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

Child Item

Can we talk about AH?

dulpit

Hey all,

I know there have been a number of threads raised on the topic over the past few months, but I feel that something needs to be done about AH, it has been getting worse and worse with regards to the usual rubbish that is dealt out about travellers, feminists, social welfare, etc. The place is becoming an extremely nasty place to read, and the moderation is either slow, ineffectual or non-existent.

I understand that you can simply ignore the forum as a whole, but it can be hard to do so, due to the traffic it attracts the posts there are always popping up on home page.

I also understand that people will say that the mods are overwhelmed with the amount of posts that AH gets, but this thread - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057949890 - has been active since yesterday with limited/no moderation that I can see. The same sorts of comments from the same sorts of posters are always appearing.

What the solution is - I don't know. I personally feel that either the site needs to go down the route of allowing anything to be said, and be the worse for it, or else clean up it's moderation. Properly ban people, zero tolerance, stuff like that.

I don't know what else to say, but I will say that AH makes me sad these days, and is pushing me away from using boards in general. I can't be alone in this opinion?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ancapailldorcha

KyussB wrote: »

Yes the subforum I lobbied for was intended to fill a gap, that I felt was created by arbitrary restrictions on those two forums - it didn't last long, and (retrospectively) was the wrong solution to those perceived problems.

Well, nobody posted in it. Hard to justify keeping it open on that basis which was a shame given how much enthusiasm there was for it in the Forum Requests thread.

KyussB

It's not the intentions of the system of rules and moderation that are in question, it's the end-result/net-effect of that system in practice. You don't need to target any specific views, or have any kind of conspiring, to end up with a chilling effect.

Yes the subforum I lobbied for was intended to fill a gap, that I felt was created by arbitrary restrictions on those two forums - it didn't last long, and (retrospectively) was the wrong solution to those perceived problems.

Chips Lovell

KyussB wrote: »

Just to back this up - I don't know this posters personal views, so I don't back them - but I can absolutely first-hand back up that people are targeted on Politics for their views, and the moderation system is designed to be so easy to run into, that mods can pretty much make up any reason for targeting you, other than your views - despite your views being the 100% most consistent reason for you being targeted.

I can also attest to the double standards this poster describes - if you have past run-ins with mods, they justify applying different standards, in a way that leads to them ignoring the ways in which other posters reply to you, yet sanctions you for replying in-kind - this is most especially pronounced, if you're getting brow-beaten by a large number of posters holding a shared ideological-view/disposition, and if you hold the minority view - it is carte blanche for a larger group to abuse a poster, yet receive no sanction for it, and being able to trigger sanction for that poster if they respond in-kind.

It's a pain in the arse, and it's why I don't post here anymore. This is not a site for political discussion, as the moderation system directly leads to the warping of political discussion, in a way that severely curtails/limits the free range of discussion, the more it ideologically offends a large/forceful-enough group of posters. You point out the problems here in Feedback, and you get the mod/admin version of 'fuck off' while waving a mod stick/baton at you.

The entire site management/admin/mod team has been told by its userbase for years, blue in the face, that the moderation on the site is a problem - and the site has a reputation (going back well over a decade+) of heavy handed moderation and general moderation being a pain in the hole - but the people running things actively don't want to hear it or do anything about it (evidenced by how such criticism is often reacted to in a heavily managerial way "we hear and appreciate your concerns, but are not going to do anything meaningful about them" on this subforum).

The charter is there to facilitate a decent standard of debate. It is not there to target users of any political stripe. I think that should be evident just on reading it.

Over the years, both as a mod in the Cafe and then Politics, I and my co-mods have been accused of being biased against every conceivable political position. In some instances, where I've sanctioned two posters for flaming each other, I've had them both PMing me at the same time, alleging I was biased towards the other.

At the risk of repeating myself, the vast majority of posters in Politics, who account for a whole host of views, contribute regularly without so much as a yellow card. Unfortunately, we can't please all of the people all of the time.

In your own case, if I recall correctly, an entirely new forum was set up, at your suggestion, to cater for discussions you felt couldn't be had in the Politics and Economics forums. Does that sound like "the people running things actively don't want to hear it or do anything about it" or does it sound like Boards doing its best to appease a minority of users who are looking for something different?

[Deleted User]

There is nothing wrong with AH, at least in my eyes and there lies the crux of the matter.
There are so many different personalities and dare I say it the odd personality disorder as well

that it isn't going to suit everyone.

The current discussions are a reflection of the society we live in. Its a polarised society indicative of fear, frustration, anger, hatred, and hurt. I can't open a news app without seeing something #metoo, far right, snowflake, liberal, misogyny related. It makes sense to me this would seep in to After Hours.

When it comes to moving and closing threads the mods need to have a good sense of the forum, understand its tone. For example a thread looking for advice on accommodation in Kerry is best in the accommodation forum, a thread posting movie quotes is grand to be left in AH. There is no one size fits all.

Moderation is and always will be contentious. Why? Because people. Sure how many times now have there need threads about that topic and the forum as a whole? Some think its too heavy others think its too light. Are more mods needed, or different mods or no mods.

I would encourage lighthearted threads and cull ones that are intended to bait and incite hatred. The big topics currently such as nurses pay and the children's hospital are very relevant and should remain. A look in to them now and then to makesure people aren't being dìcks is all thats needed.

Apart from that leave it be. The next societal shift will come along and with it a whole new bunch of topics to torment ourselves with. Some posters will leave, others will return, new ones will appear. The forum will evolve.

ArchXStanton

Diceicle wrote: »

Can we just censor stuff I don't like though?

I've had a few posts over the years go poof, totally innocuous stuff, it chips away at the respect you have for the site

beauf

I think if users could filter AH so that it didn't appear in latest posts on the home page it would be far easier to ignore it.

Diceicle

Can we just censor stuff I don't like though?

KyussB

prinzeugen wrote: »

Look at the dispute resolution forum. Wall to wall complaints about this one mod over the years. There are plenty.

Either someone has noticed and has chosen to ignore it or someone is unaware of what is going on here.

The politics charter is a joke. The majority of posters there are chanting the same thing but using different words. I get called delusional - nothing done. I call a poster delusional - carded.

Trolling - posting something that will upset others. In other words a different opinion.

The charter does not apply to those that say the right thing. It is mod bias. I am sure you know which mod I am referring to. Look at his history not mine.

Just to back this up - I don't know this posters personal views, so I don't back them - but I can absolutely first-hand back up that people are targeted on Politics for their views, and the moderation system is designed to be so easy to run into, that mods can pretty much make up any reason for targeting you, other than your views - despite your views being the 100% most consistent reason for you being targeted.

I can also attest to the double standards this poster describes - if you have past run-ins with mods, they justify applying different standards, in a way that leads to them ignoring the ways in which other posters reply to you, yet sanctions you for replying in-kind - this is most especially pronounced, if you're getting brow-beaten by a large number of posters holding a shared ideological-view/disposition, and if you hold the minority view - it is carte blanche for a larger group to abuse a poster, yet receive no sanction for it, and being able to trigger sanction for that poster if they respond in-kind.

It's a pain in the arse, and it's why I don't post here anymore. This is not a site for political discussion, as the moderation system directly leads to the warping of political discussion, in a way that severely curtails/limits the free range of discussion, the more it ideologically offends a large/forceful-enough group of posters. You point out the problems here in Feedback, and you get the mod/admin version of 'fuck off' while waving a mod stick/baton at you.

The entire site management/admin/mod team has been told by its userbase for years, blue in the face, that the moderation on the site is a problem - and the site has a reputation (going back well over a decade+) of heavy handed moderation and general moderation being a pain in the hole - but the people running things actively don't want to hear it or do anything about it (evidenced by how such criticism is often reacted to in a heavily managerial way "we hear and appreciate your concerns, but are not going to do anything meaningful about them" on this subforum).

Twenty Grand

professore wrote: »

Many people today, instead of destroying racist or sexist posts with logic and reason, instead want them banned when they don't "win" the argument. When you resort to censorship you lose automatically. If you can't convince people say that the Holocaust really happened, and instead censor anyone who talks about it, you are feeding into the conspiracy theory. .

There's no winning arguments with many people in AH. You can deploy all the logic and reason and evidence, but some people are quite happy to believe the world is flat and will gleefully ignore any evidence to the contrary.

Its a curse.

prinzeugen

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It seemed highly unlikely that one mod would be permitted to pursue some sort of vendetta against you without anyone noticing, so I took a look into this and it turns out it's untrue.

You've been sanctioned by not one, but three different mods in the Politics forum. One one occasion you appealed to the DRP, alleging mod bias. A CMod and Admin reviewed and upheld the sanction.

So three different mods, a CMod and an Admin have reviewed your conduct in the Politics forum and found it to be wanting.

The vast majority of posters there, whatever their viewpoint, are capable of contributing without so much as a yellow card. When people do get sanctioned, it's for breaching the charter, not for their views.

Look at the dispute resolution forum. Wall to wall complaints about this one mod over the years. There are plenty.

Either someone has noticed and has chosen to ignore it or someone is unaware of what is going on here.

The politics charter is a joke. The majority of posters there are chanting the same thing but using different words. I get called delusional - nothing done. I call a poster delusional - carded.

Trolling - posting something that will upset others. In other words a different opinion.

The charter does not apply to those that say the right thing. It is mod bias. I am sure you know which mod I am referring to. Look at his history not mine.

Boom_Bap

Nixonbot wrote: »

*checks*

...lets not go there :pac:

200_d.gif?cid=3640f6095c4e931243704d306b4b0246

professore

Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »

Welcome to our world when we get accused of man hating just for criticising hostility towards women!

No seriously, I know you don't. What i do see from you though is a tendency to generalise about women negatively on threads started by others to have a go at women. You don't say horrifically nasty things but you do appear to be biased in the "women are worse for xyz" direction.

Men and women are different but when it comes to bad behaviour, neither has the monopoly.

I agree with you but there are behaviours that are predominantly male or predominantly female. People who deny this and call someone a misogynist for pointing that out annoy the hell out of me.

Skylinehead

Deleted User wrote: »

Out of interest, how would you rate my AH record?

*checks*

...lets not go there :pac:

Muckka

Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »

Exactly. The far right crowd can be nasty as hell but they'll usually get banned. The far left crowd can be every bit as nasty - sometimes worse because they seem to feel they have more of a licence to be.

It's usually only those in the middle who get annoyed by assholery from both "sides".

It seems that it's the far left who reports people more than anyone.
I never would want anyone getting carded or any infractions, they can say what they like, call me what they want.
They can be absolutely outraged with my comments but I would not stoop to getting anyone banned or a warning.

A bruised pear falling down a staircase is less sensitive than some people on board's.

I'm new to board's and if society was as sensitive as some people here, we'd be all killing each other.

Zorya

Deleted User wrote: »

Out of interest, how would you rate my AH record?

Now, now, if we are going to start rating people in any way at all we need pics.

[Deleted User]

Nixonbot wrote: »

But what's in front of you is a complete and utter lack of context. The concept of a "criminal record" exists, we don't ban people for a first offence.

Out of interest, how would you rate my AH record?

Skylinehead

Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »

Fair enough but people can go only by what is in front of them and it is definitely the case that people get banned for less than others. A person who is barely known got banned for using the word "pavee" ffs.

But what's in front of you is a complete and utter lack of context. The concept of a "criminal record" exists, we don't ban people for a first offence.

Gimme A Pound

blackwhite wrote: »

Not to single out one individual poster - but this right here is a microcosm of the attitudes that are poisoning AH.

Posters with entrenched views/feelings to either the left or the right will complain and get outraged by the "other side" doing stuff that they are doing themselves.

Case in point - complains about racism whilst using racist terms to describe those he complains about. Not trying to single out the specific poster - but it's behaviour that seems to be rife amongst far too many threads across AH.
Both sides continually engaging in it, whilst turing a blind eye to anything from posters who agree with them. No wonder everything descends into trench warfare

Exactly. The far right crowd can be nasty as hell but they'll usually get banned. The far left crowd can be every bit as nasty - sometimes worse because they seem to feel they have more of a licence to be.

It's usually only those in the middle who get annoyed by assholery from both "sides".

Gimme A Pound

professore wrote: »

This is extremely unfair. I don't have a go at all women.

Welcome to our world when we get accused of man hating just for criticising hostility towards women!

No seriously, I know you don't. What i do see from you though is a tendency to generalise about women negatively on threads started by others to have a go at women. You don't say horrifically nasty things but you do appear to be biased in the "women are worse for xyz" direction.

Men and women are different but when it comes to bad behaviour, neither has the monopoly.

professore

Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »

The way you seem to think you can read the minds of all women as you demonstrate every time a thread having a go at women pops up?

This is extremely unfair. I don't have a go at all women. But this is very much off topic.

blackwhite

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The most obvious manifestation of the hard push to the extreme right was the Presidential election poll, where Casey ended up with more than 50% of the vote, more than double what he got in the real world. So in broad terms, boards.ie has twice as many extreme right posters as the national average. Boards.ie is a good 44% more racist than Tipperary - Casey's best performing constituency.

It seems that the powers that be are happy for Boards to turn into gammon-central. Personally, I'm not sure it bodes well, given the ageing demographic. It's probably not a hugely attractive market for advertisers either.

Not to single out one individual poster - but this right here is a microcosm of the attitudes that are poisoning AH.

Posters with entrenched views/feelings to either the left or the right will complain and get outraged by the "other side" doing stuff that they are doing themselves.

Case in point - complains about racism whilst using racist terms to describe those he complains about. Not trying to single out the specific poster - but it's behaviour that seems to be rife amongst far too many threads across AH.
Both sides continually engaging in it, whilst turing a blind eye to anything from posters who agree with them. No wonder everything descends into trench warfare

McMurphy

professore wrote: »

I'm agreeing with you!

Sorry Prof, absolutely took that up the wrong way so.

Gimme A Pound

Nixonbot wrote: »

And you say that without any insight whatsoever into the users infraction history.

How many times do you think we should say "Attack the post not the poster" to a single user?

Fair enough but people can go only by what is in front of them and it is definitely the case that people get banned for less than others. A person who is barely known got banned for using the word "pavee" ffs.

professore wrote: »

There are so many things wrong with these statements I don't know where to start.

So many things as in... two? You did know where to start by the way - it's really not that astounding a statement.

The first statement is a blanket statement which you can't possibly stand over, unless you can read the minds of everyone on Boards - or you believe no feminism is too extreme.

The way you seem to think you can read the minds of all women as you demonstrate every time a thread having a go at women pops up?

Ok so, no extreme feminist posts. There was one purveyor of such posts - Midlandsmissus, who is deservedly banned. Otherwise, where is the extreme feminism? Oh I very much do think there is extreme feminism - I think feminism today has gone insane and I detest it. So if you want to depict me as one of those feminists, soz - you couldn't be more wrong. But where on Boards is this extreme feminism?

The second sentence is a strawman - i.e. the only thing these shrinking violet feminists do is attack evil misogynists - i.e. anyone who disagrees with them in any way whatsoever.

Nope. The above sentence is what's the strawman. What are you on about? "Anyone who disagrees with them in any way whatsoever"? Only you said that. I said nothing of the sort. It's not complicated - if someone says extremely negative things about women (and a handful do on After Hours) - I didn't say anything whatsoever about just disagreeing (really, very disingenuous way of arguing), objecting to this is not feminism, let alone extreme feminism. As mentioned: the thread about the French guy, the Amazon guy's divorce and the paternity testing one - no extreme feminism, just women objecting to hostility towards women (and not mere disagreement).

It's people with ideas like you have that make me think people saying horrible things is bad but having a censor like this is worse.

What are you rambling on about? Talk about deliberate misinterpretation. Where on my post that you quoted did I allude to censorship?

If anything what you say could be applied to you - that you think people who just disagree with toxic anti women views are therefore feminist.

And there isn't man hating on After Hours. There certainly is elsewhere in the internet but not on After Hours/Boards in general.

professore

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You think?

From the very next sentence of my post you quoted.

I'm agreeing with you!

McMurphy

professore wrote: »

Maybe they should all be merged?

You think?

From the very next sentence of my post you quoted.

(I even stated they should just shunt them off I to their own megathread and let them shadow box in there for days on end)

professore

Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »

There aren't extreme feminists on After Hours professore. Criticism of misogyny is not even feminism, let alone extreme feminism.

There are so many things wrong with these statements I don't know where to start. The first statement is a blanket statement which you can't possibly stand over, unless you can read the minds of everyone on Boards - or you believe no feminism is too extreme.

The second sentence is a strawman - i.e. the only thing these shrinking violet feminists do is attack evil misogynists - i.e. anyone who disagrees with them in any way whatsoever.

It's people with ideas like you have that make me think people saying horrible things is bad but having a censor like this is worse.

professore

dulpit wrote: »

It's usually pretty obvious, but people start saying things like "X isn't a race". Still obviously racist.

Blatant disregard for facts is also a bigots tactic. X isn't a race is used on both sides when determining racism as it suits them.

Skylinehead

Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »

This kind of inconsistency is so annoying:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109291602&postcount=212

An "attack the post, not the poster" would have been sufficient. Then there are others getting away with far worse.

And you say that without any insight whatsoever into the users infraction history.

How many times do you think we should say "Attack the post not the poster" to a single user?

Dravokivich

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

There's a difference between Michael Jackson, what annoys people, where people happen to be, and cuckolding:eek:

There's not much difference in the subject - dole. How many threads do we need on the same subject?

If you don't see that, it's because (I guess) you most prob don't want to.

The point he's making is, if people keep participating in the subject, it's going to keep coming up. Leave it be and let it die a dignified death.

keepalive213

Boards needs to look for mods who are Traveller - Vegan - cyclists and on social welfare.
Does such a person exist.