A&A Feedback

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I have a very simple process to propose. I propose that mods in A&A do the job that mods in other, much busier, forums manage to do. The politics forum in particular seems to manage without this process.

You propose that the mods here should "do the job that other mods manage to do".

Pardon me for asking, but could you be a little bit more specific?

robindch wrote: »

You propose that the mods here should "do the job that other mods manage to do".

Pardon me for asking, but could you be a little bit more specific?

Are you honestly asking me to explain how moderation works in other forums? Is this a pisstake?

Timberrrrrrrr

robindch wrote: »

Your friendly forum moderators are well-aware of this kind of behaviour - which takes place on both sides of many debates. That's why the forum charter is there in the first place, and specifically, why there's a process in place to deal with troublesome posters as you describe.

Am i the only one who finds this condescending?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Are you honestly asking me to explain how moderation works in other forums? Is this a pisstake?

I'm trying to engage in discussion with you.

So far, though, you're placarding proclamations - the very definition of soap-boxing, btw, in the forum charter (see point three).

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Am i the only one who finds this condescending?

Your friendly forum mods would be horrified if this were the case :eek:

robindch wrote: »

I'm trying to engage in discussion with you.

So far, though, you're placarding proclamations - the definition of soap-boxing, btw, in the forum charter.

I am asking if you really do not know how moderation works in other forums. I am asking if you really needed me to explain that to you. There was a note of incredulity in my post which perhaps did not come across.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Am i the only one who finds this condescending?

Incredibly so.

Bannasidhe

As I have now been dragged into this particular 'robust discussion' I'll add my tuppenceworth.

Personally, I don't have a great issue with soapboxing as I view is more as digging that hole deeper and deeper.
With each failure to substantiate their claims and every rebuttal containing links to actual evidence the soapboxer loses more and more credibility.

However, I do understand it is very frustrating when a poster seems to be able to hit and run with impunity and - quite honestly - not something I expect in A&A. Also that such tactics if allowed to continue for too long effectively kill any real discussions as it hijacks the thread.
Having said that, I am generally in agreement with the A&A ethos (if I dare use that word here...

) of giving 'em enough rope.

But- having said that, I can sympathise with those who have reported such instances and feel they are wasting their time.

How much rope is enough rope to strangle the whole thread?

For various reasons for some time my activity on Board was very limited and restricted to just a few thread so I was surprised to pop into A&A and see the same homophobic s*ite being spouted as I had to endure reading in the run up to the MarRef. I was also surprised to see that despite a number of posters challenging what I do think was soapboxing, as it ran on there seemed to be no input from the MODS to say either provide evidence or make it clear that this nothing more than unsubstantiated personal opinion. I genuinely expected some in thread note.

As a general comment I am a bit aghast at how things have developed on this site during my absence. AH, for example, is - in parts -an appalling misogynistic, Xenophobic, right-wing, racist, pit where threads attacking named individuals are allowed to run riot and personal attacks on posters seemingly encouraged by the lack of MOD sanctions. Perhaps this made me a bit more sensitive when I popped into A&A for a bit of adult discussion with clear, and enforced, ground rules applied without fear or favour only to find a succession of posts out of the Iona playbook go unremarked by the MODS.

I do understand that the MODS have to apply the charter - but perhaps the charter needs to be reconsidered to allow a more effective way for the MODS to step in and request that potentially soapboxing posters draw a clear distinction between personal opinion and facts which need evidence to support them before threads are derailed due to the sheer number of frustrated posters repeatedly requesting some evidence for the unsubstantiated claims made.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Having said that, I am generally in agreement with the A&A ethos (if I dare use that word here... ) of giving 'em enough rope.

It's not a particularly easy line to tread.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How much rope is enough rope to strangle the whole thread?

If you can clarify that in such a way as to facilitate both sides of any discussion while not providing too much rope that it's not possible to discuss in the first place, could I suggest you let me know and it'll go into the forum charter. I would suggest you immediately run for some senior office of state too.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As a general comment I am a bit aghast at how things have developed on this site during my absence. AH, for example, is - in parts -an appalling misogynistic, Xenophobic, right-wing, racist, pit where threads attacking named individuals are allowed to run riot and personal attacks on posters seemingly encouraged by the lack of MOD sanctions.

AH have the same issue, but much more of it and I don't envy them their positions or their (unthanked) workload.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I do understand that the MODS have to apply the charter - but perhaps the charter needs to be reconsidered to allow a more effective way for the MODS to step in and request that potentially soapboxing posters draw a clear distinction between personal opinion and facts which need evidence to support them before threads are derailed due to the sheer number of frustrated posters repeatedly requesting some evidence for the unsubstantiated claims made.

As above, recedite has been asked to prefix truth-claims which he's not prepared to back up with evidence with "I believe" while it can be omitted from truth-claims which he is prepared to back up. Frankly, that's using a hammer to crack an egg-shell, but in an atmosphere where people on both sides of a discussion are pushing the boundaries to win an argument, rather than discuss an issue fairly, it's hard to see an alternative.

Constructive input is most welcome

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I am asking if you really do not know how moderation works in other forums. I am asking if you really needed me to explain that to you. There was a note of incredulity in my post which perhaps did not come across.

Other forum mods on boards can moderate their forums as they wish, consistent with boards's general moderation policies. I've no idea what goes on over in politics and I suggest - again - that if you prefer things over there, that you stop complaining here about how insufferable things are here, and instead, go over there.

If you wish to take part in a discussion regarding forum moderation in A+A, then you are in the right place, speaking with the right people and we welcome your constructive input.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

It's not a particularly easy line to tread.If you can clarify that in such a way as to facilitate both sides of any discussion while not providing too much rope that it's not possible to discuss in the first place, could I suggest you let me know and it'll go into the forum charter. I would suggest you immediately run for some senior office of state too.AH have the same issue, but much more of it and I don't envy them their positions or their (unthanked) workload.As above, recedite has been asked to prefix truth-claims which he's not prepared to back up with evidence with "I believe" while it can be omitted from truth-claims which he is prepared to back up. Frankly, that's using a hammer to crack an egg-shell, but in an atmosphere where people on both sides of a discussion are pushing the boundaries to win an argument, rather than discuss an issue fairly, it's hard to see an alternative.

Constructive input is most welcome

I have to log off for a while Rob but I'll get back to this tonight.

robindch wrote: »

Other forum mods on boards can moderate their forums as they wish, consistent with boards's general moderation policies. I've no idea what goes on over in politics and I suggest - again - that if you prefer things over there, that you stop complaining here about how insufferable things are here, and instead, go over there.

Can you not see that that is the problem? that the forum is moderated as you wish and the wishes of the posters are irrelevant?

robindch wrote: »

If you wish to take part in a discussion regarding forum moderation in A+A, then you are in the right place, speaking with the right people and we welcome your constructive input.

This is the politics charter. It is simple and straightforward. Why can't A&A have the same?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057553361

If only people could have a discussion without taking it personally,then it would be a more mature and streamlined discussion.

Just because someone doesn't agree with my lifestyle, it doesn't mean I have to take it personally and make a big song and dance about it, then twist it to undermine the poster's integrity and liberty to express their feelings and without any dram.

It was suggested on a post I was a wanker because I am a single man and driving a vw Passat estate.

I didn't take offense to it, I didn't want someone infracted because they thought I was a wanker.
And because I'm single " I'll play the victim and be perpetually outraged"

That's not the way I'd roll, I just MAN up and accept someone think's I'm a wanker because I'm single and drive a vw Passat estate.

Looking at some people posting in A+A they're triggered by their personal life and emotions rather than sticking to facts, nobody here want's to intentionally hurt anyone, or ruin their day.

I certainly don't, but I'll walk away from a discussion when the whole so called Liberal Ayatollahs get angry...

There's no point in debating with someone who's emotionally unstable and unable to understand what a debate is.

I hope ye sort it all out...

smacl

Tacklebox wrote: »

I'll walk away from a discussion when the whole so called Liberal Ayatollahs get angry...

Could you explain that please, WTF is a 'Liberal Ayatollah'?

smacl wrote: »

Could you explain that please, WTF is a 'Liberal Ayatollah'?

I just made it up

Tacklebox wrote: »

If only people could have a discussion without taking it personally,then it would be a more mature and streamlined discussion.

In an ideal world yes. Unfortunately, as above, there are an increasing number of people pushing the limits of acceptable discussion and that makes it hard to keep all sides speaking.

Tacklebox wrote: »

It was suggested on a post I was a wanker because I am a single man and driving a vw Passat estate.

Didn't happen here so far as I'm aware and if your (friendly/unfriendly/adjective-free) moderators saw that post here in A+A, the poster would be immediately carded.

Tacklebox wrote: »

That's not the way I'd roll, I just MAN up and accept someone think's I'm a wanker because I'm single and drive a vw Passat estate.

Some people think that way, others don't. The mod team here believe that posters should be able to discuss things without feeling the need to make personal comments against other posters, or for posters to take comments personally, which were (or may not have been) meant personally. Essentially, to keep the personal side out of it altogether since nobody can agree exactly on what it means.

Tacklebox wrote: »

I certainly don't, but I'll walk away from a discussion when the whole so called Liberal Ayatollahs get angry...

No idea what a "liberal ayatollah" might be beyond the weird right-wing caricature of certain far left-wing individuals. The term does not belong in this discussion unless you want to say what you mean by it in terms not of veiled insults, but in terms of actual real life sentences with a single interpretation.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

This is the politics charter. It is simple and straightforward. Why can't A&A have the same?

Because this is the A+A forum and we've been running with this charter with minor variations for many years and, ups and downs aside, it seems to be tolerated well enough by most people, most of the time. As before, if you prefer politics, then please post there instead.

Thanks for including a link to the politics charter - please note that if I'd wanted to find it, I'd have found it. I've no idea what forum or policy differences you are referring to since you - again - are not engaging in discussion.

Thanks Robindch I appreciate your feedback, I see you're still as fair as ever in your replies.

I didn't always have a thick skin, but sometimes a bit of hardship and unexpected life experiences helps a man to grow up and take it on the chin.

I hope A+A weed's out the nonsense and emotionally driven drivel and gets back to the way it used to be....

JC was some craic

Sarky was another funny guy

robindch wrote: »

Because this is the A+A forum and we've been running with this charter with minor variations for many years and, ups and downs aside, it seems to be tolerated well enough by most people, most of the time. As before, if you prefer politics, then please post there instead.

and we are back to my way or the highway. I have to day the silence from the other A&A mods and cmods is deafening here. It does seem to run as your personal fiefdom. As for being tolerated well enough, well clearly it isn't. The number of regular A&A posters complaining about the moderation should tell you that. The problem is you dont want to hear dissent.

robindch wrote: »

Thanks for including a link to the politics charter - please note that if I'd wanted to find it, I'd have found it.

There goes the condescension that others have picked up on.

robindch wrote: »

I've no idea what forum or policy differences you are referring to since you - again - are not engaging in discussion.

Well i thought it was clear. No other forum has a requirement for posters to do the mods' job for them. posters report posts and mods then moderate.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

If, on the other hand, you declare "I believe that I, recedite, am the Queen of Abyssinia", then well, somebody might call you out on it, but the best they can do is to ask you to substantiate your belief which you're free or not to do

Em, why?
This isn't facebook, this is a discussions forum. You even said yourself not 12 minutes later:

robindch wrote: »

Because A+A is a discussion forum where you are expected to discuss things

Can't do that if mods let disingenuous users hide their soap-boxing behind the pre-fix of "I believe" or "I already responded to that (somewhere no other poster can find)" or just plain waiting a week or two and rinse and repeat.

Bannasidhe

Tacklebox wrote: »

If only people could have a discussion without taking it personally,then it would be a more mature and streamlined discussion.

Just because someone doesn't agree with my lifestyle, it doesn't mean I have to take it personally and make a big song and dance about it, then twist it to undermine the poster's integrity and liberty to express their feelings and without any dram.

It was suggested on a post I was a wanker because I am a single man and driving a vw Passat estate.

I didn't take offense to it, I didn't want someone infracted because they thought I was a wanker.
And because I'm single " I'll play the victim and be perpetually outraged"

That's not the way I'd roll, I just MAN up and accept someone think's I'm a wanker because I'm single and drive a vw Passat estate.

Looking at some people posting in A+A they're triggered by their personal life and emotions rather than sticking to facts, nobody here want's to intentionally hurt anyone, or ruin their day.

I certainly don't, but I'll walk away from a discussion when the whole so called Liberal Ayatollahs get angry...

There's no point in debating with someone who's emotionally unstable and unable to understand what a debate is.

I hope ye sort it all out...

Not sure what you are referencing here but if a poster makes a claim that same-sex parents -as is being discussed here vis a vis unsubstantiated claims Vs personal opinion- are less than ideal that yes, it is reasonable for a parent in a same-sex relationship to take that broad, biased, and unsubstantiated comment personally.
Same as if a poster said that 'all men are rapists' that should - and rightfully would - be taken personally by any of the decent men being maligned due to one poster's personal prejudice and issues.

Calling someone out for maligning the integrity of a wide section of people is not so much questioning the integrity of that poster as questioning the agenda of someone who would make such a statement in the first place - particularly when they fail to provide any evidence to support their contention.

BTW - if you want to see people being triggered use the phrase 'man up' in the Gentleman's forum. They don't like that phrase at all at all in there.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

The forum charter is enforced by the moderators as it's written here - if you don't like it, please feel free to post elsewhere.

robindch wrote: »

Other forum mods on boards can moderate their forums as they wish

Do you not see the problem here? I think this is a big aspect of whats bothering people. You can't on the one hand imply that your hands are tied by the Charter but then imply that mods can moderator how they wish. Particularly when the part of the Charter that everyone has a problem with is one you made up only a few months ago. You can change it, if it's not working. And you have what must be nearly every regular and semi-regular poster of this forum telling you that it isn't working.

I implied a simpler alternative in a post you ignored, but I'll spell it out here:

-Poster A starts soap-boxing a claim.
-Poster B calls Poster A out 2-3 times (just enough to be sure first call out wasn't missed).
-Poster A posts, but does not respond to calling.
-Poster A is reported for Soap-Boxing in normal way.
-Mod then posts, requiring Poster A to defend or retract claim.

Benefits:
-If claim is defended* or retracted (and not to be repeated), then discussion can continue.
-If Poster A claims to have already defended it, then they can find and link to where they did (or simply repeat it) and mod can immediately and easily see if it was defended*.
-If Poster B is abusing the rule to try and make busy work for everyone else, then mod can easily see if that's the case and rebuke them.
-Little to no busy work for anyone, and any busy work will only be to find your own post (either for Poster A to show they defended their claim or Poster B to show they called them out on it).
-Mod doesn't need loads of evidence or to read large parts of threads to first moderate. Posters being disingenuous will be caught out very quickly and easily, and punished for time wasting (on top of anything else applicable).

*Defended doesn't mean proven true, just at the least justified enough that genuine discussion can continue.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not sure what you are referencing here but if a poster makes a claim that same-sex parents - as is being discussed here - are less than ideal that yes, it is reasonable for a parent in a same-sex relationship to take that broad, biased, and unsubstantiated comment personally.
Same as if a poster said that 'all men are rapists' that should - and rightfully would - be taken personally by any of the decent men being maligned due to one poster's personal prejudice and issues.

Calling someone out for maligning the integrity of a wide section of people is not so much questioning the integrity of that poster as questioning the agenda of someone who would make such a statement in the first place - particularly when they fail to provide any evidence to support their contention.

BTW - if you want to see people being triggered use the phrase 'man up' in the Gentleman's forum. They don't like that phrase at all at all in there.

What's the gentleman's forum got to do with anything ?

It looks like you're unable to differentiate between debate and a fight.

I read through some of your posting history,and you're forever offended and winding a lot of posters up.

So in effect, I would never engage with someone on a forum who's emotionally driven by debate rather than intellectually.

Thus every one is entitled to say what they like, I respect your freedom to say what you mean and mean what you say.

I'm not here to get infractions or banned from board's, but it seems futile debating with someone who is frequently involved in some one getting infractions or a ban.

But if someone is driven by emotion rather than intellect, in my opinion a loose cannon comes to mind.

Tacklebox wrote: »

What's the gentleman's forum got to do with anything ?

It looks like you're unable to differentiate between debate and a fight.

I read through some of your posting history,and you're forever offended and winding a lot of posters up.

So in effect, I would never engage with someone on a forum who's emotionally driven by debate rather than intellectually.

Thus every one is entitled to say what they like, I respect your freedom to say what you mean and mean what you say.

I'm not here to get infractions or banned from board's, but it seems futile debating with someone who is frequently involved in some one getting infractions or a ban.

But if someone is driven by emotion rather than intellect, in my opinion a loose cannon comes to mind.

Perhaps you should read the conversations we are complaining about before commenting.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Perhaps you should read the conversations we are complaining about before commenting.

I read a few I myself try to stay out of discussions about sexuality, gender, politics and left and right.

I'm probably a bit thick skinned, so I don't feel like it's a fight.

I can understand why people get angry over falce accusations and bullying.

I suppose I have a lot to learn, I have come out of a long bout of depression and anxiety which went on for year's...

The last two years were good.

I'm less sensitive and able to compartmentalise the difference between an internet forum and life outside of it.

smacl

Tacklebox wrote: »

What's the gentleman's forum got to do with anything ?

It looks like you're unable to differentiate between debate and a fight.

I read through some of your posting history,and you're forever offended and winding a lot of posters up.

So in effect, I would never engage with someone on a forum who's emotionally driven by debate rather than intellectually.

Thus every one is entitled to say what they like, I respect your freedom to say what you mean and mean what you say.

I'm not here to get infractions or banned from board's, but it seems futile debating with someone who is frequently involved in some one getting infractions or a ban.

But if someone is driven by emotion rather than intellect, in my opinion a loose cannon comes to mind.

Not surprised you're getting infractions and bans as your post above is clearly attacking the poster and not their argument, which runs against the charter of this and most other forums. It is also hypocritical in that you're suggesting a poster is emotionally driven (easily offended), then go on to say you'd never engage with such a poster while doing precisely that.

.......

Tacklebox wrote: »

I read through some of your posting history,and you're forever offended and winding a lot of posters up.

^^

I suppose the irony is lost on you?

.......

robindch wrote: »

Because this is the A+A forum and we've been running with this charter with minor variations for many years and, ups and downs aside, it seems to be tolerated well enough by most people, most of the time.

But in this particular case there are NUMEROUS posters telling you that a new bit of the charter, that YOU added just recently, is NOT working, and you are simply arguing around it, ignoring what is being said, insisting that an unworkable thing is working etc...

Its exhausting.

smacl wrote: »

Not surprised you're getting infractions and bans as your post above is clearly attacking the poster and not their argument, which runs against the charter of this and most other forums. It is also hypocritical in that you're suggesting a poster is emotionally driven (easily offended), then go on to say you'd never engage with such a poster while doing precisely that.

We're all hypocritical now and again.
I could say you're attacking me by saying im attacking a poster.
The last time I attacked a poster was when I used my sister's Bros poster as a dart board.
Anyhow I think I'll leave it there.
Thanks for your opinion, it's ok for me to be put in my place.
I admit I can be a bit hypocritical, it's probably after shocks of depression and anxiety over the years.
As I don't always get it right.
I think battling a mental illness can be hard at times, but I am appreciative of your head's up with me being a hypocrite.