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 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

A&A Feedback

1…2324262829…37

Comments

  • #1252
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,357 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    I am replying to this separately as I think there is potentially some utility in separating the off thread topic part of my reply from the on topic part. But it is relevant to what you just said which I will make clear WHILE pushing the thread back on topic. Hopefully this is helpful in a few ways therefore! As you say in the post just above this one..... some actual links might help. I will work on that. But as you say yourself.... it will not be quick. But my approach will be to scroll back through all the posts from myself on this thread where I replied to that user. As it will anchor the search area quite well.
    robindch wrote: »
    The mods have on rare occasions - and in response to a carefully reported post (involving a link to a claim by poster A, a link to a subsequent request for evidence by poster B, a link to some subsequent avoiding tactics by poster A) - taken to task posters who are reluctant or unable to provide evidence for some claim they've made.

    The crux of my pro choice position comes down to my sentience based approach to ethics and morality. There are pro choice people who adamantly voted "yes" in the referendum who agree with my pro-choice position but massively disagree with my basis for it.

    Wanting a "yes" vote however they did not want to argue against me at the time. Maybe now we have the win in the referendum, they might be more inclined to.

    However few people offered a rebuttal to my position and EOTR is an example of one who asserted one, but ran away when asked to back it up. EOTR then on multiple occasions later dodged that position again. Then started to later claim to have actually addressed it. Refusing however to A) Explain what was in the content of that or B) link to where it actually happened. So I think this fits perfectly with what you wrote above about the three steps calling attention to such dodging should take in that A) Claims were made B) MULTIPLE requests in MULTIPLE posts were made to support that claim and C) by either ignoring it, or claiming without evidence or citation to have already addressed it, the user has engaged in ongoing "subsequent avoiding tactics".

    The crux of the users rebuttal to my sentience based position is simple (simplistic actually). It is the assertion that a non-sentient entity, that has in no way developed sentience, but has the potential to has the right to become sentient. And due to that we have no right to intentionally prevent it, such as through abortion, from occurring.

    The user is 100% right. If a non sentient entity has the right to become sentient, then my position on abortion is 100% wrong and needs to be reversed immediately. Which I would do without apology, embarrassment, hesitation or reservation.

    The problem is the user in question has not defended or supported the claim. Merely asserted it. And I have requested MULTIPLE times that the user do so. Either by directly asking them to OR by building analogies and thought experiments which I have asked them direct questions about.

    The users response to this has been one of the following:

    1) Entirely ignore the posts with the direct or indirect questions about the assertion.
    2) Claim to have already answered it / to already have supported the assertion with reason and argument
    3) Screech "irrelevant" at any thought experiment or analogy used to attempt to glean further discourse on the matter.

    The users response to this has NOT been one of the following:

    1) Actually provide an answer to requests for clarification or clarity.
    2) Provide a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to support the outright and unfounded assertion that an entity with the potential to become a sentient agent, despite not in ANY way currently being one, has the right to become one.

    As such my conclusion at this time is:

    1) My position is sound that there is no reason at this time to afford a 10 week old fetus such a right
    2) That the user fits PERFECTLY with your algorithm above of having made a claim, been requested to support that claim, engaged in multiple and ongoing avoidance tactics of that claim.

    My entire conclusion on the abortion debate, which people on the no side and some on the yes side take issue with but currently without any foundation I am aware of, is that there is no basis to afford rights, or moral and ethical concern, to an entity that is not sentient, has never been sentient, and is a significant period of time away from ever potentially being sentient. And there is even LESS reason to afford it such things to the detriment of the rights, freedoms, well being and choices of the only actual sentient agent in the equation. The pregnant woman.

    And "oooo look its tongue flaps when you play it music and that makes me and a couple of people think it looks like it is trying to speak" is certainly not such a reason.


  • #1253
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,841 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    robindch wrote: »
    and here).

    This is exactly what end of the road is doing.


  • #1254
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I however do not think language works that way in demanding 100% accuracy and knowledge. If it walks, looks and quacks like a duck then I will call it a duck.
    And thus far, everybody's complaining that there's a duck on the loose, but as of yet, nobody's done the grunt work and pointed out where the walking, looking and quacking is taking place.


  • #1255
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,357 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Except the ones that have, including me just above. And including the people who quoted the user claiming not to have called abortion murder, and then quoting multiple places where the user in fact did. To which the user then REPEATED the claim never to have done so and AVOIDED multiple and many posts asking for clarification on whether the user CURRENTLY thinks it is or not.

    I mean if that is not pointing out the duck and its quacking and waddling, I honestly do not know what is.

    But sure I guess we do not know 100% if they did it, it might be all in our mind. Or your mind. In fact we do not k now 100% that any mind except yours exists at all. Everything outside your consciousness, including the users of this forum could be a product solely of your mind. Or in fact, a contrived show populated by AI because the rest of society wanted to give you a job to do so in a kind of Truman Style Fashion they constructed an AI forum of nobodies and asked you to moderate it. :)

    And sure as the theists around here tell us all the time, we can not prove 100% god does not exist. Guess the burden of proof is on us to prove it doesn't exist, and we should all be theists now :p

    EDIT: There are multiple precedents from other areas of the forum with the user in question however. Moderators on other areas of the forum noticed that many users were demanding an answer to a particular question and the user in question was refusing to do so. So in each case the moderator (I can find the post where the mod did it if you want me to, might take some time) realised the only way to allow meaningful conversation to continue, and the thread not to descend into the very mess we have here........... he had to give the user in question a simple choice. Either address the question or do not post on the thread again.

    The user, acknowledging I guess that they could not back up their position, chose of their own volition to simply not post on the thread again.


  • #1256
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    robindch wrote: »
    And thus far, everybody's complaining that there's a duck on the loose, but as of yet, nobody's done the grunt work and pointed out where the walking, looking and quacking is taking place.

    end of the road posted here that he never said that abortion is murder.
    3 posts later, robarmstrong posted this list of his 12 previous posts where he clearly did. end of the road never admitted his mistake or tried to defend himself in that thread.

    end of the road repeated the claim they never said abortion was murder in this thread (here, about two weeks after robarmstrong's list) and has continued to maintain that despite robarmstrong's contradictory posts which have been repeatedly reminded to him and without addressing them. (The closest and possibly only attempt was to recently wave them away as out of context, but as ohnonotgmail showed, that was not the case at all).

    To quote nozzferrahhtoo:
    Claiming not to have used the term "murder" on a forum where people have multiple times quoted multi posts of them having used the term "Murder" crosses a line in lying for me though. Lying when people might buy the lie is one thing. Lying while metaphorically standing beside the truth in black and white clearly readable text though? Thats just treating the audience like the gullible non thinking idiots one apparently thinks they are.

    You might be able to get a constructive discussion from the first kind of liar, assuming they admit their wrong doing once you can prove it. The second one, who lie regardless of conclusive evidence being presented for all to see? What useful discussion can you have with who will never address a contradiction, no matter how conclusive?


