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
Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum
Options
Comments
-
Outlaw Pete wrote:I didn't put any words in a user's mouth, Baggly. This is ridiculous carry on you're at here.
Two examples below.Outlaw Pete wrote:Not a chance you'd so easily believe Biden had done/said something on such scant evidence and so why the philosophical difference when it's Trump, eh? Rhetorical question of course as we know why.
Have you asked people if they would believe it? No. You assumed and made their point for them.Outlaw Pete wrote:Eh, there's footage of Obama doing what he did. All you have here is the word of disgruntled detractors, yet again. I mean how many times do you people have to face plant after believing utter bs said about Trump before you refrain from going all in on it? Well, there isn't amount as you won't stop is the answer as it is never about any of you actually believing nonsense like Trump's an agent of the Kremlin, or in the existence of pee pee tapes, or that Don Jnr had advance access to Wiki leaks, or that Trump bribed Zelensky etc etc etc, it's all about inflicting damage, has been since day one.
Everything after 'you won't stop' is you putting words in people's mouths.Outlaw Pete wrote:Funny how you had no issue with something which is clearly against the charter (attacking posters rather than posts) but yet have given me an on-thread warning about putting words in user's mouths. Utterly ridiculous moderation.
This is not an attack on a poster!Outlaw Pete wrote:Your moderation is a disgrace here. I did not do what you are saying. Yes, I used a rhetorical question to make a point but it is absurd to categorize my doing so as "hijacking the thread".
You have actually. As pointed out above. If you enter a discussion thread with no intention of engaging with people in discussion then yes you are indeed trying to hijack the thread. This time it appears so you can further your own points in lieu of discussion.Outlaw Pete wrote:I'm calling it how I see it and this nitpicking moderation is always going one way. You would never see a left leaning user moderated in this manner and no matter how many times examples are given you all look the way. Show me just once where you (or another mod) accused a left leaning user of hijacking a thread because they dared used a rhetorical question to make a point.
Haha this is crazy. You have a theory which you won't substantiate but expect me to disprove so on your behalf. You also want me to drag a user who you feel is left leaning into this discussion to be used as an example of left people being punished? It's not going to happen.
To address your point, however, I don't categorise people based on their politics. I honestly don't care if someone leans one way or another. Especially when it comes to American politics. So I can point to lots of people who I have told to rein it in, but can I tell you if they are left or right leaning? No.
To be honest with you it would be a massive problem if I was keeping score on who was and wasn't left or right leaning.
Everyone gets modded the same. There are plenty of people support Trump in that thread and because they debate civilly and engage earnestly they don't hear from the mods, just as is the case for those that support Biden. Similarly there are people who don't support Trump who have had a mod action for rule breakages.
You can actually see it happening in that thread earlier today. I'd suggest you take this on board and don't jump to assumptions of bias.0 -
Have you asked people if they would believe it? No. You assumed and made their point for them.
This is laughable. I am engaging with this user for years on Boards and know fine well that they wouldn't believe a democrat politician had said such a thing without solid proof that they did so therefore it would be absurd for me to ask them if they would do so when I already know the answer. The discussion is not taking place in a vacuum, Baggly. I proceeded to then make that point via a rhetorical question. If that user wants to rebut my contention that they wouldn't believe Biden had said something on such a similarly scant amount of evidence then that is up to THEM to argue. They don't (or at least shouldn't) need a mod to babysit them.Everything after 'you won't stop' is you putting words in people's mouths.
No it was not! Everything after 'you won't stop' was my pointing out just WHY it is that I believe they won't stop. They are examples of them having done this before! Evidence I believe it's called. Honestly, this is absurd. You're actively preventing me making an argument on a discussion forum.This is not an attack on a poster!
Calling users Zealots and saying we all have TDS is not an attack on us as users?? Fair enough, noted.You have actually. As pointed out above. If you enter a discussion thread with no intention of engaging with people in discussion then yes you are indeed trying to hijack the thread. This time it appears so you can further your own points in lieu of discussion.
