Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

EmmetSpiceland · 04-07-2020 05:51PM

Discodog wrote: »

I think the conversation will shut itself down & the forum become an echo chamber. It's already so predictable. Gradually those that oppose the toxic views expressed won't bother to interact. The disappointing thing is the way that the attitudes prevalent in CA now permeate many other Boards fora. Maybe people aren't either interested or intelligent enough for reasoned discussion ?

Are you kidding? If you started a thread about the sky being blue you’d get an argument. I know there’s a few “brave souls” fighting the good fight in CA but, even if they gave up, you’d still get a few who just wont let something go.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What is better than christ about??

Is it not something Rik Mayall said? Better than Christ and bigger than Hitler?

Have to agree with RodneyBathgate on the whole “Matt Barrett” thing. I believe I expressed my concern, and displeasure, with that handle at the time.

It was all a bit creepy and unsettling. I believe that user has now changed “names”. Thankfully.

04-07-2020 05:56PM

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Is it not something Rik Mayall said? Better than Christ and bigger than Hitler?

It looks like that....honestly i have never heard of him either before this evening :O

Like fair play and all,but knowing that reference or who varadkars parthner is,is a very very niche area for average people to know about

Either that or i lead a v.sheltered existance

EmmetSpiceland · 04-07-2020 06:16PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It looks like that....honestly i have never heard of him either before this evening :O

Like fair play and all,but knowing that reference or who varadkars parthner is,is a very very niche area for average people to know about

Either that or i lead a v.sheltered existance

It’s not a big deal that you didn’t know but, considering where that user was posting, it was basically picked to wind up the blueshirts in CA.

04-07-2020 07:04PM

"cesspit" again, my gawd the preciousness

the thing about those posters who always decry the lack of reasonable debate, who claim tisnt worth their sterling pure efforts to engage the scum with the wrong opinion in order that they may be saved from the gutter, they are almost always the type who seem to consider "reasoned debate" as one thing and one thing only:

stupid/bad people listen to their wisdom and are converted

anything that falls a hair outside of this expected pattern is trolling or cesspittery

of course there are trolls that arent worth bothering with- on any topic on either side.

of course there are plenty of patient, interesting and worthy posters that can and do winningly and convincingly set out or oppose a position and argue it with wit and without rancour (not that rancour is necessarily a bad thing, some topics are serious, some positions are abhorrent)

but theres a lot more of the "right thinking" types unfortunately. god knows what they do in real life when they step across a commoner with the wrong opinion. give them a lash of the riding crop while holding their nose, one suspects.

Hotblack Desiato · 04-07-2020 08:58PM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Not really. That post is specifically asking for a minister for children who actually has children.
It is you who is twisting it into something different

No, it's you who is choosing to ignore the obvious dogwhistle.

Hotblack Desiato · 04-07-2020 09:00PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd much rather boards.ie let the conversations take place and moderate it like they're doing. A lot of people are far too fond of censorship these days and cheer on the shutting down of anything they don't like. It would be far more shameful for boards.ie to shut down conversation because you don't like it.

It's not being moderated properly though, that's the problem. If Boards applied its own rules consistently then nobody would have a basis for complaint.

Muahahaha · 04-07-2020 09:45PM

circadian wrote: »

I don't get the whole contrarian thing. I have a family member who is very successful in their chosen career and a very intelligent person. However, he's been progressively getting more and more invested in conspiracy theories, climate change is a hoax, covid is just a flu, the EU is evil etc. He loves a good debate and was always contrarian. He definitely has some emotional issues and I'm starting to think that being so contrarian, so much to do he point of actively seeking out subjects to go against, that it's part of some sort of stunted development in his teenage years.

I didnt know Andrea Corr was on Boards :eek:

:pac:

Seriously though its a good observation. Id say people who post what would be considered to be extreme opinions bordering on racism and bigotry would be pretty contrarian in real life. Over time theyre ostracised by most of their friends and family and then they turn to using internet forums to go even deeper with their contrarian nature.

2u2me · 05-07-2020 12:50AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No, it's you who is choosing to ignore the obvious dogwhistle.

The problem is when the poster meant no alterior intent and the actual words used were innocuous; you're just gaslighting. What if you're wrong?

Or are you saying it's dogwhistling regardless of intent of the poster? That the words themselves are a dogwhistle and it doesn't matter who speaks them or in what context.

Everything and anything can be a dog-whistle.

'International banks' is apparently a dog-whistle for anti-semitism.
'family values' is apparently now 'christian values'
'all lives matter' is apparently 'black lives don't matter'
'black lives matter' is apparently 'all lives matter'

How come only one group of similar thinking people get to to define what things mean? I call bull****. We all interpret what words mean by how people use them. Definitions can change in the dictionary to reflect the zeitgeist.

When you put forward a theory in science it must be falsifiable, this is an important concept in proving things. Claims of dog-whistling are not falsifiable.

hullaballoo · 05-07-2020 01:05AM

I really like Muse and in fact my name here is a reference to that.

Almost all of their success is down to Matt Bellamy who basically does all the work while 2 others tag along. They're talented but nothing without Bellamy.

However Bellamy is a complete lunatic by many if not all accounts. But clearly a genius.

He believes all kinds of conspiracy theories and is fundamentally anti establishment and all the rest.

So what do I do? I don't agree with Matt Bellamy on almost everything but still love what he does.

Do I silence him and look the other way when he releases new music? Do I pretend he doesn't exist? Do I say ok Matt you just go over there in the corner and rant to yourself while I enjoy your music?

No.

I accept him for what he is and get on with my life. I like his stuff but I hate his stuff. I can't silence him nor should I attempt to because some things he says and does are unsavoury to me. That would both limiting for me and harmful to him (in a very small way) because I might not buy his records.

Makes no sense this course of action.

Instead what I do is I apply my brain to the situation and co exist with him and his brilliance and his foibles.

Which apparently people have been doing for millennia.

But are somehow incapable of doing so on boards.ie?

Doubt it.

Hotblack Desiato · 05-07-2020 07:47AM

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

the only reason I know his name is because of that user on Boards, don't think ive heard him named in any media reports, or if he was i wouldn't have taken much notice of it, like I wouldn't know Enda Kenny's wifes name or Micheál Martin's either

Nobody would think of registering on Boards with Kenny's or Martin's wife's name.

So why do so with Varadkar's partner's name?

Because he's gay.

Duh.

ExMachina1000 · 05-07-2020 07:50AM

<snip>

end of the road · 05-07-2020 11:28PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nobody would think of registering on Boards with Kenny's or Martin's wife's name.

So why do so with Varadkar's partner's name?

Because he's gay.

Duh.

not the case, that user did not pick that username because the individual is gay, it was just a username, picked as a wordplay given the poster is of the opposite view of fg supporters, there was in no way any mallice behind it, of that i have absolutely no doubt what so ever.

Quantum Erasure · 06-07-2020 12:11AM

there was a Martin Lanigan registered earlier this year. banned now...

KyussB · 06-07-2020 06:33AM

2u2me wrote: »

The problem is when the poster meant no alterior intent and the actual words used were innocuous; you're just gaslighting. What if you're wrong?

Or are you saying it's dogwhistling regardless of intent of the poster? That the words themselves are a dogwhistle and it doesn't matter who speaks them or in what context.

Everything and anything can be a dog-whistle.
'International banks' is apparently a dog-whistle for anti-semitism.

'family values' is apparently now 'christian values'

'all lives matter' is apparently 'black lives don't matter'

'black lives matter' is apparently 'all lives matter'

How come only one group of similar thinking people get to to define what things mean? I call bull****. We all interpret what words mean by how people use them. Definitions can change in the dictionary to reflect the zeitgeist.

When you put forward a theory in science it must be falsifiable, this is an important concept in proving things. Claims of dog-whistling are not falsifiable.

I agree with the problems with claims of dogwhistling and establishing intent. Simple solution for it though: Let the poster know that a certain phrase has this bad alternate meaning - then ask them if that's what they meant, and see (once they can't say they didn't know anymore) if they use it again.

06-07-2020 08:45AM

no

confirm what they meant

that's it

not for you or anyone else to impose an alternative meaning nor demand compliance with an ever-growing list of verboten terms

Overheal · 06-07-2020 07:19PM

How about a minimum post count to be in CA/IMHO? Always seems to be amok with what are surely on the main just re reg accounts.

ExMachina1000 · 06-07-2020 07:43PM

Overheal wrote: »

How about a minimum post count to be in CA/IMHO? Always seems to be amok with what are surely on the main just re reg accounts.

<snip>

Muahahaha · 06-07-2020 07:55PM

Overheal wrote: »

How about a minimum post count to be in CA/IMHO? Always seems to be amok with what are surely on the main just re reg accounts.

yeah would agree with something like a 100 post minimum/3 months on site to post in CA. The soccer forum has a minimum to get in and that is for good reason. Even feedback here is 3 months on site before you can post.

Invariably much of the sh1te posting in CA comes from posters with low post counts so by putting up a barrier it would hopefully discourage a good few of them.

Rodney Bathgate · 06-07-2020 07:56PM

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

there was a Martin Lanigan registered earlier this year. banned now...

Who is Martin Lanigan?

Beasty · 06-07-2020 08:17PM

This thread is to discuss the forum, not usernames

Beasty · 06-07-2020 08:19PM

Overheal wrote: »

How about a minimum post count to be in CA/IMHO? Always seems to be amok with what are surely on the main just re reg accounts.

Been suggested and discounted numerous times. It only works with an access system and that was considered one of the main drawbacks with the final iteration of Politics Cafe

Beasty · 06-07-2020 09:45PM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

<snip>

Please note you need 100 posts and to have been on the site a minimum 3 months before posting in Feedback

Muahahaha · 06-07-2020 09:57PM

Beasty wrote: »

Been suggested and discounted numerous times. It only works with an access system and that was considered one of the main drawbacks with the final iteration of Politics Cafe

iirc that was because Politics Cafe 1.0 closed down and the later 2.0 was set up with an access system and everyone had to apply. From memory just a handful of posters applied and consequently the forum became a dead zone while simultaneously After Hours became more and more political until the eventual set up of CA we have now.

The access system was what made 2.0 fail because when posters went in and saw little to no activity they didnt bother signing up. Thats not the case with CA today, its a vibrant forum. I think an access system should be re-visited and would ultimately discourage re-reggers causing trouble and then flipping accounts every few months. It works well on the soccer forum and indeed without it the place would be a mess.

Overheal · 06-07-2020 10:11PM

Or, do what is done with Feedback, and just exemplified right there: snip posts that fail criteria.

I know, I know, volume. But it could gain traction.

Beasty · 06-07-2020 10:19PM

So what happens then? You end up pushing it all back into AH, which CA was setup to prevent

Muahahaha · 06-07-2020 10:39PM

Beasty wrote: »

So what happens then? You end up pushing it all back into AH, which CA was setup to prevent

I think what would happen is that those who only sign up to cause havoc in CA would have nowhere to do so until they had at least 3 months/100 posts. It wont discourage all of them but even if it was only half of them it would be progress. AH is a politics free zone and politics is what these posters are here for, not AH. It would only get pushed back into AH if the mods there allowed it, which they dont from what I can see, anything politics related gets moved to CA pretty quick in fairness.

If a new posters main motivation is to cause trouble and engage in bad faith posting then a 3 month/100 barrier is a pretty good deterrent. It also has the added advantage that it would help clear out constant re-regs who rack up cards, threadbans etc and then re register to clean their record. They could still re reg but they would have to wait a further 3 months for access to CA, that alone is a disincentive in itself.

Again I would say that the soccer forum has shown that having system access prevents trolls signing up and immediately causing chaos like they can in CA. The soccer forum used to be the most contentious forum on all of Boards but that is no longer the case, CA easily has that title and then some.

Arghus · 06-07-2020 11:30PM

I think it's something that is definitely worth considering. Trollish re-regs are one of the biggest scourges on the site.

The forum is well established now, I couldn't see a move like this doing any real harm and it could potentially improve the place immeasurably.

Works perfectly in the soccer forum - one of the busiest forums on the site.

Hodors Appletart · 07-07-2020 07:22AM

start it from now.

allow anyone who has a pre july 2020 reg date to maintain access but close it off to new regs until they reach 3 Months slash 100 Posts whichever takes longer prevents signing up dummy accounts slash spamming for a week

KyussB · 07-07-2020 09:08AM

Don't apply a blanket-ban on new regs to a whole forum, apply it per-thread - for the threads that are getting hit by reregs - and enforce it the way Feedback does here (with maybe a mod warning in first post, and then snip posts as they are reported - don't need to action posters unless they repeat offend).

KyussB · 07-07-2020 09:22AM

Boards really needs automated bot accounts for doing that kind of thing - it's silly that such simple stuff has to be done manually still, and it leads to unnecessary/aggravating mixups for mods/users...ya though, it may not end up workable, but could nip some rereg trolls in the bud all the same, as it wouldn't have to be applied consistently (reregs is the one area, where mod inconsistency is probably fine).

Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Comments