  • #1257
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1258
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,525 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    In my own head I now refer to end of the road as the Trump generation,
    The type of person that outright gives false info, is called out on it but flat out refuses to acknowledge their lie by dodging any question.

    Its a pretty pathetic mindset to have


  • #1259
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1260
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    end of the road posted here that he never said that abortion is murder.
    3 posts later, robarmstrong posted this list of his 12 previous posts where he clearly did. end of the road never admitted his mistake or tried to defend himself in that thread.
    In the post you quote, end-of-the-road does not deny making a claim that "abortion is murder", but does deny making a different claim that he/she has "never said that all abortion is murder":
    end-of-the-road wrote: »
    i know i and most no voters on here have never said all abortion is murder.
    I've gone through each of roboarmstrong's list and I can't find any post in which end claims that "all abortion is murder", though perhaps four or five of them are sufficiently poorly-phrased that they do not exclude that interpretation, or could be read so as to imply that end's belief may reasonable be assumed to be that all abortion is murder. In this case, there was no "mistake" for end-of-the-road to admit to, and no case to defend himself/herself against, since end never stated what you claim he/she stated.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    end of the road repeated the claim they never said abortion was murder in this thread (here
    In that post, Cabaal says that neither the no-side nor end used the term "murder" and end claimed otherwise. End's claim is demonstrably false as roboarmstrong has shown, though the fact that end immediately contradicted himself/herself on the next line ("we don't as it wasn't false.") suggests a possibility that end may have been careless in the first line of the reply. End also claimed that the no-side were "truthful and factual" during the campaign, another patently false claim which saw me making a rare foray into this thread to disprove (here and here).
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The closest and possibly only attempt was to recently wave them away as out of context, but as ohnonotgmail showed, that was not the case at all
    ohnonotgmail asked end to justify a post and so far as I can see, end ignored the request. It would have been better for end to address the question and ideally, answer it.

    Summary - on the sole basis of your post, you have misrepresented end-of-the-road once, end-of-the-road has made three false claims, each of of which has been rebutted adequately and so far as I can see, end-of-the-road has not repeated any of the false claims, so it seems fair to assume that end-of-the-road has accepted the rebuttals. And end-of-the-road has ignored one reasonable question (was it repeated?) On the basis of what's here, I'm afraid that I don't see that this requires any major moderator intervention, though I would suggest that both sides could do better than to concern themselves with the use of a single emotive term "murder", since it does not make for a peaceful or worthwhile discussion. If anybody wishes to dispute this decision, please feel free to take it to dispute resolution. If somebody wishes to report other posts for violations of the forum charter, please do so and they'll be reviewed - note that a report will be more likely to be actioned if it contains a clear violation of the forum charter.

    The final general claim which nozzferrahhtoo and others have made about end-of-the-road being a generally annoying poster? Well, I wouldn't disagree with that, but it's not specifically against the forum charter either and as in a post the other day, it may well be worth tightening up some of the charter text to make it a little clearer that the A+A is for discussion more based upon evidence and reason and less upon the use of emotive rhetoric. Though again, I have to say that your friendly moderators have little wish to step in and micromanage a discussion in the same fashion as I have done in this post - it takes ages and there are more productive uses of everybody's time.

    As regards the moderation of this thread, over the last few weeks, I've stepped in to correct a misrepresentation here, and have made four requests or implied requests to tone down language here, here, here and here - usually, this thread moves along well without that kind of moderator intervention and those kind of requests to tone down language.

    Thanking youze.


  • Advertisement
  • #1261
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ....... wrote: »
    And the fact that posts have been deleted that clearly show the lies. [...] Are we in the business of rewriting history now on boards.ie?
    On rereading the posts while transferring them to the feedback forum, I now see this post in which you claim that posts have been deleted which materially alter the discussion.

    I'm not sure what posts you're referring to since the abortion discussion thread registers only four deleted posts since the 24th of July - two deleted by end-of-the-road, both of which contain denials of wrongdoing and neither of which contains useful content; one deleted by me which was a duplicate of a post by uptherebels; and a post of mine which I deleted as a duplicate.

    Could you say exactly what you mean about deleted posts which "clearly show the lies"?


  • #1262
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    robindch wrote: »
    Summary - on the sole basis of your post, you have misrepresented end-of-the-road once, end-of-the-road has made three false claims, each of of which has been rebutted adequately and so far as I can see, end-of-the-road has not repeated any of the false claims, so it seems fair to assume that end-of-the-road has accepted the rebuttals. And end-of-the-road has ignored one reasonable question (was it repeated?) On the basis of what's here, I'm afraid that I don't see that this requires any major moderator intervention

    I did not misrepresent end-of-the-road. The difference between "all abortion is murder" and "abortion is murder" is so semantically irrelevant that end-of-the-road themselves never tried to use the difference to defend themselves against the original accusation. As you point out, even when Cabaal repeated the more general accusation that end-of-the-road said "abortion is murder", end-of-the-road just reasserted that it was murder. It wasn't until over two weeks after Cabaals post that he tried to claim he was taken out of context and ohnonotgmails post showed that wasn't the case.

    And, btw, he is still repeating those other claims weeks after you disproving them:
    end of the road wrote: »
    those individuals were responsible for their own actions and behaviour and they don't change the fact that the [No] campaign was ultimately factual.
    end of the road wrote: »
    [the No Campaign made] a fantastic case as in it consisted of nothing but facts and reality, thousands of factually accurate posters, appeals to reality and the facts, and millions in legitimately given donations from philanthropists who want to protect the unborn and who care for both them and their mothers.

    So to summarise-
    - He made a false claim about never saying abortion was murder, was proven wrong and still makes those claims.
    - He made a false claim about the No campaign being truthful and factual, was proven wrong and still makes those claims.
    - And ohnonotgmails reasonable question was only asked once because end-of-the-road only once tried to make the (false) claim that he was taken out of context.


  • #1263
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,587 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I did not misrepresent end-of-the-road. The difference between "all abortion is murder" and "abortion is murder" is so semantically irrelevant that end-of-the-road themselves never tried to use the difference to defend themselves against the original accusation. As you point out, even when Cabaal repeated the more general accusation that end-of-the-road said "abortion is murder", end-of-the-road just reasserted that it was murder. It wasn't until over two weeks after Cabaals post that he tried to claim he was taken out of context and ohnonotgmails post showed that wasn't the case.

    And, btw, he is still repeating those other claims weeks after you disproving them:



    So to summarise-
    - He made a false claim about never saying abortion was murder, was proven wrong and still makes those claims.
    - He made a false claim about the No campaign being truthful and factual, was proven wrong and still makes those claims.
    - And ohnonotgmails reasonable question was only asked once because end-of-the-road only once tried to make the (false) claim that he was taken out of context.


    I was going to post something about the mod reply yesterday but i didnt bother. It is clear to me that they have no intention of addressing the problem.


  • #1264
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I get that we don't want discussions to fall into emotive accusations being thrown around, it won't make for good discussions. Even if someone out and out lies, it is better for the discussion if that is dealt with by reporting the post and under the things like soapboxing and trolling, which it generally falls under anyway.

    I also get that it is great that this forum is as open and tolerant as possible of different opinions, posters and posting styles, even if they might be annoying. But we shouldn't be reluctant of calling out negative posters and negative posting styles for fear of losing our appearance of total openness. This issue comes up not irregularly in this forum because our openness constantly skirts the paradox of tolerance. Just because they might decry oppression, doesn't mean we must tolerate those who come here only to oppress discussion.


  • #1265
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    So what happens now if a certain poster has been highlighted as a trouble-maker? Surely if they cannot contribute constructively to a discussion they should have that privilege removed, correct?

    As they have been outed as lying, making false claims and not engaging in good faith repeatedly.

    Why not address the problem?


  • #1266
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,841 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    So what happens now if a certain poster has been highlighted as a trouble-maker? Surely if they cannot contribute constructively to a discussion they should have that privilege removed, correct?

    As they have been outed as lying, making false claims and not engaging in good faith repeatedly.

    Why not address the problem?
    I brought this point up in July and was told that a mild overhaul of the forum charter was going to be done to address posting styles like endoftheroad's.

    Apparently that went nowhere.


  • Advertisement
  • #1267
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    King Mob wrote: »
    Apparently that went nowhere.
    Your friendly moderators team did point out a number of charter-compliant ways of dealing with annoying posters last time this issue came up during the summer, but these suggestions were not added to the forum charter for a variety of reasons.

    Given that the issue has come up again, I posted the following clarification earlier on today and trust that this explains what posters can do to limit the ability of evasive posters to disrupt orderly discussion:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108404644&postcount=8401
    robindch wrote:
    What is an actionable item is a poster who makes an unambiguous claim of fact, who is then asked to support the claim with evidence, and who then fails to do so within some time limit (a week seems reasonable). While it's not in the charter, your friendly moderators are willing to step in at that point and explain to the poster who made the original claim, that he/she has not been able to sustain it, and the claim therefore lapses and will not be allowed make that now-unsubstantiated claim again under threat of some moderatorly action.

    Please note that for the moderators to be able to judge whether a claim has been substantiated, the moderators need much more than a complaint of the form "poster X is not answering a question about Y".

    Instead, the mods need to see a link to one or more posts in which some poster makes a clear and unambiguous claim, then the mods need to see links to one or posts with a request to substantiate the claim, and then they need to see either a) links to posts by the original claimant which avoids or otherwise fails to substantiate the claim, or b) a thread with a clear absence of supporting evidence provided by the original claimant. Then, the mods have enough to work with and will be happy to step in and mark the original claim, and any subsequent instance of it, as unsubstantiated. Repeated postings of unsubstantiated claims will be treated as soap-boxing and will be treated with according to point (3) in the forum charter.
    The above is under discussion with the moderator team who hope to have a resolution of this issue complete within the next few days.


  • #1268
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    robindch wrote: »
    Your friendly moderators team did point out a number of charter-compliant ways of dealing with annoying posters last time this issue came up during the summer, but these suggestions were not added to the forum charter for a variety of reasons.

    Given that the issue has come up again, I posted the following clarification earlier on today and trust that this explains what posters can do to limit the ability of evasive posters to disrupt orderly discussion:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108404644&postcount=8401

    The above is under discussion with the moderator team who hope to have a resolution of this issue complete within the next few days.

    Why should posters limit the ability of evasive posters to disrupt orderly discussion?

    Why can't yano, moderators, as moderators - limit the ability of those disrupting orderly discussion? It's kind of what you're volunteering to do, so why not just do it?

    Why the whole song and dance about it? There is a poster that does nothing but disrupt orderly discussion.

    Do something about it, it's honestly that simple.


  • #1269
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,813 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    robindch wrote:
    What is an actionable item is a poster who makes an unambiguous claim of fact, who is then asked to support the claim with evidence, and who then fails to do so within some time limit (a week seems reasonable). While it's not in the charter, your friendly moderators are willing to step in at that point and explain to the poster who made the original claim, that he/she has not been able to sustain it, and the claim therefore lapses and will not be allowed make that now-unsubstantiated claim again under threat of some moderatorly action.

    Please note that for the moderators to be able to judge whether a claim has been substantiated, the moderators need much more than a complaint of the form "poster X is not answering a question about Y".

    Instead, the mods need to see a link to one or more posts in which some poster makes a clear and unambiguous claim, then the mods need to see links to one or posts with a request to substantiate the claim, and then they need to see either a) links to posts by the original claimant which avoids or otherwise fails to substantiate the claim, or b) a thread with a clear absence of supporting evidence provided by the original claimant. Then, the mods have enough to work with and will be happy to step in and mark the original claim, and any subsequent instance of it, as unsubstantiated. Repeated postings of unsubstantiated claims will be treated as soap-boxing and will be treated with according to point (3) in the forum charter.

    just for some clarification -
    point a above
    " links to posts by the original claimant which avoids or otherwise fails to substantiate the claim"
    So after providing
    "the mods need to see a link to one or more posts in which some poster makes a clear and unambiguous claim, then the mods need to see links to one or posts with a request to substantiate the claim"
    point a means that the poster needs to make the claim again?
    needs to say they aren't going to substantiate?
    or just keeps posting the thread without acknowledging the request for clarification but without repeating the claim while not retracting either?


  • #1270
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    uptherebels wrote: »
    just for some clarification - [...] point a means that the poster needs to make the claim again? needs to say they aren't going to substantiate? or just keeps posting the thread without acknowledging the request for clarification but without repeating the claim while not retracting either?
    Nope, some poster makes a claim, somebody then calls out the claimant on the claim, the claimant then fails one way or another to substantiate the claim over some fairly short period of time, somebody then reports the post to a moderator who can step in and adjudicate on whether the point has been substantiated or not. An unsubstantiated claim lapses and if the claimant subsequently repeats the unsubstantiated claim, the moderator can take action. That action could be one or more of - delete the post containing the unsubstantiated claim, edit the post, card the poster, ask for substantiating evidence and so on.

    It's a little involved, but it does provide a means, within the general charter and within the bounds of reasonable discussion, for posters who feel that other posters are unfairly making unsubstantiated claims to take some action to reduce them, without the moderators needing to judge upon the facts concerned (which could be a major moderator timesink).

    I hope this clarifies things.


  • #1271
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    robindch wrote: »
    Soapboxing certainly is against the forum rules, however no forum poster has yet complained about it, so you will understand that your friendly moderators cannot action a report which has not been made.

    Complaints against a particular poster and their posting style (so yes, people have complained about it).
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108276072&postcount=8180

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107430776&postcount=1230

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106846942&postcount=4375

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106473657&postcount=3731

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105999135&postcount=1395

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105989323&postcount=1339

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107606471&postcount=7791

    Times the particular user was warned/threadbanned for utilizing the same posting style they continue to use in latest discussions -

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106865192&postcount=4424

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106522534&postcount=3835

    So as you can see, people have actually complained about it, there was action taken and instead of actually changing their posting style, they continued to post the same until threadbanned by that particular mod. The poster then simply went to another thread related to the topic and began the cycle anew.

    So there's evidence of complaints against that particular posting style, reports against that particular posting style and moderator action initially taken to prevent that posting style, yet somehow it is still happening, will something be done with this? There's plenty more examples if needed.


  • Advertisement
  • #1272
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    Complaints against a particular poster and their posting style (so yes, people have complained about it).
    I sent you a polite PM yesterday morning at 00:42 to which you sent a stroppy reply for reasons which are not clear to me, beyond at least, your irritation that another poster would not be subject to moderator action without due process.

    Please reread my PM carefully and get back to me privately if you have any questions about the procedure outlined in that PM. This topic is closed in this feedback thread.

    thanks.


  • #1273
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,587 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    robindch wrote: »
    I sent you a polite PM yesterday morning at 00:42 to which you sent a stroppy reply for reasons which are not clear to me, beyond at least, your irritation that another poster would not be subject to moderator action without due process.

    Please reread my PM carefully and get back to me privately if you have any questions about the procedure outlined in that PM. This topic is closed in this feedback thread.

    thanks.

    How about actually investigating the complaints made? You declare the topic closed but you haven't actually done anything.


  • #1274
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    How about actually investigating the complaints made? You declare the topic closed but you haven't actually done anything.
    I've declared the topic closed in public from robarmstrong who, were it not Christmas this week, would probably have earned more than a card for his/her textbook incivility. The topic is not closed from robarmstrong in private as requested, and neither is it closed from other posters in public - that last point should have made clearer above.

    For the sake of clarity:
    • Being a pain-in-the-neck poster is not against the forum charter. If you find somebody's posts to be intolerably annoying, boards offers the 'ignore' facility which will hide posts from the selected poster.
    • One poster misinterpreting another poster's posts is not against the forum charter. If misinterpretation happens regularly, then it could be possible that the first poster was intentionally or unintentionally unclear, just as it could be possible that the second poster is intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreting the first. If a poster misinterprets a well-phrased clarification of a post which misinterprets a well-phrased point, then a mod can step in where a clear report is made which includes a link to each post (the point, the misinterpretation, the clarification and the second misinterpretation). Please note that your friendly mod team will not read through large numbers of posts in order to find somebody's problem. If a poster has a problem with another poster, it must be documented in a fashion which makes it possible to adjudicate upon within the bounds of the charter.
    • While soap-boxing (the repetition of one or more common tropes, usually in the same tedious fashion) is against the forum charter, repeatedly making similar points in response to similar issues is not. This applies equally to both sides of the discussion.
    • Yes, there are posters who engage in troll-like or other borderline, contra-charter behaviour and it is usually difficult to adjudicate fairly. If you find yourself to be somebody who gets endlessly riled by one poster, then it really is best to put them on ignore, go grab a coffee and move on. Boards does not really include much system-level support to help deal with borderline trolls and the mods have to fall back upon the wider community for help here.


  • #1275
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,080 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    So as you can see, people have actually complained about it, there was action taken and instead of actually changing their posting style, they continued to post the same until threadbanned by that particular mod. The poster then simply went to another thread related to the topic and began the cycle anew.

    I agree with what you're saying, but quoting posts from a forum where the posting of unevidenced nonsensical claims is specifically approved of by its charter isn't relevant to your case here.

    robindch wrote: »
    Being a pain-in-the-neck poster is not against the forum charter. If you find somebody's posts to be intolerably annoying, boards offers the 'ignore' facility which will hide posts from the selected poster.

    How many posters in a forum does it take who find a poster a "pain in the neck" before they morph into a troll?
    One poster misinterpreting another poster's posts is not against the forum charter.

    Misrepresentation of another poster's posts however is trolling, whether it's once or consistently.

    The ignore function is all very well but I consider the advocation of it by moderators as a form of moral weakness, an admission of failure. Of course moderators themselves cannot use it as they cannot moderate posters they ignore, so it's a classic case of "do as I say, but not as I do." is it not? I would regard the ignore function as useful for those with whom one has a fundamental disagreement, but it's not intended to be a method of dealing with trolls, otherwise why bother having moderators at all?

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • #1276
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    How many posters in a forum does it take who find a poster a "pain in the neck" before they morph into a troll?
    I don't know, but it would be interesting to understand what limits might reasonably be put on it - 25%, 50% of topic-relevant posters? At what point does that then become mob rule, especially if the poster concerned might actually make valid points which are not to the liking of the majority? That's echo-chamber territory which isn't a good place to go either.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Misrepresentation of another poster's posts however is trolling, whether it's once or consistently.
    Misinterpretation can be accidental while a judgement of misrepresentation requires sure knowledge of the motives of the writer, which is something one can never be sure of. Hence the point I made above that the first misinterpretation of a given point can be accepted as misinterpretation. While a subsequent misinterpretation of the same point, after a clear explanation has been given, certainly can be construed as misrepresentation and that's something that the forum mods can step in to adjudicate upon.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    The ignore function is all very well but I consider the advocation of it by moderators as a form of moral weakness, an admission of failure.
    I certainly agree that, politically, it amounts to a failure to enter into a mutually fruitful discussion - either on the part of the writer to write, or the reader to read. Note that some people write to sermonize, just as others read to reinforce their prejudices - neither are interested in "discussion" which (IMHO) is what this forum is all about.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    I would regard the ignore function as useful for those with whom one has a fundamental disagreement, but it's not intended to be a method of dealing with trolls, otherwise why bother having moderators at all?
    Agreed. See above for how the mods can reasonably deal with misinterpretations/misrepresentations within the limits of the charter. I can certainly add this to the forum charter if this clarification would help.


  • #1277
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,587 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    I find it hilarious that EOTR always thanks Robinchs posts. That is top level work.


  • #1278
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    So that new procedure for mods to deal with unsubstantiated claims by soap-boxing posters was put in the charter 3 months ago, with a note at the end that it would be implemented for a few months to see how it goes, so is it time for a review?
    It doesn't appear to have had a big effect on the problem it was devised to address or to even have been enacted on many times, but then again as a user I can't see how many times it wasn't even reported properly so it's hard to measure it's success.


    I do have some faults with the bit at the end, namely this bit:
    Please note that just as only moderators can adjudicate, for example, on whether another poster is trolling, only moderators can adjudicate on whether a claim has been substantiated, and therefore, whether a poster is soap-boxing. This means that posters are not permitted to each other as soap-boxers, trolls and so on - either before, during or after an adjudication. See point (1) of the charter above. Likewise, one poster should not allege that another poster is lying since a claim of lying implies an intent to deceive, and no person other than the second poster themselves can ever know what their intent might have been at the moment the claim was made.

    I agree that simply calling someone or some post trolling, soapboxing or lying is not good for the site. At the very least, it is just emotive and is going to result in bickering at the expensive of discussion. However the logic at the end of that paragraph is seriously flawed. If no-one can say 100% that someone is lying, then how can anyone say with 100% they are soap-boxing (lying because no intent for genuine discussion) or trolling (lying because intent is to inflame)? Mods do this all the time, so it is possible in certain circumstances.
    And the reason I bring this up is that it appears that this logic is making it harder to get rid of soap-boxers. It seems like way too much leniency is given to soap-boxers under the assumption that their poorly- or weasel- worded claims don't actually mean what every other poster on the forum took them to mean.
    Again, I agree that posters just calling other posters liars or soap-boxers or trollers won't be conductive to discussion either, but not acting on it when people do soap-box (or troll or lie) is only going to kill discussion. Even if you think they deserve the leniency and the benefit of the doubt, if their posting style repeatedly has nearly every other poster assuming they mean one thing, but they actually mean another very slightly different thing (which they can't bother to even explain), then there is a problem with their posting style that needs intervention for the sake of continued discussion in the forum.

    That leads into a suggestion that I've seen that I strongly disagree with: the notion that ultimately posters should use the "ignore" function instead of these kinds of posts being addressed either way (recent mod example here specifically mentioning posting styles). This is a discussion forum, not facebook, ignoring posters is not conductive to discussion and I see it as a complete abdication of responsibilities for mods to suggest that users should use the "ignore" function rather than actually fix the issues of soap boxing (a poster making claims but not supporting them when asked to) or trolling (a poster constantly using weasel words to re-interpret their original claim to pretend contradiction isn't valid) that leads them to suggest it. To put it simply, if we are ultimately going to be told to ignore someone, then why even bother have mods when you can just ignore everything?


    We had a problem a while back of a few posters nit-picking posts to death and just killing discussions and this forum because of it, and it was only solved when those posters were directly dealt with.
    We know seem to have a problem with posters getting away making massive claims and not having to substantiate them properly and the softly softly approach doesn't seem to be helping.


  • #1279
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ....... wrote: »
    OK - the posts on this thread alone, where the poster has made many unsubstantiated claims, and in a very recent post where they claimed that they had said something they hadnt. Are you really saying that you cant see it?
    Your moderators would like posters to substantiate the claims they're making, ideally in line with the procedure which has been put in place to deal with this type of claim. So far, almost nobody's managed to do this - either suggesting that the procedure is unworkable or the claims cannot be substantiated. Since some posters have made the effort and run the procedure, your moderator team is happy that the procedure can work.

    Your friendly moderators are not, however, going to micromanage debate to the extent of doing the work of debating for people taking part in it, nor are the moderator going to evaluate every truth-claim since the abortion thread(s) are full of claim and counter-claim - that's what the discussion is about.

    If some poster feels that some other posters is violating the rules of polite discussion, then the onus is upon the first poster to substantiate the claim so that the issue can be dealt with in line with the forum rules - which I hope are clear enough.


  • #1280
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    robindch wrote: »
    If some poster feels that some other posters is violating the rules of polite discussion, then the onus is upon the first poster to substantiate the claim so that the issue can be dealt with in line with the forum rules - which I hope are clear enough.

    Is avoiding substantiating claims not violating the rules of polite discussion?

    I cannot point to posts that dont exist, and they dont exist because the poster in question ignores all requests to substantiate their claims.

    What exactly would you like to be produced to "prove" this to you? Its all there in the thread - the evidence is before all of us?


  • #1281
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    But the procedure has been deemed unworkable, as there is a note from the user Mark Hamill in the A&A feedback thread from a few weeks ago that hasn't been acknowledged.

    This isn't the place to be discussing moderator action in-thread so I suggest we take a discussion there, but there is an unanswered post (with some valid points & feedback) from a user that isn't addressed or acknowledged (at least visibly).

    It's a bit silly to ask us to do the leg work for the procedure but not openly acknowledge or address a query relating to it in the A&A feedback thread, it implies that again (how a lot of us feel) the "friendly moderators" aren't too pushed on responding or seeking an amicable resolution.


  • Advertisement
  • #1282
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ....... wrote: »
    I cannot point to posts that dont exist, and they dont exist because the poster in question ignores all requests to substantiate their claims. What exactly would you like to be produced to "prove" this to you? Its all there in the thread - the evidence is before all of us?
    It's all there, clearly documented in the forum procedure, specifically, the sixth paragraph which I'm going to include here since I'm not fully sure how many people have actually read it:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108564307&postcount=6
    robindch wrote:
    For the moderators to be able to judge whether a claim has been substantiated, the moderators need to see more than a complaint of the form "poster X is not answering a question about Y". Instead, the moderators need to see a) a link to a claimant's original claim; b) a subsequent link, within a short period of time, to a post in which another poster requests the claimant substantiate the claim; c) Then, either c.1) links to posts by the original claimant which fail to substantiate the claim, or c.2) a link to a thread with a clear absence of supporting evidence provided by the original claimant. It would be best if any report concerning an allegedly unsubstantiated claim would contain all three links (a, b and c.1 or c.2), so that moderators have all the information they need to adjudicate within a single place.
    It really does help here if people ask a simple question and politely follow-up for a meaningful response. What tends to happen instead is that a poster makes a claim, the poster is asked to provide substantiating evidence, the poster doesn't, then people start making unhelpful, counter-charter comments, thereby losing whatever high moral ground upon which they might have believed themselves perched.


  • #1283
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It doesn't appear to have had a big effect on the problem it was devised to address or to even have been enacted on many times, but then again as a user I can't see how many times it wasn't even reported properly so it's hard to measure it's success.
    Off the top of my head, I'd say that perhaps five or six posters have tried to follow the charter update. The remainder have failed to follow the procedure - either by sending in links to posts which do not say what the poster claims they are saying, or by providing a mass of useless information, bickering unpleasantness or much else besides, which is impossible to work through.

    Of the five or six who've tried to follow the procedure, two have managed it correctly, sufficient that a moderator has been able to find in one direction or another. I'm a little surprised that what seems to me to be a fairly simple procedure seems to be so hard to follow - find a claim, find a request to substantiate that claim, find where that claim wasn't substantiated, put all three links into a post and submit it. Can somebody please let me know the point at this becomes too hard to do? It's no different to doing it in a discussion.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If no-one can say 100% that someone is lying, then how can anyone say with 100% they are soap-boxing (lying because no intent for genuine discussion) or trolling (lying because intent is to inflame)? Mods do this all the time, so it is possible in certain circumstances.
    That is a splendidly jesuitical point, for which I thank you, and as the charter update makes clear - moderators reserve the right to decide that a poster is trolling or soap-boxing so that the moderator can apply the charter to deal with those circumstances. If the moderator can't make such a decision, then the charter can't be applied.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Even if you think they deserve the leniency and the benefit of the doubt, if their posting style repeatedly has nearly every other poster assuming they mean one thing, but they actually mean another very slightly different thing (which they can't bother to even explain), then there is a problem with their posting style that needs intervention for the sake of continued discussion in the forum.
    That's a fair point in the case where posters on one side of a discussion are behaving with civility and sticking closely to the rules of polite debate, and where the other side is not. Unfortunately, in the case of the abortion thread, both sides are committing - as I mentioned earlier today - the same sins, though to varying degrees. In such a case, it's unfair for the moderator team to bollock one side without equally bollocking the other, or to demand that the moderators step in and micro-manage one side of the debate beyond what's been outlined in the charter update, without equally micro-managing the other.

    The creationism thread is an example of where there's a preponderance of civil, charter-compliant posters on one side of the discussion, and a tiny number of posters on the other who irritate the first group. In such a case, the second group are restricted to one thread and so long as civility (if not accuracy) reigns, they are permitted to post as they wish and other posters can engage or not as they wish.

    The same understanding is being applied to the abortion thread.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    To put it simply, if we are ultimately going to be told to ignore someone, then why even bother have mods when you can just ignore everything?
    I'm entirely with you in connection with the ignore function - it's really not what this site is about. Better instead to take down another poster's ideas by patiently deconstructing them and where some poster isn't behaving in line with the rules of polite debate, then document this clearly so that the moderator team can do something within the remit of the charter.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    We had a problem a while back of a few posters nit-picking posts to death and just killing discussions and this forum because of it, and it was only solved when those posters were directly dealt with. We know seem to have a problem with posters getting away making massive claims and not having to substantiate them properly and the softly softly approach doesn't seem to be helping.
    It's not a softly-softly approach - your moderator team will step in and follow the charter where a complaint has been made in line with it. Where posters aren't prepared to do the footwork involved with following the charter and prefer instead to get the moderator to do their homework for them, well, as above, your moderators aren't here to micro-manage the discussion - we're here to apply the rules.


  • #1284
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    I still dont understand why the mods cant simply moderate rather than implement this farcical procedure that has proven unworkable?

    The poster in question is behaving this way deliberately to shut down rational discussion - and he has succeeded AGAIN - because here we are yet again, with a mod defending him and the thread gone dead.

    Hats off, this poster has cracked how to effectively troll this site.


  • #1285
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,587 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    I reported a poster yesterday for soapboxing. nothing was done about it. Why is that?


  • #1286
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ....... wrote: »
    I still dont understand why the mods cant simply moderate rather than implement this farcical procedure that has proven unworkable?
    The procedure is easily workable and it's a matter of some considerable mystery to your friendly moderators why some posters on one side of a debate are unable to post three simple links to document clearly an issue which the same posters claim is universal to the point of blocking all reasonable debate.
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I reported a poster yesterday for soapboxing. nothing was done about it. Why is that?
    One link does not a soap-box make.

    I would suggest at least three posts over a period of a week or two, ideally where the issue is challenged and where no meaningful response is forthcoming.

    Also, one of your friendly moderators spent quite some time yesterday replying to other issues related to the abortion thread and did not have time to read potentially hundreds of messages in the thread in order to establish how often the single reported issue actually occurred, how and where it was challenged and what the nature of the response might have been to come to a reasonable assessment of whether the single reported claim actually did amount to a broader issue of soap-boxing.

    Again, some footwork by complainants would help enormously here and your moderators stand ready to act, once there's something unambiguous to work with.


  • #1287
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,587 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    robindch wrote: »
    The procedure is easily workable and it's a matter of some considerable mystery to your friendly moderators why some posters on one side of a debate are unable to post three simple links to document clearly an issue which the same posters claim is universal to the point of blocking all reasonable debate.One link does not a soap-box make.

    I would suggest at least three posts over a period of a week or two, ideally where the issue is challenged and where no meaningful response is forthcoming.

    Also, one of your friendly moderators spent quite some time yesterday replying to other issues related to the abortion thread and did not have time to read potentially hundreds of messages in the thread in order to establish how often the single reported issue actually occurred, how and where it was challenged and what the nature of the response might have been to come to a reasonable assessment of whether the single reported claim actually did amount to a broader issue of soap-boxing.

    Again, some footwork by complainants would help enormously here and your moderators stand ready to act, once there's something unambiguous to work with.

    And again you expect users to do your job for you. There was more than 1 instance hence the soapboxing. i do know what soapboxing is. And there were not 100's of posts for mods to wade through. There are 70 posts between the first time the made the claim and now.


  • #1288
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    I give up.

    The evidence is all there on the thread but if the mods refuse to see it then whats the point in reporting it?

    Carry on dear poster who seems to be allowed to behave whatever way they want site wide - your protections continue.


  • #1289
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck, and multiple people proclaim it's a duck well then... it's a duck.

    The fact of the matter is the process is a tad ridiculous and really over-saturated, what if the offender has someone on the ignore list and they are requesting them to clarify their point? There were numerous requests for clarification of a particular user's claim in the abortion thread, including several of myself that seemed to go completely under the radar and the user was allowed to continue on their merry way, unchallenged.

    I think the posting style, rather than the user needs to be addressed. If I say something contradictory and someone challenges me on it, proving the contradiction between my statements, I should be bound to acknowledging the contradiction or explaining a potential change in stance rather than simply stating "that's not what I said" (cue, the "I never said abortion is murder" debacle where such an individual who was consistently saying they never said such a thing, was proven wrong and flat out did not acknowledge the wrongdoing because it would "derail the thread" and deemed it "irrelevant" to the discussion).

    I completely understand and appreciate that minds change, opinions can be reformed, but a flat out denial of your own contradictions when they are in the view of an entire public forum to see confirms the soap-boxing posting style being utilized. I also would like to raise that the onus should be on the accused to defend their point coherently, rather than simply "no, it isn't", or "no, I did not say that".

    I welcome an open, intelligent and articulate discussion between both sides of the debate, I do not want an echo chamber (Outlaw Pete & please advise being 2 posters in particular who were able to hold reasonable discussions and debate valid points) as echo chambers are useless, there's no valuable discussion.

    There is no valuable discussion going on in that thread due to a certain posting style, and if multiple people are complaining about it then a discussion needs to be had with whomever is utilizing that posting style/strategy as it detracts from the value of what people actually have to say.

    It is perfectly fine to debate. It is not perfectly fine to debate if you are not willing to explain your stance, hide/refuse exposure of your contradictions and ignore those who challenge your stance. That really is unacceptable and a higher standard of posting needs to be emphasized.


  • #1290
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    robindch wrote: »
    One link does not a soap-box make.

    I would suggest at least three posts over a period of a week or two, ideally where the issue is challenged and where no meaningful response is forthcoming.

    The problem with that is the time frame and the amount of editing required, where a lot of soap-boxing on this forum tends to be very scattergun in nature. You get a bunch of similar posts containing unsupported opinion being put forward as objective fact which are challenged, the challenge ignored and the point repeated. For example;
    recedite wrote: »
    The family union, with a mother and a father, still being the most ideal situation in which to rear a child, regardless of the many other (less ideal) kinds of situation out there.
    smacl wrote: »
    Why, specifically, is a same sex marriage a less ideal situation to raise a child than a marriage between a man and a woman?
    recedite wrote: »
    Because 2 mothers or 2 fathers, instead of one of each.
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    You have just defined what SSM is. you have not said why it is less ideal.
    recedite wrote: »
    Assuming the kids are likely to turn out heterosexual, then they are better off being reared in a heterosexual family unit.
    Because kids need to be able to pick up life experience and family values from their parents. It is also important that they receive a broader education at school, in addition to the cultural values of their own family unit.[/URL].
    (Post trimmed for brevity)
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Your anecdote is fascinating. Any actual data? I remember having the same conversation at the time of the referendum and there was no data to suggest that heterosexual marriages were better in terms of childrens outcomes.
    recedite wrote: »
    Where would the data come from?
    Which countries have been rearing kids within homosexual marriages over a statistically significant period of time? Bearing in mind the human lifespan of 90 years or so.
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    we have had at least one generation of kids raised by homosexual couples. Is that not enough?

    King Mob wrote: »
    Um, yes.
    (Post trimmed for brevity but included a numerous relevant references)
    smacl wrote: »
    And what evidence do you have that the former is less ideal, i.e. that it leads to poorer outcomes for the children than the latter?

    Again do you have any references to support that assertion or is it is simply your own unsupported opinion?
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Any evidence for that?...
    (Post trimmed, see link)

    etc,etc,etc.... many more pages of similar repeated unsupported assertion over the course of a couple of days.

    If this doesn't amount to soap-boxing I'm not sure what does. Putting a forensic breakdown of the posts into a sequence such as the above is time consuming. Surely if a poster lists the starting and ending post in a sequence a mod has more than enough to work with?

    Similarly, are we to allow this forum to become a dumping ground for unsupported opinion? Of any forum, A&A should be able to distinguish between unsubstantiated belief and assertion supported by credible evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • #1291
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,357 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I find it hilarious that EOTR always thanks Robinchs posts. That is top level work.

    Wasn't he told he would be carded if he did not stop doing that? Or did I dream that entirely?


  • #1292
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,357 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    There is a trolling 101 play that would be chapter 1 of the trolling handbook if such a thing were to exist.

    Basically it goes like this:

    1) X makes a load of assertions.
    2) X then ignores the rebuttals from poster Y about those assertions.
    3) X will than claim later to have addressed the rebuttals from Y when X patently and demonstrably did not.
    4) X will then wait until the user Y talks to someone else then user X replies to user Y with the SAME ASSERTIONS from 1) above.
    5) When user Y replies to this, return to step 2 and repeat.

    It is a basic but effective trolling method because it has two aspects. One being that it ignores rebuttals entirely and even claims to have addressed and beaten them when they were not even replied to at all. Which is going to frustrate or anger users. But two the MO of ignoring when a user replies to you, but then jumping in when he or she replies to someone else, is doubley so likely to incur ire. ESPECIALLY if those replies contain things rebutted in what was previously ignored.

    The user that is causing issues on the forum is particularly engaged in that dynamic and some time ago following the moderators request to do so I submitted a LONG report with links, descriptions and more on the issue. I never got any feedback on the report. I requested just yesterday some feedback, that went into the ether too with no response.

    So I can certainly understand the frustrations of the users here as being very much warranted and justifiable. The user in question does not bother me. The level of dishonesty he uses totally undermines the anti abortion position and I am good with that. I think it works in favor of those of us who used boards.ie as part of the campaign on the referendum. This user and those like Pete and Graces did more for our side on this website than we ourselves did at times. And I will take that happily.

    But those that are bothered seem to be bothered for very good reason.

    All that said I would counter ONE claim above however from ..... saying the user gets away with it "site wide". In fact this is not so and the user was banned from many threads on the abortion topic by moderators who were able to see his behavior for what it was. Interestingly this banning took two forms:

    1) Either the moderators banned them outright or
    2) Like on After Hours the moderator noticed the "hit and run soap boxing" MO I describe above and simply said "Either back up your claims there or do not post on this thread again". And the user in question, knowing they can not back up ANY of the tripe they get away with soap boxing here in A&A, of their own volition simply stopped posting on said threads.

    So it seems the user themselves know what they are up to and even a mild moderator request to put up or shut up stops them in their tracks because the user knows, as blatantly and as well as we do, he simply can not support the egregious nonsense he soap boxes. Bans are not actually required for this user. The moment any onus is officially placed on them to engage honestly....... they simply wander off of their own accord. And this speaks VOLUMES, it really does.

    So no I do not think he gets away with it site wide. I think he is getting away with it in only very specific pockets and corners of the site. Namely here and here only. And if you look over the last 6 weeks, and who knows how much more, of the users postings you will see this is the only Abortion thread he posts on any more. Mainly because it is effectively the only one where he is LET. Maybe someone with more stamina than I have would like to go keep going back and see when he last replied to any other thread on this particular topic of conversation? I only went 10 pages back.

    Do not get me wrong I love the moderator on A&A. It is more liberal than many others forums on this site. I have seen things that get on thread warnings and thread locks in other forums get nothing at all here. I have seen things that get red and yellow cars on other forums get just an on thread warning here. I have seen things that get you bans elsewhere, only get you a card here. And I like that. And I also like that WHEN the moderators kick into action they do it in a calm and non-emotive way. With none of the "look how much bigger I am than you with all my moderator powers" posturing we might get from the like of Wibs sometimes for example. And I like the way even the most disruptive and even possibly frankly insane users do not get banned, but simply confined to a thread where they are let play (like the creationism evolution thread not to name names).

    So over all I have no complaints and mostly compliments for the team here. But I am with the other users here saying that on this particular user, on this particular thread, on this particular issue the team simply could not be getting it more wrong. And while moderation is not a democracy, when the majority of the users on a given forum who make the majority (lets face it near totality) of the posts on that forum are all unanimously shouting about the same thing......... it might be time to act on that.


  • #1293
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,841 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    robindch wrote: »
    The procedure is easily workable and it's a matter of some considerable mystery to your friendly moderators why some posters on one side of a debate are unable to post three simple links to document clearly an issue which the same posters claim is universal to the point of blocking all reasonable debate.One link does not a soap-box make.
    Well for me, the last time I tried this:
    I was left for a week with no information about the decision taken.
    When I followed up and asked for clarification, I was told that my complaint was invalid because of technicalities and "reasonable interpretation" while also tacitly acknowledging that said poster was using "careful" language.
    I was also told that the tactic ignoring points and questions was "borderline" yet acceptable.

    I also was one of the people who did manage to use the process successfully.
    However I was not satisfied with the result. As firstly it took around 2 weeks to be resolved, from the time the offending post was made till the final mod message was made on the thread. By that time the offending poster had denied he ever made the claim he did and flitted off long before he was told not the make that claim again.
    Secondly, it required a lot of copy and pasting, formatting and explanation in the reporting box, while simply reading the thread would have been quicker and easier for all involved.

    It has also proved ineffective as that same poster has continued with that exact same behavior later with no consequence.

    I don't bother using this process because it's pointlessly tedious, needlessly slow, arbitrary and ultimately ineffective at stopping the behavior we were told it was introduced to stop. Also I believe that if I did try to use the process, my report will not be considered fairly based on comments you have made.

    I am also reluctant to post my opinion on this in the first place because I fear that the points I made will be ignored while my supposed "missteps" or "mistakes" or issues with my "tone" are dragged out instead.


  • #1294
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,747 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I reported a poster yesterday for soapboxing. nothing was done about it. Why is that?

    You forgot the full stop at the end of the 14th sentence and there was also an incorrectly used exclamation mark so your complaint has been voided.


  • #1295
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm a little surprised that what seems to me to be a fairly simple procedure seems to be so hard to follow - find a claim, find a request to substantiate that claim, find where that claim wasn't substantiated, put all three links into a post and submit it. Can somebody please let me know the point at this becomes too hard to do? It's no different to doing it in a discussion.

    Because we never needed to do this for soap-boxing, so why should we have to do it for nope-boxing*?
    The abortion thread that was just closed up had nearly 1500 posts since new years alone, that's a lot to go back through after the fact (i.e. after you realise that the poster you are questioning is replying but not to your point). What you are suggesting would really require posters to save or bookmark, in advance, every claim other posters make that they question, bookmark their requests for evidence/clarification and then monitor the thread to see if they get responded to on the off-chance the other guy ignores them. And this can be over weeks, as some posters like to take long breaks when challenged and eventually return no doubt hoping everyone else has gotten the same amnesia they have with regards to previous requests for support for their claims.
    And then you have to prove a negative and "find where that claim wasn't substantiated"? How many posts should that take?
    robindch wrote: »
    That is a splendidly jesuitical point, for which I thank you, and as the charter update makes clear - moderators reserve the right to decide that a poster is trolling or soap-boxing so that the moderator can apply the charter to deal with those circumstances. If the moderator can't make such a decision, then the charter can't be applied.

    I only brought it up because your logic that no-one can say 100% if someone is lying seems to be influencing moderators reservation about saying if a poster is soap-boxing or trolling. Do you retract it?
    robindch wrote: »
    That's a fair point in the case where posters on one side of a discussion are behaving with civility and sticking closely to the rules of polite debate, and where the other side is not. Unfortunately, in the case of the abortion thread, both sides are committing - as I mentioned earlier today - the same sins, though to varying degrees. In such a case, it's unfair for the moderator team to bollock one side without equally bollocking the other, or to demand that the moderators step in and micro-manage one side of the debate beyond what's been outlined in the charter update, without equally micro-managing the other.

    Why? Isn't that you are for? Why not bollock both sides, if they both deserve it? I haven't read all of the abortion thread (there are sometimes bursts of activity that I miss and I don't read everything to catch up), but if pro-choice posters are making the same kind of wildly unsupported claims that some of the anti-choice posters have made then absolutely come down on them.

    And where is the micro-manage? If a bunch of posters all accuse the one poster of ignoring the same question, why can't you just step in and tell the accused to address it directly. They either then defend their claim, repeat their previous defence if they believe they defended it already or retract. It amounts to the same thing as what's in the new procedure, but without asking users to micro-manage the discussion.




    The Abortion thread Part 3 was recently closed because it broke 10,000 posts. How many of those 10,000 posts were about this issue? Not about abortion and it's issue, but to a particular poster repeatedly requesting back up for his claims, repeatedly pointing out that they don't back up claims and disagreements with mods about whether they do or not?
    How many posts would there be if it was just treated as the soap-boxing it is and the poster was quickly moderated to give a clear rebuttal/retract their claim?
    Which thread would make for better reading?



    *I'm coining the term nope-boxing, it's soap-boxing but instead of ignoring questions while just constantly repeating the same unsupported claim, you ignore questions while making different claims (or just stop posting altogether for a while), eventually returning to repeat the claim after you think everyone has forgotten that you made it before


  • #1296
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,587 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Any chance of a mod responding to the points raised yesterday?


  • Advertisement
  • #1297
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    robindch wrote: »

    Of the five or six who've tried to follow the procedure, two have managed it correctly, sufficient that a moderator has been able to find in one direction or another. I'm a little surprised that what seems to me to be a fairly simple procedure seems to be so hard to follow - find a claim, find a request to substantiate that claim, find where that claim wasn't substantiated, put all three links into a post and submit it.

    How does someone post a link to something that doesn't exist?

    The 3 link rule presupposes that the poster will attempt to substantiate a claim, if that doesnt happen then it's not possible to link to it.

    Is there a mechanism where Mods can step in when a poster has been requested to substantiate a claim but ignores it?


  • #1298
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    amcalester wrote: »
    How does someone post a link to something that doesn't exist?

    The 3 link rule presupposes that the poster will attempt to substantiate a claim, if that doesnt happen then it's not possible to link to it.

    Is there a mechanism where Mods can step in when a poster has been requested to substantiate a claim but ignores it?

    You are supposed to provide proof for something that doesnt exist. Ive already pointed this out but been ignored.

    Ironic that this is in the Atheism and Agnostic forum!!


  • #1299
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    ....... wrote: »
    You are supposed to provide proof for something that doesnt exist. Ive already pointed this out but been ignored.

    Ironic that this is in the Atheism and Agnostic forum!!

    The onus should be on the person making the unsubstantiated claims to point out where they have supplied evidence to back up their claim, it should work like this..

    Poster 1 makes an unsubstantiated statement or claim.

    Poster 2 asks Poster 1 to back it up.

    Poster 1 then either attempts to back up their previous statement or ignores the request completely.

    Poster 2 can refer it to the Mods for 2 reasons, 1 - that they are not convinced by the attempt to back up the statement at which point a Mod can rule and 2 - Poster 2 ignored the request and the Mod asks Poster 2 to provide the evidence or the claim is marked unsubstantiated and can no longer be made.


  • #1300
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,841 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    amcalester wrote: »
    The onus should be on the person making the unsubstantiated claims to point out where they have supplied evidence to back up their claim, it should work like this..

    Poster 1 makes an unsubstantiated statement or claim.

    Poster 2 asks Poster 1 to back it up.

    Poster 1 then either attempts to back up their previous statement or ignores the request completely.

    Poster 2 can refer it to the Mods for 2 reasons, 1 - that they are not convinced by the attempt to back up the statement at which point a Mod can rule and 2 - Poster 2 ignored the request and the Mod asks Poster 2 to provide the evidence or the claim is marked unsubstantiated and can no longer be made.
    The other issue is that according to what I've been told, Poster 1 is fully allowed to ignore the request for evidence. Such an action is allowed by the charter, though it's "borderline" and there is nothing the mods can do about that.


  • #1301
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    amcalester wrote: »
    Poster 2 can refer it to the Mods for 2 reasons, 1 - that they are not convinced by the attempt to back up the statement at which point a Mod can rule and 2 - Poster 2 ignored the request and the Mod asks Poster 2 to provide the evidence or the claim is marked unsubstantiated and can no longer be made.

    Agreed, or mod simply instructs poster 1 to acknowledge that their statement is an unsupported opinion, where repeated posting of unsupported opinion is dealt with as soap-boxing according to the forum charter. In my opinion it is pretty basic etiquette in any discussion that if you make an assertion you're able to support it. Entirely reasonable to express an opinion or personally held belief but unreasonable to repeat it ad nauseum as a counter to to a well supported assertion / line of reasoning. If that approach was allowed, you could simply respond to every argument with 'God did it', 'Jesus loves you', or simply 'because i say so'.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement