than soapbox

    No matter what they claim. you wont agree with there claims, zero chance of that.. So they are shouted down with mod support while pro choice reign supreme. Its why i wont comment in there. Also it will follow you around boards.

    All eyes on Kursk. Slava Ukraini.



  • #2663
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Ah come on. This was sort of a feedback thread. Now it is turning into another abortion thread.


  • #2664
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,738 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »
    No matter what they claim. you wont agree with there claims, zero chance of that.. So they are shouted down with mod support while pro choice reign supreme. Its why i wont comment in there. Also it will follow you around boards.

    I'll never agree with unsupported claims regardless who makes them.

    Ya it's all one big pro choice conspiracy.

    There is a reason why they don't provide evidence of their claims and it ain't cause their lazy.
    And being challenged on your views when in the minority is not being shouted down
    There is a serious persecution complex with pro lifers , it's getting tireing at this stage.


  • #2665
    TheValeyard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,729 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    Ah come on. This was sort of a feedback thread. Now it is turning into another abortion thread.

    Yep. Im out. Just end up another attack session. Later. Ive wolves to hunt.

    All eyes on Kursk. Slava Ukraini.



  • #2666
    Graces7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »
    No matter what they claim. you wont agree with there claims, zero chance of that.. So they are shouted down with mod support while pro choice reign supreme. Its why i wont comment in there. Also it will follow you around boards.

    As one who was thread banned for the reasons well stated here... I watch new pro-life posters coming on the thread and know it is a matter of time before they get banned. The pattern in very clear. And consistent.


  • #2667
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,530 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Graces7 wrote: »
    As one who was thread banned for the reasons well stated here... I watch new pro-life posters coming on the thread and know it is a matter of time before they get banned. The pattern in very clear. And consistent.
    I've already stated - if anyone wants to discuss the specifics of moderation of that thread or challenge their thread bans start a thread in Help Desk. This thread should not be used to try to dissect what is happening in a specific thread

    Thanks


  • #2668
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Again this is a symptom of the same issue cropping up again and again - AH being moderated as something that it isn't. If people want a serious discussion on the 8th amendment, they should be posting about it in the Politics forum. If people are posting in an abortion thread on AH, they should expect that a lot of people in it will take the piss. And the thread should be moderated in the context of it being on AH, and therefore not subject to the rules about serious discussion that the Politics forum is subject to. If people start reporting posts in the thread for not taking the issue seriously or keeping up a political standard of debate (citations, evidence, etc) then the mod response should be "if that's what you're after, you're literally posting on the wrong forum for it. Politics is that way. --->"

    This is what we used to do when people tried to treat AH like a serious discussion space - just tell them to either accept AH's irreverent culture for what it is, or feck off and post somewhere else. Why did this change?


  • #2669
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    A big problem is members acting like unintentional(?) bots. You can have an environment were certain members never post, unless something is posted they don't like or don't want to see. Then the lads come out of the woodwork to shut discussions down, otherwise you've tumbleweeds rolling through. It's a pretty toxic environment for a chat forum and as people have posted, you often have something typed and ready to go and figure it's not worth the hassle. If you do post it quickly turns from a debate to a tit for tat 'you sunk my battleship' match.


  • #2670
    Kuva
    Closed Accounts Posts: 870 ✭✭✭Kuva


    That's an awfully boring line up on the first page AH, 2 abortion threads, gay cake, foreskin mutilation in Iceland, pavee judges, new taxes, and the umpteenth it's offensive society thread (behaviour specific to boards as far as I can see) all site development needs to stop until we get a disappear this crap thread option.


  • Advertisement
  • #2671
    Omackeral
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    Kuva wrote: »
    That's an awfully boring line up on the first page AH, 2 abortion threads, gay cake, foreskin mutilation in Iceland, pavee judges, new taxes, and the umpteenth it's offensive society thread (behaviour specific to boards as far as I can see) all site development needs to stop until we get a disappear this crap thread option.

    Nothing stopping you coming up with engaging threads yourself.


  • #2672
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »
    Id agree with Outlaw Pete. If pro life, keep your head down and stay quiet is the motto.
    baylah17 wrote: »
    Pure petty rubbish and an abuse of this thread to take cheap shots at moderators.
    uptherebels wrote: »
    Stop acting the victim. The only person who can get you thread banned is yourself.
    To many pro lifers think they can post what they want, unsupported claims, outright lies, scaremongering etc and them cry they are getting attacked when this is pointed out to them.t
    Beasty wrote: »
    On the topic of the 8th, I have simply not been following the thread (I don't get a vote).
    ....


    It's arguably far too serious for many who look for a bit of light heartedness in AH, and it's possible that the mods are acting as much out of the reactions some comments are getting, be it in the thread itself or reported posts (and I've just mentioned elsewhere that topic, within 2 or 3 threads in AH alone, has resulted in around 500 reported posts since the turn of the year)

    In relation to the posts above, and ON TOPIC in terms of this thread, I've this to say:

    1. Moderators, in general, whatever the forum, who moderate whatever forum where potentially adversarial or contentious threads are created- -and the Yes/No referendum thread is one such thread- should take a giant leap back- and desist from contributing to that thread, and should only moderate that thread.

    2. I agree with Beasty- we need a new forum for issues/threads such as these- AH is not the place- but even then, Moderators of such a forum should be excluded from contributing- only moderating.


  • #2673
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,530 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Deleted User wrote: »
    2. I agree with Beasty- we need a new forum for issues/threads such as these- AH is not the place- but even then, Moderators of such a forum should be excluded from contributing- only moderating.
    We would need to think about the structure of the forum. I don't think it's right to prevent mods posting in a forum they moderate - ideally they need some empathy with/interest in the underlying topic otherwise moderation becomes a chore and enjoyment of the site diminishes

    I fully accept though that we should try and avoid mods contributing to and moderating potentially contentious threads. Ideally if we get it right there will be enough mods to minimise the risk of that. As already mentioned in the forum request thread I think it may take some time to get the moderation right, and equally such a forum should initially be introduced on a trial basis, with a review after, say, 6 months.

    I certainly don't want the popularity of AH to diminish, not in a material fashion anyway. I think though it is likely that some traffic would drift over to a new forum. However that may encourage others to return to (or start) posting in AH, as I think it may then appear less intimidatory to some


  • #2674
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 21,679 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    At first I thought a current affairs forum was a great idea but now I wonder if it would cause a big loss to After Hours. Where do we draw the line with what's current affairs and what isn't? At the minute almost every thread here could fall in to that category I think.


  • #2675
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Let's be honest: After Hours is dead and it died / was killed some time ago now. A FB post I wrote in 2011 (where does time go):
    OutlawPete wrote: »
    There is quite a lot of "This is NOT After Hours" levelled at users around Boards.ie and (at times) that's fine, but I think it's time we heard more of: "This IS After Hours!" from it's moderators. I am sick of users coming on to AH, that have little of no concept of what the forum is about, stamping their feet when comments are made because they wouldn't be acceptable elsewhere on Boards. They should stay away if they don't like the content. I find what's posted in tLL to be wholly objectionable, so I stay from the place (bar once, you live you learn).

    Yes I know it's 'general topic' / 'current affairs' forum (perhaps there is an argument for such a forum?) but AH is far far more than just a gerneral topic forum. It's tone and spirit was long since decided upon. That's why Nein11 and the like came into being, as their humour wasn't welcome in AH, you don't see those users running to Feedback demanding to be allowed to tell dead baby jokes there. If users don't like the humour in AH, then on you go.

    [big boobs rant snipped]

    TL;DR

    After Hours is very popular, receives the traffic and it does so because of the way it has been modded down the years. Some excellent mods have put in an extraordinary amount of time (Bollocko & Javaboy particularly in more recent years, the rest all have lovely bottoms too). Mods that went out of their way to engage with it's core regulars and newbies alike and all in an effort to make sure the tone and spirit of AH remained. Losing the abuse on After Hours is one thing, sanitising the forum to within an inch of its life, just because there are a few users who don't get the forum, is quite something else.

    Reading this now just reminds me of how much things have changed despite the gallant efforts of some decent mods/smods down the years. The sanitization of AH has absolutely taken place though and at the behest of those who always hated the place and resented that it was largely what was responsible for the success of Boards.ie. Much like how the Kardashians want to forget all about that sex tape.

    So, let After Hours rest in peace I say and just rename this forum 'Current Affairs' as to continue to call it After Hours is to do so in just name only, as the ethos and spirit of the forum that once was, has long since passed.


  • #2676
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,530 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    I think one of the problems with AH, and it's something that's relevant across the site, is that people are always looking to take offence. Yes we encourage people to report anything they have an issue with, but I've just looked up some stats

    Across the site we have seen about 360,000 posts reported over the past 12 years. 65,000 of those have been in AH.

    Over the past 12 months we've seen 25,000 posts reported across the site reported, but 10,000 of those have been in AH

    The sheer numbers of posts being reported makes it difficult for mods to judge where to draw the line, while trying to reflect user desires/feedback/demands through those reported posts. I don't see it as much a "sanitisation" via any direction given/taken at mod, CMod or Admin level. I accept there has been additional scrutiny applied and action taken on the back of the increasing number of reports, but in my view it's as much the userbase driving that as any of the "powers that be"

    I do think though that running a "Current Affairs" forum alongside AH is worth a try. Hopefully that will allow AH to become more of a "fun" place again, while some of the more serious topics can still be discussed in a new forum with a little more "freedom" and "light-heartedness" than we currently see in the 2 Politics forums

    All of this does require the buy-in of the userbase, and preferably a more relaxed approach rather than looking to offend, or be offended, by what they read in either or indeed both forums

    If after 6 months we feel it's not working, well at least we tried something different. Ultimately though content and therefore interest is driven by the users


  • Advertisement
  • #2677
    Infernum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Infernum


    I'm guessing as social media grows, people just view forums as a relic of old methods of communication on the internet.


  • #2678
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Beasty wrote: »

    Over the past 12 months we've seen 25,000 posts reported across the site reported, but 10,000 of those have been in AH

    The sheer numbers of posts being reported makes it difficult for mods to judge where to draw the line, while trying to reflect user desires/feedback/demands through those reported posts.


    Maybe you need a new AH rule:

    giphy.gif


  • #2679
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Some people are spamming threads with the same dogma. They aren't interested in debate they just want to rant They are moving to AH because they have destroyed all discussion elsewhere. A lot of trolling and baiting is ignored these days. But it makes it pointless trying to post.

    Similarly a lot of threads are very one sided. Pointless posting in them as well.

    Theres a few back waters with a few knowledgeable posters. But a lot of the good people have left. Driven off by argumentive people just looking to argue the whole time.


  • #2680
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Infernum wrote: »
    I'm guessing as social media grows, people just view forums as a relic of old methods of communication on the internet.

    Social media is easier because most of it goes unchallenged. So you can put up a load of drivel and like minded people give themselves validation.


  • #2681
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,203 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Beasty wrote: »
    I do think though that running a "Current Affairs" forum alongside AH is worth a try. Hopefully that will allow AH to become more of a "fun" place again, while some of the more serious topics can still be discussed in a new forum with a little more "freedom" and "light-heartedness" than we currently see in the 2 Politics forums

    All of this does require the buy-in of the userbase, and preferably a more relaxed approach rather than looking to offend, or be offended, by what they read in either or indeed both forums

    If after 6 months we feel it's not working, well at least we tried something different. Ultimately though content and therefore interest is driven by the users


    Wasn't that supposed to be the point and aim of the Politics Cafe?

    I'm not attempting to be smart or anything, but I just don't see the point of creating yet another forum which appears to me at least to be an exact duplicate of an already existing forum, one that now requires people to be pre-approved before they can post, due to the fact that in it's previous incarnation it became everything but the free and light hearted forum it was meant to be due to posters inability to take a relaxed approach to posters disagreeing with them and taking offence when challenged.

    Ultimately the content of any forum is driven by the Moderators of the forum who, when posts are reported, have the ability to use their judgement as to the direction they want the forum to take, and the ethos of the forum, and the atmosphere in the forum, and on that basis decide whether or not to take action against a users post.

    If the content of any forum were driven by it's users, the Feedback forum wouldn't be in the state it's in now where it's impossible to find anything with all the redirected threads to all the various other forums - Help Desk, DRP, geez whatever other sub-forums are in there that I can't even remember now. It just appears like some sort of a divide and misdirect strategy is in place to dilute down any feedback (why is this thread even in AH? Would it not be a better strategy to promote and make people aware of the Feedback forum?).

    Fixing the Search function would make more sense from my point of view than creating even more nested forums making the site slower and more frustrating to navigate. With 999 forums, it's difficult to argue that lack of content is the problem. It's simply that the content is just hard to get to.


  • Advertisement
  • #2682
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    beauf wrote: »
    Some people are spamming threads with the same dogma. They aren't interested in debate they just want to rant They are moving to AH because they have destroyed all discussion elsewhere. A lot of trolling and baiting is ignored these days. But it makes it pointless trying to post.

    Similarly a lot of threads are very one sided. Pointless posting in them as well.

    Theres a few back waters with a few knowledgeable posters. But a lot of the good people have left. Driven off by argumentive people just looking to argue the whole time.

    This for me is the biggest turn off from many AH threads. Long time glorified trolls who have been warned off other forums and either dump the same old dogma in thread here, post bland comments that they won't stand over or discuss when challenged, drag threads off topic and even put anybody who disagrees with them on Ignore, which stifles debate. There are great people here and many great discussions but often one has to ask what the point is when such people are tolerated .


  • #2683
    mzungu
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,309 Mod ✭✭✭✭mzungu


    Deleted User wrote: »
    At first I thought a current affairs forum was a great idea but now I wonder if it would cause a big loss to After Hours. Where do we draw the line with what's current affairs and what isn't? At the minute almost every thread here could fall in to that category I think.
    It wouldn't cause much loss to AH, if anything it would be the Politics and Politics Cafe forums that would take the hit IMO.


  • #2684
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    beauf wrote: »
    Social media is easier because most of it goes unchallenged. So you can put up a load of drivel and like minded people give themselves validation.

    This, no fun debating in an echo chamber with nothing more than like minded individuals, who will agree with each other no matter how wrong they are.


  • #2685
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    At first I thought a current affairs forum was a great idea but now I wonder if it would cause a big loss to After Hours. Where do we draw the line with what's current affairs and what isn't? At the minute almost every thread here could fall in to that category I think.

    My mind is- "let's look forward to what could be, not what was there in the past"

    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Let's be honest: After Hours is dead and it died / was killed some time ago now. A FB post I wrote in 2011 (where does time go):

    Make a new one? Who cares what AH was. The world has changed. People receive their news and their fun in so much different ways than 2011. My thoughts are, "let's see what AH could become, not what it was in the past".

    Just my thoughts. I respect you, as a long time poster here on boards.ie. I just think that because this whole "discussion forum" thing is so old technology, but at the same time, it still has an appeal, we need to think differently. that's all. :)


  • #2686
    Kuva
    Closed Accounts Posts: 870 ✭✭✭Kuva


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I just think that because this whole "discussion forum" thing is so old technology, but at the same time, it still has an appeal, we need to think differently. that's all. :)

    What is reddit?


  • #2687
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Kuva wrote: »
    What is reddit?

    I was talking about boards.ie and its platform. Not reddit. What's your point Kuva? :)


  • #2688
    Discodog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,918 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Wasn't that supposed to be the point and aim of the Politics Cafe?

    I'm not attempting to be smart or anything, but I just don't see the point of creating yet another forum which appears to me at least to be an exact duplicate of an already existing forum, one that now requires people to be pre-approved before they can post, due to the fact that in it's previous incarnation it became everything but the free and light hearted forum it was meant to be due to posters inability to take a relaxed approach to posters disagreeing with them and taking offence when challenged.

    Ultimately the content of any forum is driven by the Moderators of the forum who, when posts are reported, have the ability to use their judgement as to the direction they want the forum to take, and the ethos of the forum, and the atmosphere in the forum, and on that basis decide whether or not to take action against a users post.

    If the content of any forum were driven by it's users, the Feedback forum wouldn't be in the state it's in now where it's impossible to find anything with all the redirected threads to all the various other forums - Help Desk, DRP, geez whatever other sub-forums are in there that I can't even remember now. It just appears like some sort of a divide and misdirect strategy is in place to dilute down any feedback (why is this thread even in AH? Would it not be a better strategy to promote and make people aware of the Feedback forum?).

    Fixing the Search function would make more sense from my point of view than creating even more nested forums making the site slower and more frustrating to navigate. With 999 forums, it's difficult to argue that lack of content is the problem. It's simply that the content is just hard to get to.

    The majority hate politics or anything that involves the word. There are lots of threads which are about current events that have nothing to do with politics but involve more than just light hearted humour.

    Add in the prequalification to post & no one will post there.


  • #2689
    Ken.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,898 ✭✭✭✭Ken.


    Discodog wrote: »
    The majority hate politics or anything that involves the word. There are lots of threads which are about current events that have nothing to do with politics but involve more than just light hearted humour.

    Add in the prequalification to post & no one will post there.

    I like your Current affairs idea but it doesn't seem to be getting much support.

    I have an idea. Tags for AH. Just 2 of them. Each thread will be tagged either "fun" or "serious"

    This will give people a heads up as to what type of thread they are entering.

    We mods could then alter the charter to add something like,

    "Fun threads are a free for all within site rules while serious threads will require a higher standard of posting."

    The carrot for us mods is we reserve the right to change the tag of a fun thread to serious and ban everyone:D


  • #2690
    Discodog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,918 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    Putinbot wrote: »
    I like your Current affairs idea but it doesn't seem to be getting much support.

    I have an idea. Tags for AH. Just 2 of them. Each thread will be tagged either "fun" or "serious"

    This will give people a heads up as to what type of thread they are entering.

    We mods could then alter the charter to add something like,

    "Fun threads are a free for all within site rules while serious threads will require a higher standard of posting."

    The carrot for us mods is we reserve the right to change the tag of a fun thread to serious and ban everyone:D

    Oh I wouldn't say that :)

    You just don't fancy modding it :pac:


  • #2691
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,203 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Discodog wrote: »
    The majority hate politics or anything that involves the word. There are lots of threads which are about current events that have nothing to do with politics but involve more than just light hearted humour.

    Add in the prequalification to post & no one will post there.


    So just rename the forum and remove the pre-qualification to post, jobs a good 'un, no?

    It would take the same format as many current affairs programmes on television that discuss among other things the topical events of the day, including but not limited to politics, Irish current affairs, and international current affairs.

    It's the idea of creating a new forum while trying to resuscitate an old one makes no sense if I'm being honest, just looks like making extra unnecessary work and making another forum that's likely to go the same way as the old one. There's likely to be a lot of cross over between the two so it would make sense to cut down on the number of forums and concentrate on content, both generating content and consuming content, rather than making it more of an effort than it's currently worth bothering with.


  • Advertisement
  • #2692
    Ken.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,898 ✭✭✭✭Ken.


    Discodog wrote: »
    Oh I wouldn't say that :)

    You just don't fancy modding it :pac:

    I gave a +1 in your request thread.


  • #2693
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    ..... it's impossible to find anything with all the redirected threads to all the various other forums - Help Desk, DRP, geez whatever other sub-forums are in there that I can't even remember now. It just appears like some sort of a divide and misdirect strategy is in place to dilute down any feedback (why is this thread even in AH? Would it not be a better strategy to promote and make people aware of the Feedback forum?).

    Fixing the Search function would make more sense from my point of view than creating even more nested forums making the site slower and more frustrating to navigate. With 999 forums, it's difficult to argue that lack of content is the problem. It's simply that the content is just hard to get to.

    I never understood changed GUI and the navigation and the explosion of sub forums, many of which have almost no traffic. Now to get to the last comment in a thread (most commonly clicked element on boards you're assume) you click the smallest item on the entire screen.

    I noticed a lot of the sub forums withered and died after those changes. Traffic just vanished from them. Instead those long stupid threads where trolls derail the subject over and over again all end up on the recent thread page. Personally I dislike AH and stay out of it. But its on the recent threads a lot. Lot of bait titles in it. Sometimes you click into it by accident.

    None of this is new. Lots of people have complained out this stuff over and over. I see this thread as pointless aswell.


  • #2694
    Discodog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,918 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    So just rename the forum and remove the pre-qualification to post, jobs a good 'un, no?

    It would take the same format as many current affairs programmes on television that discuss among other things the topical events of the day, including but not limited to politics, Irish current affairs, and international current affairs.

    It's the idea of creating a new forum while trying to resuscitate an old one makes no sense if I'm being honest, just looks like making extra unnecessary work and making another forum that's likely to go the same way as the old one. There's likely to be a lot of cross over between the two so it would make sense to cut down on the number of forums and concentrate on content, both generating content and consuming content, rather than making it more of an effort than it's currently worth bothering with.

    Maybe. That would be up to the PC crowd. It does have posters & they may like the existing format.


  • #2695
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,141 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Discodog wrote: »
    Maybe. That would be up to the PC crowd. It does have posters & they may like the existing format.

    a number of us don't tbh. traffic is very slow in it as well due to the access only policy.
    there was a feedback type thread there, business is slow in the politics cafe. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057829600

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words.



  • #2696
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The fun / serious tag is a good suggestion. That works in Askreddit really well.


  • #2697
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 21,679 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    There's a lot of talk about the old days of After Hours and how much better it was. There's a thread running at the minute here about that very same thing. I'm only here since 2015 so can't comment on what it was like.
    Was it really better? What changed? Did society shift and so too did topics? Are the posters a completely different breed?


  • #2698
    mzungu
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,309 Mod ✭✭✭✭mzungu


    Deleted User wrote: »
    There's a lot of talk about the old days of After Hours and how much better it was. There's a thread running at the minute here about that very same thing. I'm only here since 2015 so can't comment on what it was like.
    Was it really better? What changed? Did society shift and so too did topics? Are the posters a completely different breed?
    A case of rose tinted glasses. Most people, in most places, reckon that what came before was always best. It's part of the human condition. It serves a purpose, as it allows people to vent their grievances (nothing wrong with that IMO). It really should not be taken too seriously though as the cycle always repeats itself. In 2028 AH threads will be calling this era now a "golden era" and that the present one is crap etc.


  • #2699
    Discodog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,918 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The fun / serious tag is a good suggestion. That works in Askreddit really well.

    I like the idea but who decides the category - surely this needs to be the poster ? But then a poster is dictating how a forum should discuss his topic.

    Do we then say that there can't be a mix? Lots of serious threads benefit from an injection of appropriate humour & vice versa. It's not black & white.

    I can imagine the Mods copying Jimmy Carr's set where he tests jokes on an audience to find their level :)


  • #2700
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Putinbot wrote: »
    I like your Current affairs idea but it doesn't seem to be getting much support.

    I have an idea. Tags for AH. Just 2 of them. Each thread will be tagged either "fun" or "serious"

    This will give people a heads up as to what type of thread they are entering.

    We mods could then alter the charter to add something like,

    "Fun threads are a free for all within site rules while serious threads will require a higher standard of posting."

    The carrot for us mods is we reserve the right to change the tag of a fun thread to serious and ban everyone:D

    Maybe I am wrong but wasn't After Hours created specifically for fun threads? After Hours then became the biggest forum on boards (and in Ireland) because it was a laid back place to 'have the craic'.

    The place has changed a lot for the worse over the years (in my opinion). Look at the threads from around 2007-2011 there was just so much more fun and less bickering, also less people being so sensitive.

    Just to clarify I have been on boards since mid 00s, regretting closing my first account :(


  • Advertisement
  • #2701
    Discodog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,918 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    mzungu wrote: »
    A case of rose tinted glasses. Most people, in most places, reckon that what came before was always best. It's part of the human condition. It serves a purpose, as it allows people to vent their grievances (nothing wrong with that IMO). It really should not be taken too seriously though as the cycle always repeats itself. In 2028 AH threads will be calling this era now a "golden era" and that the present one is crap etc.

    But the numbers are bound to decline. There wasn't the competition in the good old days that there is now


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement