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
A&A Feedback
Options
Comments
-
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.0 -
Well for me, the last time I tried this: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 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.0 -
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.0 -
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?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?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 before0 -
Any chance of a mod responding to the points raised yesterday?0
-
Advertisement
-
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?0 -
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!!0 -
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.0 -
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.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.0 -
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'.0 -
Advertisement
-
amcalester wrote: »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.
Unfortunately, and it is one of the main issues with the user in particular, in step 3 Poster 1 has not been taking either of those 2 options on many occasions. Rather Poster 1 chooses to claim to have substantiated it before many times.
The poster will then refuse to quote it, cite it, link to it, give you even a general time or date, or anything whatsoever to assist you in finding where they (allegedly) did this. They just claim repeatedly that they did. Even if you are one of the few posters who has read EVERY post of the many 1000s on the thread in question and you know damn well it never happened.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Unfortunately, and it is one of the main issues with the user in particular, in step 3 Poster 1 has not been taking either of those 2 options on many occasions. Rather Poster 1 chooses to claim to have substantiated it before many times.
The poster will then refuse to quote it, cite it, link to it, give you even a general time or date, or anything whatsoever to assist you in finding where they (allegedly) did this. They just claim repeatedly that they did. Even if you are one of the few posters who has read EVERY post of the many 1000s on the thread in question and you know damn well it never happened.
+1
^^ This is exactly what is happening.0 -
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.
Really? But is the Mod not supposed to note that the claim is unsubstantiated?If the moderator judges that the claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to defend the claim, or if the claimant has simply avoided or ignored the request to support, then the moderators will make an inthread note that the claim has not been substantiated. In such a case, the claimant is not allowed to repeat the claim, unless it's accompanied by the supporting evidence which was missing the first time around (in which case, if the post is reported, the the moderator might adjudicate the claim as still unsubstantiated).nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Unfortunately, and it is one of the main issues with the user in particular, in step 3 Poster 1 has not been taking either of those 2 options on many occasions. Rather Poster 1 chooses to claim to have substantiated it before many times.
The poster will then refuse to quote it, cite it, link to it, give you even a general time or date, or anything whatsoever to assist you in finding where they (allegedly) did this. They just claim repeatedly that they did. Even if you are one of the few posters who has read EVERY post of the many 1000s on the thread in question and you know damn well it never happened.
I agree, but, if once the process is initiated the onus shifts onto the poster making the claim to show where they have attempted to substantiated it then it would cut out that nonsense.0 -
amcalester wrote: »I agree, but, if once the process is initiated the onus shifts onto the poster making the claim to show where they have attempted to substantiated it then it would cut out that nonsense.
It becomes more farcical.
If you then report them to say that they are lying about saying they substantiated their claim you are told to you cannot know if a poster is lying because you dont know what their intent was when they wrote the post!!
I mean, is there a more "computer says no" set of rules on any other website you have ever frequented?
A little bit of common sense should really be applied.
Here we are, YET AGAIN, a group of posters pointing out the issues that are not being addressed and we are being ignored, as usual.0 -
It becomes more farcical.
If you then report them to say that they are lying about saying they substantiated their claim you are told to you cannot know if a poster is lying because you dont know what their intent was when they wrote the post!!
I mean, is there a more "computer says no" set of rules on any other website you have ever frequented?
A little bit of common sense should really be applied.
Here we are, YET AGAIN, a group of posters pointing out the issues that are not being addressed and we are being ignored, as usual.
Its the words of the great George Costanza...remember, it's not a lie if you believe it.0 -
That only counts when the post is reported as a repeated instance of a poster repeating a claim without evidence. And only after a mod determines if it's something actionable. And only after the lengthy process of applying for the reported post to be looked at.amcalester wrote: »Really? But is the Mod not supposed to note that the claim is unsubstantiated?
However if a poster say only makes the claim once, then ignores every request for evidence or clarification about that post, well then there's nothing the mods can do about that.
They also can't assume that people would use such tactics in an underhanded manner, even when said posters have been banned numerous times for exactly that, as it's impossible to know someone's intentions.
Further, if a poster say uses slippery or "careful" language to avoid making a clear cut definite claim, then again, the mods hands are tied. There's simply nothing that can be done as the other poster can't possibly be using evasive language to avoid having to support their points.
In one of my cases, it was determined that the poster was "technically correct" in a "broad sense", hence the posts I reported couldn't be acted on.
Again, we were told that this new system was to be brought in to help deal with the behavior we're talking about.
This took months to materialise, with no words in between.
The mods know it's happening, but they simply don't want to act on it.
I just wish they would explain why this was the case in a clear and public way.0 -
amcalester wrote: »Its the words of the great George Costanza
...remember, it's not a lie if you believe it.
Nor can another person's beliefs be considered credible with any degree of confidence until such time as they are supported by observation. There's other forums on boards for expressing unsubstantiated beliefs centered around dogma which cannot be questioned. My understanding was that this forum was for those of us that don't think that way
0 -
That only counts when the post is reported as a repeated instance of a poster repeating a claim without evidence. And only after a mod determines if it's something actionable. And only after the lengthy process of applying for the reported post to be looked at.
However if a poster say only makes the claim once, then ignores every request for evidence or clarification about that post, well then there's nothing the mods can do about that.
They also can't assume that people would use such tactics in an underhanded manner, even when said posters have been banned numerous times for exactly that, as it's impossible to know someone's intentions.
Further, if a poster say uses slippery or "careful" language to avoid making a clear cut definite claim, then again, the mods hands are tied. There's simply nothing that can be done as the other poster can't possibly be using evasive language to avoid having to support their points.
In one of my cases, it was determined that the poster was "technically correct" in a "broad sense", hence the posts I reported couldn't be acted on.
Again, we were told that this new system was to be brought in to help deal with the behavior we're talking about.
This took months to materialise, with no words in between.
The mods know it's happening, but they simply don't want to act on it.
I just wish they would explain why this was the case in a clear and public way.
As they said in futurama technically correct is the best form of correct.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Not in the slightest. As I have said many times before, your friendly moderators have neither the interest nor the time nor the rules to step into every debate to adjudicate on every matter which arises - that amounts to micro-managing the debate which is not what A+A is for. Posters are assumed to be able to debate themselves. However, if a poster is repeatedly making the same claim without providing requested evidence, then yes, the moderators will step in as per last year's charter update. However, that still requires the posters concerned to make an effort - so far, that effort has, in the main, not been forthcoming.ohnonotgmail wrote: »And again you expect users to do your job for you.
So, let me check:ohnonotgmail wrote: »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.
1. On Monday 2019-03-04 14:56, you reported a post "THey have been asked several times now to substantiate their claim that ", all other things being equal, it is slightly better to raise hetero children in a hetero family" How is this not soapboxing?".
2. You provided no links to previous posts which included the same claim and there are twenty posts between the post you reported and the (current) end of the thread, not seventy. Or 19 between the post you reported and post I'm replying to here. You didn't link to the first occurrence, seventy posts back?, so I'm not sure if I'm looking at the right post.
3. I can find one post by King Mob here which queries a similar point to the reported post, but since King's tone was distinctly uncivil, recedite is well within his rights to ignore it (would be nice if people reported this kind of continuous (see below) low-level incivility). If a poster wants to request evidence, it should be done politely or not at all. For the avoidance of doubt, including "FFS" and "racist comment" amount to incivility. King Mob has been called out before for incivility.
4. In this post ohnonotgmail says "All you are doing now is soapboxing" despite a specific note in the forum charter that adjudications of soapboxing reside within the competency of the forum moderators alone. Since few people seem to have read that note and fewer still seem to have understood it, that note says "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.". Please let me know if this text fails to convey that one poster cannot refer to another as a "soap-boxer" or accuse another poster of "soap-boxing".
5. The thread then descended into pointless sniping (including a range of unevidenced claims by more than one poster) and discussion essentially finished the following morning.
6. Instead of moving forwards, let's move back seventy posts from post 1333 to post 1263. I see one post from smacl which asked a clear question ("Why, specifically, is a same sex marriage a less ideal situation to raise a child than a marriage between a man and a woman?"), another from ohnonotgmail (though it wasn't clear which of multiple claims ohnonotgmail was referring to), a post by King Mob which included some excellent links, a well-aimed question ("Do you have any evidence that shows same sex parents provide less stability?") and a poorly aimed one and some mild incivility, another post from smacl which was well-written ("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?") followed by another post, 55 minutes later by King Mob which was distinctly uncivil. nozzferrahhtoo dropped by to ask a civil question ("Any evidence for that? All the studies I have seen..."), more incivility from King Mob, and again where King Mob almost manages to be civil, but doesn't quite manage it, and a post by ohnonotgmail where ohnonotgmail asks recedite to reply, but not provide evidence. More incivility from King Mob. And again.
From about an hour's poking around of claim, counter-claim and chatter - recedite makes a claim and is called out on it properly by smacl and nozzferrahhtoo. ohnonotgmail and King Mob ask for clarification, but it's not always clear what for. Recedite was not under any onus to reply to King Mob's frequently uncivil posts.
In terms of reporting this, it would be nice if the reporting poster, ohnonotgmail, included a link to the first claim and to posts by other posters requesting evidence so that your friendly moderators don't need to spend a long time late on a saturday night trying to poke through around one hundred posts within the entrails of a thread trying to link claim, counter-claim and request for evidence, delete chatter and incivility and piece together enough of a reply that it can make sense in the light of the forum charter.
From the perspective of the forum charter, I'm happy that recedite made a claim ("The family union, with a mother and a father, still being the most ideal situation in which to rear a child") but provided no evidence to back it up when requested to politely and clearly by smacl and nozzferrahhtoo. Hence, any future posting of this claim by recedite without substantiating evidence amounts to "soap-boxing" and recedite may be carded for making the claim again in future. King Mob is reminded that his frequently uncivil tone will similarly earn him a card if he continues posting in an uncivil fashion. ohnonotgmail is reminded that calling another poster a 'soapboxer' or accusing another poster of 'soapboxing' is against the forum charter and future occurrences may result in cards too.0 -
A clear, succinct report which reports a single post for a single alleged offence and provides evidence to back up this claim is likely to receive a quick reply and possibly some action. Whereas, a long report containing many links to further long rambling posts and a non-specific note is less likely to get a response.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »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.
Your first report contained, so far as I recall, links to perhaps ten or twenty posts, some of them long and rambling. The forum charter asks, for soap-boxing claims to be adjudicated, for just three links - a clear claim, a clear request for evidence, and a clear response (or lack of one). If posters reporting posts for alleged instances of soap-boxing can't manage this - and most posters haven't managed yet - then your moderators will remove that section of the forum charter as unworkable for reasons they cannot fathom.0 -
Generally not in my experience since the majority of reports tend to be non-specific, and where there is some specificity, the reports tend to ignore the existence of similar evidence-free claims on the complainant's side of the debate.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?
No. It would be best for people to stick to a single claim and demand evidence for it and stick to it until the claimant abandons the claim or it's deemed soap-boxing.Similarly, are we to allow this forum to become a dumping ground for unsupported opinion?
Unfortunately, in the era of trash-media, Trump, Brexit and cynical deceit as media and government policy, the broad trollification of discussion, and two-second attention spans, this is surprisingly hard to do.
However, and though it seems likely to get worse before it's going to get better, your mods here in A+A are prepared to work to keep discussions on an even keel and can do this best when provided with clear, specific reports to work with.0 -
From the perspective of the forum charter, I'm happy that recedite made a claim ("The family union, with a mother and a father, still being the most ideal situation in which to rear a child") but provided no evidence to back it up when requested to politely and clearly by smacl and nozzferrahhtoo. Hence, any future posting of this claim by recedite without substantiating evidence amounts to "soap-boxing" and recedite may be carded for making the claim again in future. King Mob is reminded that his frequently uncivil tone will similarly earn him a card if he continues posting in an uncivil fashion. ohnonotgmail is reminded that calling another poster a 'soapboxer' or accusing another poster of 'soapboxing' is against the forum charter and future occurrences may result in cards too.
To clarify, if a poster makes the same claim at any point in the future in any thread, is that single new post considered soap-boxing until such time as the original claim is supported to an acceptable standard? If not can we make this the case as it achieves two things. Firstly, it prevents a poster soap-boxing a point, waiting for things to cool down when warned, and then getting right back up on the same soap box. Secondly it makes the often time consuming task of reporting such activity worthwhile in the first instance in the knowledge that the point cannot be raised again by that poster until such time as they've properly supported it.0 -
Having happened across this thread, I thank the mod for his extensive investigation into these complaints apparently made against me.
From the perspective of the forum charter, I'm happy that recedite made a claim ("The family union, with a mother and a father, still being the most ideal situation in which to rear a child") but provided no evidence to back it up when requested to politely and clearly by smacl and nozzferrahhtoo. Hence, any future posting of this claim by recedite without substantiating evidence amounts to "soap-boxing" and recedite may be carded for making the claim again in future.
IMO, there's a difference between expressing an opinion, and making a statement of fact (a truth claim, if you like).
Regarding the above opinion which I expressed, I think the context is relevant, in that I also expressed the opinion that "The flip side of that is that a homosexual would have been better off in a gay family".
And I also clarified here.
I am however happy that the mod has already noted the context, and has also noted these two other links which I gave (when I was still hoping to stimulate some intelligent discussion)....
But instead, the thread descended into pointless strawmanning, sarcasm, and general incivility. KingMob headed the baying mob as usual, but others joined in, such as here and here. I feel under no obligation to respond to such posts, and anyway those posts were designed to insult me, and not actually to elicit a reply.
But neither would I report such posts, because I'm never afraid of robust discussion.
Its a sad situation where the single most active thread in a discussion forum is the one in which the surviving posters are constantly calling for increased levels of censorship and no-platforming against each other.
As a possible future improvement, I'd suggest that when one poster makes formal complaints against another, a short mod note could be added into the relevant thread to say that Poster A has registered a complaint against Poster B. That way, Poster B would at least be aware of it.0 -
IMO, there's a difference between expressing an opinion, and making a statement of fact (a truth claim, if you like).
Agreed, which is something I pointed out a couple of posts back. Although when I asked to clarify whether your post was an unsupported opinion below, you simply didn't respond.do you have any references to support that assertion or is it is simply your own unsupported opinion?
Perhaps where you're making a point such asMaybe you don't know many Africans, but they are generally in the range of "mildly homophobic" to "vehemently homophobic".
you could do us the favour of letting us know whether this is unsupported opinion or something you can back up with hard references.0 -
Having happened across this thread, I thank the mod for his extensive investigation into these complaints apparently made against me.
IMO, there's a difference between expressing an opinion, and making a statement of fact (a truth claim, if you like).
Regarding the above opinion which I expressed, I think the context is relevant, in that I also expressed the opinion that "The flip side of that is that a homosexual would have been better off in a gay family".
And I also clarified here.
I am however happy that the mod has already noted the context, and has also noted these two other links which I gave (when I was still hoping to stimulate some intelligent discussion)....
But instead, the thread descended into pointless strawmanning, sarcasm, and general incivility. KingMob headed the baying mob as usual, but others joined in, such as here and here. I feel under no obligation to respond to such posts, and anyway those posts were designed to insult me, and not actually to elicit a reply.
But neither would I report such posts, because I'm never afraid of robust discussion.
Its a sad situation where the single most active thread in a discussion forum is the one in which the surviving posters are constantly calling for increased levels of censorship and no-platforming against each other.
As a possible future improvement, I'd suggest that when one poster makes formal complaints against another, a short mod note could be added into the relevant thread to say that Poster A has registered a complaint against Poster B. That way, Poster B would at least be aware of it.
I have kept out of this thread but I notice you have dragged me in under the general category of being so uncivil to you that you decided not to respond.
Frankly I find this a bit rich considering the number of occasions you described me as a less than ideal parent to my son on the grounds that I am homosexual and he is heterosexual. And yes, that is exactly what you did with your constant references to 'the ideal' being male + female parents.
That is grossly uncivil not to mention prejudice based completely on sexual orientation.
I did not report you.
I engaged with you.
Perhaps not as civilly as you wish but why should I take the high ground when I am being attacked? This is not some philosophical debate at arms length for me -this is my life and my family you are disparaging but not once did you seem to consider that real people with real lives were reading your biased and oft repeated unsupported opinion.
I do not recall you saying 'in my opinion' by the way.0 -
Advertisement
-
Every interaction with A&A mods either on this thread on in A&A has been a disappointment. I stand oveer my previous claim that mods have no interest in doing the job themselves and expect users to do the work for them.0
Advertisement