Excuse me, but I am engaging in the discussion. It is ridiculous to say that I am not when I am making multiple points, such as pointing the many times in which lies have been believed before about Trump on very scant evidence and how hearsay about Biden would not be entertained. Also, the fact that I used a rhetorical question to make a point does not mean that the point can't be argued against. No mod action was needed or warranted here. Let users debate for heaven sake.0 -
OP, no action would have been taken if you were actually engaging with other users. You weren't. Your choice to use rhetorical questions here comes after a litany of responses from other posters to your points. So we have a situation where others are engaging with you and in response you are asking rhetorical questions AND answering those rhetorical questions, without engaging with those who are trying to debate you. It's a one way street. It's not debate. Where debate happens, I let it. Evidence: that thread since this morning!0
-
To respond to the other points you have raised...Outlaw Pete wrote:This is laughable. I am engaging with this user for years on Boards and know fine well that they wouldn't believe a democrat politician had said such a thing without solid proof that they did so therefore it would be absurd for me to ask them if they would do so when I already know the answer. The discussion is not taking place in a vacuum, Baggly. I proceeded to then make that point via a rhetorical question. If that user wants to rebut my contention that they wouldn't believe Biden had said something on such a similarly scant amount of evidence then that is up to THEM to argue. They don't (or at least shouldn't) need a mod to babysit them.
I have no issue with rhetorical questions. But to ask and answer the same question isn't you engaging in debate. It's you cutting another person(s) out of the discussion. If you had even left the question hang to make your point then fine I can accept that... But you went on to extrapolate what the other side probably thinks instead of just asking.... Because asking people's opinions instead of assuming them is a part of discussion.Outlaw Pete wrote:No it was not! Everything after 'you won't stop' was my pointing out just WHY it is that I believe they won't stop. They are examples of them having done this before! Evidence I believe it's called. Honestly, this is absurd. You're actively preventing me making an argument on a discussion forum.
The forum is there for everyone to discuss OP. Not just you. I'm seeing where the issue is if you can't objectively look at your posts and see where the problem is.Outlaw Pete wrote:Calling users Zealots and saying we all have TDS is not an attack on us as users?? Fair enough, noted.
The user refereed to zealots. He didn't say 'the people in this thread are zealots', he didn't say you are. He didn't name anyone. He referred to zealots as a description of an ephemeral group of people, the makeup of which is unknown. By definition a personal attack has to be against a defined person, and in context here they have to be a poster.
If you want it defined as the user meant it, ask them on thread who they meant. If it was an attack report it and it will be dealt with. Don't just assume they meant you.Outlaw Pete wrote:Excuse me, but I am engaging in the discussion. It is ridiculous to say that I am not when I am making multiple points, such as pointing the many times in which lies have been believed before about Trump on very scant evidence and how hearsay about Biden would not be entertained. Also, the fact that I used a rhetorical question to make a point does not mean that the point can't be argued against.
Howeve you were also ignoring all contrary points made by other posters in response. That's not discussion. It's soapboxing.
A rhetorical question is one asked with no intent to obtain information. By asking such a question you are shutting down discussion. Especially when you then ignore any attempts by other posters to engage with your points.
Take the warning on board. You can post your beliefs all you want and there will be no issue as long as you do so civilly and engage in actual discussion. It's very straightforward and there isn't more to it than that.0 -
This is a crazy, you're saying stuff which is ludicrous.It's you cutting another person(s) out of the discussion. If you had even left the question hang to make your point then fine I can accept that... But you went on to extrapolate what the other side probably thinks instead of just asking.... Because asking people's opinions instead of assuming them is a part of discussion.
Baggly, there were NO replies to my post and so how can you say that I was not actively engaging with users or "cutting" them out? Had they replied to my post and made an argument against my contentions, then I would have replied. YOU replied to my post before any other user, clearly responding to a reported post. You were hoodwinked and you fell for it. I did nothing wrong.
Yes, I used two rhetorical questions to make my points (one of which included lots of examples to back it up) but that does not mean users were somehow then prevented from engaging with me as a result of that. That was a choice users made.
