Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Hotblack Desiato · 25-10-2019 05:48PM

Looks like this is now an acceptable standard of posting in Current Affairs / IMHO:

Basic common sense isn't required. I don't know, maybe it's all these women making decisions. They sure are a looney bunch when they get together.

Overheal · 25-10-2019 08:02PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Looks like this is now an acceptable standard of posting in Current Affairs / IMHO:

Looks like facetious humor to me

Beasty · 25-10-2019 09:33PM

One thing that can be guaranteed - with such a wide variation between what offends people we simply cannot please everyone all the time. I think though it's a bit unfair when someone heads over here to raise their specific concern simply because they know their point will get a lot higher profile in Feedback.

Specific items like that should be raised with the local mods and if not satisfied then start a thread in Help Desk

osarusan · 28-11-2019 02:45PM

It could do with mods that are a bit more active.

With the exception of Beasty, I can't recall seeing more than handful of mod actions from any of the other mods or cmods, and in some cases, I can't ever remember seeing any.

EmmetSpiceland · 28-11-2019 04:38PM

osarusan wrote: »

It could do with mods that are a bit more active.

With the exception of Beasty, I can't recall seeing more than handful of mod actions from any of the other mods or cmods, and in some cases, I can't ever remember seeing any.

Really? The “heavier” that place gets modded the more chance of its regular denizens wandering into AH.

The place is a hive of every negative -ism, -itry, -phobia and -ogyny. Yes, there are a few brave souls fighting the “good fight” but, really, it’s like sandbagging the tide but it keeps them all, mostly, in one spot and mainly away from AH.

Leave them at it.

One thing I would like to see is a way to request a thread be moved from AH into CA without having to “report” a post. I don’t want to be “ratting” on an individual poster, I’d just like their backward, and nasty, thread be moved to the more appropriate forum.

Mr E · 28-11-2019 05:50PM

osarusan wrote: »

It could do with mods that are a bit more active.

With the exception of Beasty, I can't recall seeing more than handful of mod actions from any of the other mods or cmods, and in some cases, I can't ever remember seeing any.

While we'd love to be able to police the forum 24/7, real life sometimes gets in the way. We all have day jobs (and it's not on Boards).

I checked all your reported posts this week and they were all dealt with.

I just cleaned up the Antifa thread too.

osarusan · 28-11-2019 07:49PM

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Really? The “heavier” that place gets modded the more chance of its regular denizens wandering into AH.

The place is a hive of every negative -ism, -itry, -phobia and -ogyny. Yes, there are a few brave souls fighting the “good fight” but, really, it’s like sandbagging the tide but it keeps them all, mostly, in one spot and mainly away from AH.

If the purpose of CA was to provide a swamp for all the trolls to wallow in, then yeah, great, but that isn't what it was set up for, and the vast majority in CA just want to discuss current affairs, and have nowhere else to do so.

Beasty · 28-11-2019 08:45PM

The main problem posters will be dealt with (some already have been). It just takes time to build a case, largely through an accumulation of sanctions in the forum. Posters getting relatively short bans now will find a rapid escalation if they fail to adhere to the warnings they do get

Raconteuse · 28-11-2019 11:28PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Looks like this is now an acceptable standard of posting in Current Affairs / IMHO:

Delightful. :rolleyes:

But unsurprising.

Raconteuse · 29-11-2019 02:46PM

Beasty wrote: »

The main problem posters will be dealt with (some already have been). It just takes time to build a case, largely through an accumulation of sanctions in the forum. Posters getting relatively short bans now will find a rapid escalation if they fail to adhere to the warnings they do get

Beasty, misogyny has become grim again on Boards. I mean there are enough of those women hating kips around the internet. Boards is supposed to be a welcoming place for men and women.

The Ladies' Lounge is dead now - thanks to people just giving up on it because of it being crashed by people telling them they're being irrational women and whatabouting.

A thread was started on CA about female genital mutilation. In no time, the "what about males" and "people care more about females" (clearly, when there are cultures where she will have her clitoris sliced off and vaginal opening sewn up in infancy) comments started.

One person acting in the above vein was met with this response: "It’s what he does. Picks absolutely ridiculous positions on issues and then argues his point.

Just ignore him." Hardly abusive. And absolutely correct - the poster in question is constantly being provocative. But it was the person who posted what I quoted that got the admonishment. Not the stirrer. How is that fair?

Beasty · 29-11-2019 03:17PM

Raconteuse wrote: »

One person acting in the above vein was met with this response: "It’s what he does. Picks absolutely ridiculous positions on issues and then argues his point.

Just ignore him." Hardly abusive. And absolutely correct - the poster in question is constantly being provocative. But it was the person who posted what I quoted that got the admonishment. Not the stirrer. How is that fair?

I cannot discuss individual cases. Equally I cannot read every post. This week alone I have been on 2 separate flights to and back from the UK. When I've been here I've been up after midnight feeding the new grandchild.

The below comments are not specific to this point, nor to you as a poster - they are equally relevant to everyone who posts in CA

I know the answer is going to be we need more mods and probably Admins, but the point I am making is it's completely impractical to try and follow all threads. We had a report yesterday asking to look at "30-40 pages". With the best will in the world if we devote time to that sort of stuff we would never be able to get on with our "real lives"

The only way I can continue to provide support and in particular moderating duties in a forum like that is via reports. Even then sometimes they get buried (such as from the 2 days when I was away this week. I still try to look, but it takes a bit longer. I know Mr E has also spent quite a bit of time in the forum particularly when I was away, and did a lot of cleaning up)

You have probably noticed we've had a wave of new threads in recent days, along with some of the older ones either ongoing or being resurrected. Of course we could ship some of these threads over to other forums, but mainly they are acceptable for CA. What that means is we get a lot of posting in the forum, and it does attract some of the, for want of a better term, "dregs of the re-regs" (and no doubt one of them will now try and come up with a name play on that). there is also a benefit from that in that they can be spotted and dealt with, usually quite promptly, and they do become a priority when they are on a rampage. In turn such posts encourage others to express their own views more to the extreme

I know this is a bit long winded, but in summary - report stuff. We should get to it, but if it continues bugging you report again (but please leave it at least 24 hours, and don't report stuff that's already been dealt with - you will be surprised at how many reports we see of posts that have already been clearly carded). Please though, do not take it into your own hands to call things out in thread. that just escalates things and causes us more issues to deal with. Sometimes we may think yes it's a bit extreme, but is there any good reason to sanction and/or censure, other than it does not agree with the perception of others? Also don't be surprised if posts disappear without explanation - sometimes it's the re-regs, and sometimes it's the posts responding to them. They do not deserve the oxygen even a quote provides them though and I'm unlikely to explain it except in exceptional circumstances

And to re-iterate one final point. We cater for the full range of views, within reason. Just because someone else's view does not agree with your own does not make it unacceptable

osarusan · 29-11-2019 03:37PM

Beasty wrote: »

We had a report yesterday asking to look at "30-40 pages". With the best will in the world if we devote time to that sort of stuff we would never be able to get on with our "real lives"

Not to mention any other part of your post, and just to deal with this part.

That was my reported post, and it was a typo. I meant to say look at the following couple of pages, and then, realising that posts per page can vary due to settings, meant to change it to 'the following/next 30-40 posts', but left the word 'pages' there.

I forget my exact words (next/following), but I first reported a post, then reported it again maybe 15-20 minutes later, asking not only that post but the following 30-40 posts be looked at, as the post I reported had produced 30-40 rapid responses, all of which ended up being deleted.

Whoever read my reported post could not fail to recognise it was a typo, as there were at that time only 40-50 posts after that post I reported. It would not have been possible to devote such time to look at 30-40 pages, as they did not exist.

Please don't use, and, by omitting the word 'following/next' from your version of events, misrepresent, an obvious typo as an example of the kind of unreasonable or onerous requests that users are making of mods or admins.

blanch152 · 29-11-2019 04:04PM

Beasty wrote: »

And to re-iterate one final point. We cater for the full range of views, within reason. Just because someone else's view does not agree with your own does not make it unacceptable

Many posters cannot cope with this point. For some, there is only one orthodox view of the world. For others, they cannot cope with their views and opinions being challenged, particularly when those views are based on a misrepresentation of the facts.

Raconteuse · 29-11-2019 04:49PM

Beasty wrote: »

I cannot discuss individual cases. Equally I cannot read every post. This week alone I have been on 2 separate flights to and back from the UK. When I've been here I've been up after midnight feeding the new grandchild.

The below comments are not specific to this point, nor to you as a poster - they are equally relevant to everyone who posts in CA

I know the answer is going to be we need more mods and probably Admins, but the point I am making is it's completely impractical to try and follow all threads. We had a report yesterday asking to look at "30-40 pages". With the best will in the world if we devote time to that sort of stuff we would never be able to get on with our "real lives"

The only way I can continue to provide support and in particular moderating duties in a forum like that is via reports. Even then sometimes they get buried (such as from the 2 days when I was away this week. I still try to look, but it takes a bit longer. I know Mr E has also spent quite a bit of time in the forum particularly when I was away, and did a lot of cleaning up)

You have probably noticed we've had a wave of new threads in recent days, along with some of the older ones either ongoing or being resurrected. Of course we could ship some of these threads over to other forums, but mainly they are acceptable for CA. What that means is we get a lot of posting in the forum, and it does attract some of the, for want of a better term, "dregs of the re-regs" (and no doubt one of them will now try and come up with a name play on that). there is also a benefit from that in that they can be spotted and dealt with, usually quite promptly, and they do become a priority when they are on a rampage. In turn such posts encourage others to express their own views more to the extreme

I know this is a bit long winded, but in summary - report stuff. We should get to it, but if it continues bugging you report again (but please leave it at least 24 hours, and don't report stuff that's already been dealt with - you will be surprised at how many reports we see of posts that have already been clearly carded). Please though, do not take it into your own hands to call things out in thread. that just escalates things and causes us more issues to deal with. Sometimes we may think yes it's a bit extreme, but is there any good reason to sanction and/or censure, other than it does not agree with the perception of others? Also don't be surprised if posts disappear without explanation - sometimes it's the re-regs, and sometimes it's the posts responding to them. They do not deserve the oxygen even a quote provides them though and I'm unlikely to explain it except in exceptional circumstances

And to re-iterate one final point. We cater for the full range of views, within reason. Just because someone else's view does not agree with your own does not make it unacceptable

The last part is a total cop-out (I don't just mean from you, I mean from everyone who misuses it to justify being a dick). It's dishonest and... kinda gas-lighting imo. I don't want an echo chamber at all. It's often people who use that line that do. I doubt many people take issue with mere disagreement/a different view - a minority do: those who call everyone a snowflake or a fascist. But those of us in the centre accept and respect that there are varying viewpoints. It's so disingenuous to put inflammatory stirring/being a dick into the same category as mere disagreement/differing point of view. They're not the same thing at all.

And I don't expect anyone ever to read pages and pages, or to be inspired as to what's wrong, or to prioritise Boards moderation over their personal lives. My point was the unfair moderation. Constant stirrer - nothing. One non abusive post - mod action.

And it doesn't look like a hoot is given about the misogyny anyway (the crowd on After Hours post their woman hating bile happily) but it is there, and I'm not the only one who sees it.

Beasty · 29-11-2019 07:17PM

Raconteuse wrote: »

And I don't expect anyone ever to read pages and pages, or to be inspired as to what's wrong, or to prioritise Boards moderation over their personal lives. My point was the unfair moderation. Constant stirrer - nothing. One non abusive post - mod action.

Maybe you should consider taking some of the guesswork out of this for the mods, and report posts you have a problem with. Coming over here to complain about a specific issue when you have made no attempt to even report it is unacceptable

end of the road · 29-11-2019 09:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The 'London Bridge Incident' thread unsurprisingly has become a magnet for trolls. Why not introduce a minimum post limit (say 250) for entry into Current Affairs. It would ward off the usual suspects devoid of patience, and raise the discourse bar considerably.

they tried that with politics cafe and it killed the forum, also it would be unfair to keep out someone with a small few posts, or who has even just joined, who actually may genuinely want to contribute. we were all newbies at one stage after all.
if people really want rid of trolls then the best thing is really just to ignore them, trolls are always going to be a thing on here and people just need to get used to that unfortunately, they will always exist while forums exist.
the systems in place will do what they can but i think on this people are expecting to much if i'm honest.

EmmetSpiceland · 29-11-2019 11:37PM

It would also leave AH as the sinkhole for them and then the regular users of the forum would follow, best leave them all where they are.

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-11-2019 02:54AM

end of the road wrote: »

they tried that with politics cafe and it killed the forum, also it would be unfair to keep out someone with a small few posts, or who has even just joined, who actually may genuinely want to contribute. we were all newbies at one stage after all.
if people really want rid of trolls then the best thing is really just to ignore them, trolls are always going to be a thing on here and people just need to get used to that unfortunately, they will always exist while forums exist.
the systems in place will do what they can but i think on this people are expecting to much if i'm honest.

If only people would take this advice:rolleyes:

30-11-2019 05:28AM

Make the site a nightmare to use and they'll come less. There's some vbulletin thing called Miserable Users that can cause all sorts of issues for certain users, basically banning them without them realising.

I assume it's things like forms not submitting or random 404s, log outs etc.

KyussB · 30-11-2019 09:45AM

While the thread is active again:
Can a mod/admin of CA reiterate please, that normal posters telling people "get back on topic", "that's off topic" repeatedly etc., to try and limit posters from talking about specific things - especially when a poster disagrees and points out how it's on topic - is backseat modding?

I prefer things being dealt with without posts being reported - so if a CA mod reiterates that here, I can just link to it in-thread when it happens (presumably linking like that wouldn't be backseat modding) - then it's sorted without mods ever having to know/bother with it.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 30-11-2019 12:17PM

Raconteuse wrote: »

Beasty, misogyny has become grim again on Boards. I mean there are enough of those women hating kips around the internet. Boards is supposed to be a welcoming place for men and women.

I currently have a female poster following me around asking questions like "Why do you hate women so much?" because I argued on a thread that a nonviolent mentally ill internet troll should not have received a three-year custodial sentence for relatively mild harassment of some female journalists — especially when another man who issued highly explicit online death threats against a senator received a six-month suspended sentence last year.

The same poster is also irked because I pointed out on a different thread that research by a professor of education at UCD (who also happens to be a woman) reveals systematic bias by Ireland's overwhelmingly female primary teachers, who tend to label boys as boisterous, disruptive show-offs while praising girls for being calm, mature, and focused. This encourages educational underachievement in boys that begins around the age of 4 or 5 and continues through secondary school.

But it seems that going against the grain of what some female posters want to hear will lead to inevitable accusations of misogyny and "hating women" — even if one backs up one's arguments by citing legal precedent or published academic research.

If I believe someone was unfairly sentenced, it doesn't mean that I hate women (I would have said the same thing if his targets had been men). If I believe that female teachers are capable of systematic sexism, it doesn't mean I hate women (men are capable of systematic sexism too).

The Current Affairs forum charter states: "You are free to express your views in a forceful manner provided you remain civil." This means that the forum may not necessarily be a welcoming place for anyone who doesn't respond well to having her viewpoints forcefully questioned. And yet the "you disagree with me so you must hate women" line of argument is so overused that I think mods should start carding posters who groundlessly accuse others of hatred, on the basis that that rhetoric itself crosses the line into incivility.

The Ladies' Lounge is dead now - thanks to people just giving up on it because of it being crashed by people telling them they're being irrational women and whatabouting.

The Ladies' Lounge died because of too much drama and cliquish infighting, largely generated by female posters themselves. It's simply untrue to state that the Ladies' Lounge died because of the actions of men.

Professor Genius · 30-11-2019 03:44PM

Adeline Dead Firefly wrote: »

I currently have a female poster following me around asking questions like "Why do you hate women so much?" because I argued on a thread that a nonviolent mentally ill internet troll should not have received a three-year custodial sentence for relatively mild harassment of some female journalists — especially when another man who issued highly explicit online death threats against a senator received a six-month suspended sentence last year.

The same poster is also irked because I pointed out on a different thread that research by a professor of education at UCD (who also happens to be a woman) reveals systematic bias by Ireland's overwhelmingly female primary teachers, who tend to label boys as boisterous, disruptive show-offs while praising girls for being calm, mature, and focused. This encourages educational underachievement in boys that begins around the age of 4 or 5 and continues through secondary school.

But it seems that going against the grain of what some female posters want to hear will lead to inevitable accusations of misogyny and "hating women" — even if one backs up one's arguments by citing legal precedent or published academic research.

If I believe someone was unfairly sentenced, it doesn't mean that I hate women (I would have said the same thing if his targets had been men). If I believe that female teachers are capable of systematic sexism, it doesn't mean I hate women (men are capable of systematic sexism too).

The Current Affairs forum charter states: "You are free to express your views in a forceful manner provided you remain civil." This means that the forum may not necessarily be a welcoming place for anyone who doesn't respond well to having her viewpoints forcefully questioned. And yet the "you disagree with me so you must hate women" line of argument is so overused that I think mods should start carding posters who groundlessly accuse others of hatred, on the basis that that rhetoric itself crosses the line into incivility.

The Ladies' Lounge died because of too much drama and cliquish infighting, largely generated by female posters themselves. It's simply untrue to state that the Ladies' Lounge died because of the actions of men.

Indeed. Any time a male asked a question or started a thread in the Ladies Lounge there was shrieking ‘Women are not if a hive mind, women are not of a hive mind’ and lockings/bannings/deletions/infractions ensued. It’s no surprise it ended up flushing itself down the toilet.

30-11-2019 04:05PM

KyussB wrote: »

While the thread is active again:
Can a mod/admin of CA reiterate please, that normal posters telling people "get back on topic", "that's off topic" repeatedly etc., to try and limit posters from talking about specific things - especially when a poster disagrees and points out how it's on topic - is backseat modding?

I prefer things being dealt with without posts being reported - so if a CA mod reiterates that here, I can just link to it in-thread when it happens (presumably linking like that wouldn't be backseat modding) - then it's sorted without mods ever having to know/bother with it.

yep, also ban posters for going off topic

thks mods

Beasty · 30-11-2019 05:29PM

KyussB wrote: »

While the thread is active again:
Can a mod/admin of CA reiterate please, that normal posters telling people "get back on topic", "that's off topic" repeatedly etc., to try and limit posters from talking about specific things - especially when a poster disagrees and points out how it's on topic - is backseat modding?

I prefer things being dealt with without posts being reported - so if a CA mod reiterates that here, I can just link to it in-thread when it happens (presumably linking like that wouldn't be backseat modding) - then it's sorted without mods ever having to know/bother with it.

Of course it would be backseat modding. What happens when someone tells you to get back on topic, but you genuinely believe you have not strayed off topic? The mods are there to deal with such issues, so please report, and do not take on the role of moderator yourself. If we allowed that sort of stuff some threads would turn into a discussion of where the boundary between on and off topic lies, which of course is itself off topic.

KyussB · 30-11-2019 05:59PM

Ya the latter, discussion of what's on/off topic, is usually where it leads. I don't think it's a big enough deal to report - I'll prolly just link your reply here when it happens (I'm assuming doing that is not backseat modding itself) - as that would pretty much settle it - cheers!

Beasty · 30-11-2019 06:10PM

KyussB wrote: »

Ya the latter, discussion of what's on/off topic, is usually where it leads. I don't think it's a big enough deal to report - I'll prolly just link your reply here when it happens (I'm assuming doing that is not backseat modding itself) - as that would pretty much settle it - cheers!

I've already said it would be considered backseat modding

KyussB · 30-11-2019 06:59PM

Ah, didn't realize you were stating both situations (labelling stuff off topic, as well as citing your reply here in response to that) would be backseat modding - fair enough.

EmmetSpiceland · 30-11-2019 09:14PM

Adeline Dead Firefly wrote: »

I currently have a female poster following me around asking questions like "Why do you hate women so much?" because I argued on a thread that a nonviolent mentally ill internet troll should not have received a three-year custodial sentence for relatively mild harassment of some female journalists — especially when another man who issued highly explicit online death threats against a senator received a six-month suspended sentence last year.

The same poster is also irked because I pointed out on a different thread that research by a professor of education at UCD (who also happens to be a woman) reveals systematic bias by Ireland's overwhelmingly female primary teachers, who tend to label boys as boisterous, disruptive show-offs while praising girls for being calm, mature, and focused. This encourages educational underachievement in boys that begins around the age of 4 or 5 and continues through secondary school.

But it seems that going against the grain of what some female posters want to hear will lead to inevitable accusations of misogyny and "hating women" — even if one backs up one's arguments by citing legal precedent or published academic research.

If I believe someone was unfairly sentenced, it doesn't mean that I hate women (I would have said the same thing if his targets had been men). If I believe that female teachers are capable of systematic sexism, it doesn't mean I hate women (men are capable of systematic sexism too).

Ah, come on now, buddy. Since you’ve come on the “scene”, two things I, personally, have noticed about you is that you don’t like Travellers and you don’t like women.

Now, I’ve heard talk that you used to be around the site before in a more “colourful” capacity but I’m only talking about the last few months.

You portray yourself as a, sort of, “yellow pack” Jordan Peterson fishing for acolytes. You can hide behind all the references, journals or “studies” you want but you, clearly, don’t like women, with regards to their place in the modern world.

I’m just waiting for you to start banging the climate change denier “drum”.

Raconteuse · 01-12-2019 02:52PM

Ah I don't think Permabear hates women at all, but PB you're falling into that same trap of "it's not misogyny if it's just robust disagreement" in response to me. Of course it's not misogyny when someone just robustly disagrees with me. It's misogyny when women are condemned as a group, when awful behaviour from some women is deemed typical of all women, when women are bitches for not fancying people, when spoken of like they're a flipping hole.

And then the same few always get fierce concerned about the treatment of muslim and traveller women.

Hotblack Desiato · 01-12-2019 03:09PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Many posters cannot cope with this point. For some, there is only one orthodox view of the world. For others, they cannot cope with their views and opinions being challenged, particularly when those views are based on a misrepresentation of the facts.

Outright mysogyny is just as unacceptable as racism, but there is a fcukton of it on boards.

end of the road wrote: »

if people really want rid of trolls then the best thing is really just to ignore them

Sorry but that is just completely naive.

Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Comments