Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Discodog · 01-01-2021 05:29PM

Deleted User wrote: »

That was sort of what brought about the existence of the current affairs forum. It's just gotten a lot worse than even the politics cafe. (And yes, I used post under a previously closed account)

The rules of the forum are simple but absolute.
We have one guiding principle: Don't be a dick.

Do not post any material that you know or should know is hateful, abusive, harassing, false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, vulgar, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or illegal.

You are free to express your views in a forceful manner provided you remain civil. Hate speech, insults, and purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling) will not be tolerated. Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm. If we tell you to refrain from behaviour that we regard as uncivil, or that in our view detracts from a productive discussion, do so or face revocation of your posting privileges.

That's a recipe for disaster & was bound to turn into a free for all. I am not fond of moderation but I would ban half the posters on some forums. It's a bit like the way we deal with Covid - make rules but never enforce them.

But clearly some at Boards are happy with CA - maybe there is an argument that it puts all the aggravation in one place. I just think there is a demand for a proper discussion space for current affairs with strict moderating. It's sad when reasonable people are prevented from discussing these issues.

01-01-2021 05:52PM

Discodog wrote: »

The rules of the forum are simple but absolute.
We have one guiding principle: Don't be a dick.

Do not post any material that you know or should know is hateful, abusive, harassing, false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, vulgar, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or illegal.

You are free to express your views in a forceful manner provided you remain civil. Hate speech, insults, and purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling) will not be tolerated. Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm. If we tell you to refrain from behaviour that we regard as uncivil, or that in our view detracts from a productive discussion, do so or face revocation of your posting privileges.

That's a recipe for disaster & was bound to turn into a free for all. I am not fond of moderation but I would ban half the posters on some forums. It's a bit like the way we deal with Covid - make rules but never enforce them.

But clearly some at Boards are happy with CA - maybe there is an argument that it puts all the aggravation in one place. I just think there is a demand for a proper discussion space for current affairs with strict moderating. It's sad when reasonable people are prevented from discussing these issues.

You'd ban anyone you see as unreasonable. What if people found you unreasonable?

Discodog · 01-01-2021 06:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You'd ban anyone you see as unreasonable. What if people found you unreasonable?

My definition of reasonable is being able to express their opinion without being unpleasant.

But if I were banning, that would mean that I am a Mod & I wouldn't care what people think :pac:

EmmetSpiceland · 01-01-2021 06:33PM

Discodog wrote: »

But clearly some at Boards are happy with CA - maybe there is an argument that it puts all the aggravation in one place. I just think there is a demand for a proper discussion space for current affairs with strict moderating. It's sad when reasonable people are prevented from discussing these issues.

Stricter moderation in CA would be a disaster. It would be better served as a “free for all”. All opinions welcomed and challenged.

More needs to be done to preserve the “lighthearted” standards of forums like “After Hours”. How that ‘Wokeism of the Day’ thread is still in there is beyond me.

Aside from the fact that it’s made up of recent news articles, twitter links and complaining about work colleagues, most of which would, certainly, be classed as “current affairs” the tone, and anger, of the thread is much better suited in CA.

As it is, it’s just a staging area for nasty, and spiteful, users to fester in while making sorties out into the wider forum to spit their hateful “agenda” before scurrying back.

By all means, let things go in CA but don’t apply the same “standards” to the other, more normal, forums.

01-01-2021 06:44PM

Discodog wrote: »

I am not fond of moderation but I would ban half the posters on some forums.

Read that twice and got a great laugh out of it

There's nary a plaint raised from the tutting side of the house here in this entire thread that doesnt boil down to "there should be limits on disagreeing with me".

That works when one point of view either has all the authority or is proven right beyond question.

Neither condition will ever be fulfilled on a message board covering social affairs.

There's nothing else to say on it, until the next time.

Mods are doing a fine job imo, tho there should be twice as many of them to share the load and the policy of allowing namechanges is imo a disaster widely abused.

Discodog · 01-01-2021 07:11PM

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Stricter moderation in CA would be a disaster. It would be better served as a “free for all”. All opinions welcomed and challenged.

More needs to be done to preserve the “lighthearted” standards of forums like “After Hours”. How that ‘Wokeism of the Day’ thread is still in there is beyond me.

Aside from the fact that it’s made up of recent news articles, twitter links and complaining about work colleagues, most of which would, certainly, be classed as “current affairs” the tone, and anger, of the thread is much better suited in CA.

As it is, it’s just a staging area for nasty, and spiteful, users to fester in while making sorties out into the wider forum to spit their hateful “agenda” before scurrying back.

By all means, let things go in CA but don’t apply the same “standards” to the other, more normal, forums.

Then why not have a normal forum where those that want to actually have a discussion can go ?

Discodog · 01-01-2021 07:15PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Read that twice and got a great laugh out of it

There's nary a plaint raised from the tutting side of the house here in this entire thread that doesnt boil down to "there should be limits on disagreeing with me".

That works when one point of view either has all the authority or is proven right beyond question.

Neither condition will ever be fulfilled on a message board covering social affairs.

There's nothing else to say on it, until the next time.

Mods are doing a fine job imo, tho there should be twice as many of them to share the load and the policy of allowing namechanges is imo a disaster widely abused.

It's nothing to do with being right or having people disagree. It's the way they do it.

Why can't we have both ? Your CA for those that want it & another forum for those who actually want a more typical, mannered Boards discussion.

EmmetSpiceland · 01-01-2021 07:16PM

Discodog wrote: »

Then why not have a normal forum where those that want to actually have a discussion can go ?

Is that not what the, main, “Politics” forum is for?

Discodog · 01-01-2021 07:17PM

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Is that not what the, main, “Politics” forum is for?

Current affairs isn't Politics.

Rothko · 01-01-2021 07:25PM

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

More needs to be done to preserve the “lighthearted” standards of forums like “After Hours”. How that ‘Wokeism of the Day’ thread is still in there is beyond me.

Aside from the fact that it’s made up of recent news articles, twitter links and complaining about work colleagues, most of which would, certainly, be classed as “current affairs” the tone, and anger, of the thread is much better suited in CA.

As it is, it’s just a staging area for nasty, and spiteful, users to fester in while making sorties out into the wider forum to spit their hateful “agenda” before scurrying back.

By all means, let things go in CA but don’t apply the same “standards” to the other, more normal, forums.

Completely untrue. You just can't stand it when people have different opinions to yourself.

If the thread is that bad, would you mind quoting a few of the supposedly nasty and hateful posts?

01-01-2021 07:30PM

Discodog wrote: »

My definition of reasonable is being able to express their opinion without being unpleasant.

But if I were banning, that would mean that I am a Mod & I wouldn't care what people think :pac:

I find a lot of posters here unpleasant. Wouldnt dream of requesting they were banned.

There's a lot of people on both sides of the aisle that post purely "to bait" people into "an argument" so they can "report them".

But I get where you are coming from, I just wouldn't like to see it happen as it would turn into an echo chamber.

Annasopra · 02-01-2021 10:32AM

I reckon in the last 2 weeks there has been dozens of posters banned from CA and the site for racism.

ExMachina1000 · 02-01-2021 11:07AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I reckon in the last 2 weeks there has been dozens of posters banned from CA and the site for racism.

People with a different opinion
Ban 1 and 10 more appear. Ban the 10 and 100 more appear

02-01-2021 11:13AM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

People with a different opinion
Ban 1 and 10 more appear. Ban the 10 and 100 more appear

So do you think racist posts should be allowed? There's plenty of other sites on the internet that cater to that tbh.

osarusan · 02-01-2021 11:15AM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

People with a different opinion
Ban 1 and 10 more appear. Ban the 10 and 100 more appear

A handful of busy reregs.

ExMachina1000 · 02-01-2021 11:15AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So do you think racist posts should be allowed? There's plenty of other sites on the internet that cater to that tbh.

People with a different opinion are not racists.

Racists who post racist content are racist.

"So you think racists posts should be allowed?"
You made that up . I said nothing of the sort.

Thanks
Jim

02-01-2021 11:18AM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

People with a different opinion are not racists.

Racists who post racist content are racist.

"So you think racists posts should be allowed?"
You made that up . I said nothing of the sort.

Thanks
Jim

They were banned for racism, not different opinions...

Smee_Again · 02-01-2021 11:19AM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

People with a different opinion are not racists.

Racists who post racist content are racist.

"So you think racists posts should be allowed?"
You made that up . I said nothing of the sort.

Thanks
Jim

You equated racism and opinion.

No one was banned for having a different opinion, they were banned for racist posting.

ExMachina1000 · 02-01-2021 11:20AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They were banned for racism, not different opinions...

And so they should be.

It's a shame that other companies such as Twitter etc dont act like boards and ban racist content from their platforms too.

Thanks
Jim

Edit: Is it time for CA to have politics forum style moderation?
It's a tight leash over there.

Beasty · 02-01-2021 11:32AM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Edit: Is it time for CA to have politics forum style moderation?
It's a tight leash over there.

That completely defeats the whole purpose of the forum

Politics Cafe did not work
Politics Cafe 2.0 did not work
AH as a host for such discussion did not work

ExMachina1000 · 02-01-2021 11:41AM

Beasty wrote: »

That completely defeats the whole purpose of the forum

Politics Cafe did not work
Politics Cafe 2.0 did not work
AH as a host for such discussion did not work

I wasn't around for the days of politics cafe 1 or 2.

It's a bit like the war on drugs really. Huge mod resources (time) poured in but cant catch everything and people will continue to want to say these racist things so the market is alive and well.

So options just like the wod the options are heavier enforcement(more jail time) or people say whatever they like (legalisation)

You can see why the likes of Twitter are so desperate to hold onto their section 230 statuses. It relieves them of responsibility for policing their forum. Perhaps they know that just like the war on drugs the war on posting cant be won.

sydthebeat · 02-01-2021 11:45AM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I wasn't around for the days of politics cafe 1 or 2.

It's a bit like the war on drugs really. Huge mod resources (time) poured in but cant catch everything and people will continue to want to say these racist things so the market is alive and well.

So options just like the wod the options are heavier enforcement(more jail time) or people say whatever they like (legalisation)

You can see why the likes of Twitter are so desperate to hold onto their section 230 statuses. It relieves them of responsibility for policing their forum. Perhaps they know that just like the war on drugs the war on posting cant be won.

You have a very warped view as to what boards.ie actually is.

Its a small privately owned message board where the owners could be legally prosecuted for what's posted here.

Moderation here will always, and should always, be leaning on the side of "let's not take any chances" and I for one certainly agree with it.

ExMachina1000 · 02-01-2021 11:47AM

sydthebeat wrote: »

You have a very warped view as to what boards.ie actually is.

Its a small privately owned message board where the owners could be legally prosecuted for what's posted here.

Moderation here will always, and should always, be leaning on the side of "let's not take any chances" and I for one certainly agree with it.

"Its a small privately owned message board where the owners could be legally prosecuted for what's posted here"

That's the important part so.

Fair enough and understood

Thanks
Jim

KyussB · 02-01-2021 11:48AM

AH did not work for much of the identity politics type discussions, and ones which touched anywhere near race - but it worked very well for a lot of other types of discussion that end up on CA.

CA has the big improvement over Politics of mod action being lighter in severity and more leniant, but brings the bad side of Politcs modding in that it is often arbitrary and a pain in the ass to try and divine what random things will be considered a rule breach - and challenging or seeking clarity is futile 95+% of the time.

It is very far from AH level of relaxed moderating, which was a mixed bag, but is what CA was implicitly going to be based on - and CA doesn't tend to draw in regular/common-sense type posters as often as AH, it seems to end up in concentrated tribalism more than before, with added cancel-culture style post reporting grudges (but that could just be what online discussion in general is like, now - and that's always been present on other forums in some amount, just seems a lot more so on CA across a much bigger variety of topics).

Insect Overlord · 02-01-2021 11:50AM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

"Its a small privately owned message board where the owners could be legally prosecuted for what's posted here"

That's the important part so.

Fair enough and understood

Thanks
Jim

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Yes.

Edit :I don't understand why you want to argue with me. I dont want to argue with you. Please leave me alone.
Thanks

Thomas

Which name is it we should be using to address you, sir?

ExMachina1000 · 02-01-2021 11:51AM

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Which name is it we should be using to address you, sir?

Theodore is fine

Regards
Peter

Discodog · 02-01-2021 11:58AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I find a lot of posters here unpleasant. Wouldnt dream of requesting they were banned.

There's a lot of people on both sides of the aisle that post purely "to bait" people into "an argument" so they can "report them".

But I get where you are coming from, I just wouldn't like to see it happen as it would turn into an echo chamber.

I am all for opposite opinion & I think it's good that some views as in the open. But I disagree. A lot of "normal" people just don't bother expressing an opinion in a toxic atmosphere, which moves so fast & changes topic within the thread. Real discussion gets buried.

I am not suggesting closing CA but I would like to see another forum which is chartered & modded as 95% of the other Boards fora. I can see the appeal of an after hours style CA - that's why I proposed it.

Discodog · 02-01-2021 12:06PM

Smee_Again wrote: »

You equated racism and opinion.

No one was banned for having a different opinion, they were banned for racist posting.

Maybe Boards need to make it clear what is & is not racism - shouldn't be necessary but ?

Maybe along the lines of if you post this, you will be banned, permanently.

Some may not like it but Boards has always had to be careful.

Smee_Again · 02-01-2021 12:10PM

Discodog wrote: »

Maybe Boards need to make it clear what is & is not racism - shouldn't be necessary but ?

Maybe along the lines of if you post this, you will be banned, permanently.

Some may not like it but Boards has always had to be careful.

If you need that explained for you then maybe boards isn’t the place for you.

(Not you you

)

02-01-2021 12:14PM

To use an example, if you're even to raise the issue of the man who was shot having mental health issues, you will get a pile on. The thread basically operated on a basis of he deserved to die and that he's a scumbag. I'm not even sure if you'll get huge amounts of reports for threads like it since most posters are simply avoiding the thread, myself included after glancing at it.

Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Comments