The truth is that I had worded my post so well that I gave no room for those who disagreed with me to come up with a sufficient argument to rebut my points and that is what annoyed them. So they jumped on the report button and you did what they couldn't do.0 -
Advertisement
-
Outlaw Pete wrote:The truth is that I had worded my post so well that I gave no room for those who disagreed with me to come up with a sufficient argument to rebut my points and that is what annoyed them. So they jumped on the report button and you did what they couldn't do.
That is not the truth at all. On multiple levels. I feel I have represented my points here as well as I can. I also feel you aren't willing to take them on board, even if I had more time to spend on this discussion. So I guess I'll just leave it there.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 70849
There is a process to dispute in-thread warnings and that does not include heading over to Feedback to gain maximum exposure for your "cause"Outlaw Pete wrote: »Just received an on-thread warning for saying to a user that my question was rhetorical.
And please do try and claim it's an example of "biased" moderation. Follow the process and if necessary raise your concern in Help Desk
And to everyone, do not respond to this post in thread. Drop the issue and if you have any issues with this drop me a PM0 -
Just as a I predicted:Outlaw Pete wrote: »Now the mod can just come along when I have been reported again (as of course I will be) and say "Okay, Pete, that's enough, you've had two warnings and so you're threadbanned"
I have now been threadbanned. Unreal. You're not even trying to hide the bias anymore lads.
Careful in here folks. Giving unwelcomed feedback does not go unpunished.
This is the post I have been threadbanned for.
Laughable.0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Just as a I predicted:
I have now been threadbanned. Unreal. You're not even trying to hide the bias anymore lads.
Careful in here folks. Giving unwelcomed feedback does not go unpunished.
This is the post I have been threadbanned for.
Laughable.
So you didn't follow mod instructions and are bitching that you were banned from the thread. Yeah your definitely being persecuted0 -
Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 21377
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Just as a I predicted...
It's a pretty easy prediction to make in fairness when you blatantly continue to flout mod instruction in the thread. More of a self fulfilling prophecy than anything else.
Admin: This isn't feedback. From what I can see you are bending over backwards to martyr yourself and using the Feedback forum as your soapbox to do so. Considering you already have one admin warning in this thread, if you continue to soapbox your cause here, I will remove your access to feedback.0 -
Advertisement
-
Isn't there a thread in politics that thread bans all Trump supporters already,why is this US election thread in current affairs going the same way? Strange how the head mod over there Ancapailldorca was thanking all the posts against Pete on this feedback thread. Quite revealing ? From what I've read Pete's posts have been far more civil then some of the responses to his posts, the buzz word seems to be Conspiracy today. There does seem to be a clear different standard of moderation being applied on some of these threads. I would suggest that there should be a more balanced approach to moderation and should be mods with opposite believes/politics on forums like current affairs and I'm not seeing any signs of that.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 22734
Snake Plisken wrote: »Isn't there a thread in politics that thread bans all Trump supporters .
There isn't. Thread banned posters are listed in the OP. I don't keep a tally of the views of all thread banned users, but as far as I can recall, only one of the people who are thread banned is in anyway sympathetic to Trump.0 -
Snake Plisken wrote: »Isn't there a thread in politics that thread bans all Trump supporters already,why is this US election thread in current affairs going the same way? Strange how the head mod over there Ancapailldorca was thanking all the posts against Pete on this feedback thread. Quite revealing ? From what I've read Pete's posts have been far more civil then some of the responses to his posts, the buzz word seems to be Conspiracy today. There does seem to be a clear different standard of moderation being applied on some of these threads. I would suggest that there should be a more balanced approach to moderation and should be mods with opposite believes/politics on forums like current affairs and I'm not seeing any signs of that.
Pete never entered those threads for a discussion, it was always just to post propaganda and would be rude as hell to anyone who called him out. If posters engaged in discussion, they'd be fine.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 70849
This is not Feedback on Politics and yet again someone is using this thread to attack a moderatorSnake Plisken wrote: »Isn't there a thread in politics that thread bans all Trump supporters already,why is this US election thread in current affairs going the same way? Strange how the head mod over there Ancapailldorca was thanking all the posts against Pete on this feedback thread. Quite revealing ? From what I've read Pete's posts have been far more civil then some of the responses to his posts, the buzz word seems to be Conspiracy today. There does seem to be a clear different standard of moderation being applied on some of these threads. I would suggest that there should be a more balanced approach to moderation and should be mods with opposite believes/politics on forums like current affairs and I'm not seeing any signs of that.
Do not post in this thread again0 -
Snake Plisken wrote: »Isn't there a thread in politics that thread bans all Trump supporters already,why is this US election thread in current affairs going the same way? Strange how the head mod over there Ancapailldorca was thanking all the posts against Pete on this feedback thread. Quite revealing ? From what I've read Pete's posts have been far more civil then some of the responses to his posts, the buzz word seems to be Conspiracy today. There does seem to be a clear different standard of moderation being applied on some of these threads. I would suggest that there should be a more balanced approach to moderation and should be mods with opposite believes/politics on forums like current affairs and I'm not seeing any signs of that.
That particular mod posts anti Trump comments regularly on a trump thread. How can that mod be impartial when they publicly display their bias? Nobody is buying it anymore.0 -
ExMachina1000 wrote: »That particular mod posts anti Trump comments regularly on a trump thread. How can that mod be impartial when they publicly display their bias? Nobody is buying it anymore.
It's pretty silly to conclude a moderator can't hold or express political opinions. Active users are the most suited towards being moderators and I've not seen any particular poster being treated unfairly, they're generally given a lot of leeway.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »It's pretty silly to conclude a moderator can't hold or express political opinions. Active users are the most suited towards being moderators and I've not seen any particular poster being treated unfairly, they're generally given a lot of leeway.
I got two infractions. One for replying to a poster with "right ok". Another for writing " Biden is a loon. Republicans stealing mail boxes".
Extremely petty to hand out infractions for something so small. These multiple infractions led to a 1 month ban handed out by said mod.
With the back and forths that go on on a Trump thread those infractions aren't consistent.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 70849
ExMachina1000 wrote: »That particular mod posts anti Trump comments regularly on a trump thread. How can that mod be impartial when they publicly display their bias? Nobody is buying it anymore.
Threadbanned0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Pete never entered those threads for a discussion, it was always just to post propaganda and would be rude as hell to anyone who called him out. If posters engaged in discussion, they'd be fine.
That is absolutely untrue. The post I was threadbanned for was a reply to a strawman argument and there was no reason whatsoever that user could not have attempted to rebut the argument I made about Trump and why it was that I said the left don't like him. There was no need for mod intervention. That is my feedback here and yet I am being threatened with my access being removed for giving that feedback.
As for users being "rude as hell" - please, do you think it's polite to call those you disagree with "Trumpers" constantly and suggest they are posting propaganda and conspiracy theories or drinking koolaid? Well, it isn't and so let's not pretend that left leaning users are all sweetness and light as they are anything but. Here's some examples of replies:The_Dazzler wrote: »I actually think you do believe all this. Wow, I hope you find comfort in your theories as they are extremely troublesome to me.I'm really and truly glad that I don't live in your conspiracy fuelled world. Anyway, I'm not here to debate conspiracy theories with you. I wish you well.
This one is to Snake Plisken:As I said to that Outlaw Pete person earlier, I'm really glad that I don't live in your apparent world of conspiracy theories and delusion.
Why are these deemed okay?
Just for the record, I don't want these posts moderated as I don't see anything much wrong with them but I cite them to show that what is deemed perfectly fine from one side of the debate will see you threadbanned should you post similarly when you're on the other side of it and this is not about trying to be a martyr, Mike, this about highlighting how *some* mods are subjecting certain users to rules they never would the other side and in a wholly inconsistent way.
I really don't understand the obsession with wanting users threadbanned. I don't think I have ever wanted a user threadbanned in my life. Infracted, maybe, but there seems such delight from certain quarters when users are threadbanned. Don't you want debate and discussion and your views challenged? What use is an echo chamber for heaven sake? Seems to be something common with only those on the left, hence the likes of Twitter/Antifa trying to silencing conservative voices.
You can bet this post will have been reported by users who will only be half way through it, which is a shame as this is my feedback: you are destroying Current Affairs by threadbanning for such nitpicky reasons. If users have an issue with my posts they could just have tried to rebut them, let them have at it. Yet to see left leaning users chastised for ignoring posts from users like myself. The strawman I replied to this morning was essentially putting words in my mouth but don't see any mod intervention. Not that I feel their should be, in the same way I don't feel the above rude and dismissive replies to our posts should have been actioned, but yet they are by certain mods when they go the other way.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 70849
Final warning - drop any discussion of individual users and/or mods0 -
Advertisement
-
Regarding the thread in question, one would be forgiven for thinking posters who support President Trump are held to a higher standard than those who do not. I have seen quite a few breaches of charter by Biden supporters going uncarded whilst trivial things by Trump supporters getting harsh actions. It is difficult to discuss ideas and find the truth on the thread. This is supposedly a discussion site is it not?0
-
Outlaw Pete wrote: »
I really don't understand the obsession with wanting users threadbanned. I don't think I have ever wanted a user threadbanned in my life. Infracted, maybe, but there seems such delight from certain quarters when users are threadbanned. Don't you want debate and discussion and your views challenged? What use is an echo chamber for heaven sake? Seems to be something common with only those on the left, hence the likes of Twitter/Antifa trying to silencing conservative voices.
Anybody who genuinely wants debate and discussion should be happy to see the back of those who don't.
A lot of the stuff in the CA Trump threads is just garbage. Stupid memes, unverified claims, repetition of a single point over and over again with no engagement. None of it is debate or discussion, no matter how much those doing the posting pretend it is, and I for one am happy to see the posters doing it get actioned in whatever way it happens.0 -
Anybody who genuinely wants debate and discussion should be happy to see the back of those who don't.
A lot of the stuff in the CA Trump threads is just garbage. Stupid memes, unverified claims, repetition of a single point over and over again with no engagement. None of it is debate or discussion, no matter how much those doing the posting pretend it is, and I for one am happy to see the posters doing it get actioned in whatever way it happens.
Looking in the prison threads the ones who have been banned have turned out to be banned re-regs.0 -
Also plenty of posters have been given lots of leeway. Eg more than one poster on that thread pushed the outlandish claim that only ten thousand Americans died from covid... I would consider it plenty of leeway that they weren't thread banned for pushing such nonsense. So I would say mods have a lot of patience tbh.0
-
Anybody who genuinely wants debate and discussion should be happy to see the back of those who don't.
I agree but some are being categorized as not wanting debate when they clearly do.A lot of the stuff in the CA Trump threads is just garbage. Stupid memes, unverified claims, repetition of a single point over and over again with no engagement. None of it is debate or discussion, no matter how much those doing the posting pretend it is, and I for one am happy to see the posters doing it get actioned in whatever way it happens.
Again, agreed, but there is no consistency is the point. If users are going to be threadbanned or actioned for dismissing a user's post off with a smart reply, fine, but let's see that apply to all users and not just the ones that are reported the most, which is what I feel is happening. Volume of reports is not a barometer of if a user warrants actioning or not and unfortunately with some mods I think they feel it is.Deleted User wrote: »Pete never entered those threads for a discussion, it was always just to post propaganda and would be rude as hell to anyone who called him out. If posters engaged in discussion, they'd be fine.
Just on this post of yours again, Mike, where you expressed incredulity at my apparently having being rude to users (I wasn't) and my apparently not engaging in discussion with them (I do). Is there any chance you could explain why, if you were being genuine with this Feedback, you yet thanked this post earlier today which was clearly rude and could not be considered to be engaging in discussion either:You are hilarious - any more?
Not that you're alone mind as I see others who thanked it have also endorsed users been threadbanned for that very thing. Hhhmmm. I do believe that's what they call a mask slipping moment.0 -
I disagree on that. I think there is a serious amount of leeway given to posters who display no interest in debate.Outlaw Pete wrote: »I agree but some are being categorized as not wanting debate when they clearly do.
I'd agree that there is a lack of consistency alright. But to be honest, it seems to me to depend on which mod deals with a post as much as anything else. There are clear (to me at least) differences between mods as to what is fine and what should be actioned, and how.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Again, agreed, but there is no consistency is the point. If users are going to be threadbanned or actioned for dismissing a user's post off with a smart reply, fine, but let's see that apply to all users and not just the ones that are reported the most, which is what I feel is happening. Volume of reports is not a barometer of if a user warrants actioning or not and unfortunately with some mods I think they feel it is.
As to the second part of your paragraph, there's no way for us to know how many times a post is reported is there? I can see the appeal in a poster thinking that they are getting in trouble only because other posters are being a bunch of babies reporting their posts, but I don't think we have any evidence to support it. Only mods would be able to confirm (which, even if true, they are unlikely to do).0 -
Join Date:Posts: 70849
I'd agree that there is a lack of consistency alright. But to be honest, it seems to me to depend on which mod deals with a post as much as anything else. There are clear (to me at least) differences between mods as to what is fine and what should be actioned, and how.
Just on this point, we are all independent thinking individuals. Consistency is clearly important in one sense, and we often discuss certain matters. However moderation evolves, and I think it's quite clear that following user feedback a generally more relaxed approach is adopted, particularly towards users who have decent records.
There is though a very simple way we can be totally consistent. There are plenty of shades of grey we can discuss in the context of moderation, but if posters stay clearly in the white area you will find pretty much all mods will (not!) act in a very consistent manner! But even those that do action posts that you may feel is in that white area, take it up with them. I have lifted many hundreds of cards and bans following discussion with users, and in that discussion I've explained why I acted and in return for lifting the sanction have usually asked users to adopt a different approach
Of course some still go to the DRP, but they are really a very small proportion of sanctions issued (and to illustrate this, there are about 2,200 threads in the DRP Archive forum, but the total number of threads detailing only cards and not bans in the relevant mods forum since the DRP was introduced 10 years ago is over 80,000 (and skimming through a few long-standing forums it looks like bans are of the same order of magnitude as cards) - that suggests perhaps 1-2% of cards/bans ever get to the DRP forum)0 -
Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 21377
I'd agree that there is a lack of consistency alright. But to be honest, it seems to me to depend on which mod deals with a post as much as anything else. There are clear (to me at least) differences between mods as to what is fine and what should be actioned, and how.
Does that line of thinking take into account any of the following:- Poster's prior history in the thread (which may not be visible to everyone)
- Poster's prior history across the forum as a whole (which again, may not be visible to everyone)
- The gravity of the offending post - i.e. whether it's too dumb to action and it's better off just deleting?
- Whether the poster has made any effort to self correct afterwards?
- Whether the poster makes contact afterwards to discuss?
- Whether the post has already been taken apart by other posters in the thread?
- Whether the thread has moved on and there's nothing to be gained by going back over old ground?
...and so on? Not being smart - it's a genuine question - but these are all factors for me when considering if a post needs to be actioned and to what degree. You're never going to get a binary system where mods are just dialing in their responses, and I would imagine nobody wants that.0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Again, agreed, but there is no consistency is the point. If users are going to be threadbanned or actioned for dismissing a user's post off with a smart reply, fine, but let's see that apply to all users and not just the ones that are reported the most, which is what I feel is happening. Volume of reports is not a barometer of if a user warrants actioning or not and unfortunately with some mods I think they feel it is.
This is a definite issue in the forum. Some posters use the Report Post option as a political tool, reporting only those who they disagree with and doing so for the slightest perceived offence. Those reported are then seen as a problem and attract unbalanced attention from the mods. This is not the mods fault, they are just being used by a particular cohort.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is a definite issue in the forum. Some posters use the Report Post option as a political tool, reporting only those who they disagree with and doing so for the slightest perceived offence. Those reported are then seen as a problem and attract unbalanced attention from the mods. This is not the mods fault, they are just being used by a particular cohort.
In all fairness I don't think the mods are as thick or lazy as your post implies, and more likely the posters being a dick etc0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement