nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Forum feedback

smacl

I'm creating a sticky here which is to be used for all feedback on this forum. Feel free to discuss what you feel should and should not be allowed on this forum and raise any issues in relation to moderation.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

John Hutton

Dravokivich wrote: »

I don't expect Smacl to proof read every post John. I don't recall seeing examples of what you referenced being reported.

If you feel a post doesn't meet the standards, nor is contributory to the focus of this forum, please use the report function. Otherwise you are just going to see the same posts again and again when you read those threads.

I would have no issue reporting them if they would be dealt with in the manner I described. As things stand I do not think they would be if I reported them, or if smacl or any moderator happened to see them when reading the thread (because of policy, not because of any moderator failings !)

The issue here is not me not reporting posts...

Dravokivich

John, I don't mean to suggest the issues you raised don't exist. But if we can't have your confidence, or the confidence of others here, we'll just be going around in circles.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

A great deal of the "non christians" are not interested passersby, but rather militant atheists.

I do not like the idea of banning non christians. But I think that it is fair to have threads, and indeed a forum, where the christian perspective is the dominant one, and posts that go directly counter to it should be expunged, or confined to specific threads. Take my latest thread, the first response calls the bible absurd, blatantly misrepresents it (Mary was not impregnated against her will). Other posts include people saying that they love satan, if satan was in control things would be more fun, God is not all powerful, others basically calling God a pedophile, another calling him a rapist, a fundamental Biblical and christian teaching called "the most bizarre thing ever on boards", the 'problem of evil' raised again, the usual "priests are pedos" stuff, "you're only angry cause you're not in charge". All the same rubbish that clogs up all the threads, some of the posters are the usual offenders. The examples I gave here are all ones which were not carded. Others were and fair enough.

Rule 1 from the charter: 1. The purpose of this forum is to discuss Christian belief in general, and specific elements of it, between Christians and non-Christians alike. This forum has the additional purpose of being a point on Boards.ie where Christians may ask other Christians questions about their shared faith. In this regard, Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack.

If I rocked up into the farming forum and just attacked and belittled farming as a concept at every turn I would not last long, and nor should I. If I rocked up into the soccer forum and just slagged off soccer as a sport etc. I wouldn't last long. If I etc. etc. You get the idea.

The superthreads need to be used:

1. Creationism and Evolution - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056402682

2. Protestant -v- Catholic Debates - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2057593813

3. Atheist -v- Theist / Existence of God Debates - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...php?p=93795311

4. Clerical Child Abuse - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2055855692

5. Homosexuality - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056713191

6. Announcements and events - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...p?t=2057083946

7. Want to find a Church near you? - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=93462

If anyone raises these issues on other threads their post should be deleted and they should be pointed in the direction of the relevant thread or, where applicable, a more relevant forum. If they persist they should be carded and banned. The forum should be for a "christian perspective" on things - you don't have to be a christian. Posters need to have a fundamental respect for christian beliefs. You are not having "respect" if you constantly contradict, deny, denigrate and challenge the fundamental beliefs of someone all the time in almost every context. There is space for these discussions sure, the super threads.

If you don't want the forum as a whole to be like this, then change the prefix to "Christian Perspective", although I think it should be applied to the whole forum. I don't like the idea of excluding non christians, rather there should be a "respect" (In the manner I previously discussed) expected from everyone who posts here, with superthreads to tackle the fundamental issues if they really want.

I'm not having a go at the moderator I think he has a tough job, particularly when he is not a christian but rather an atheist/agnostic himself.

I agree with most of the above, notably for the reasons given in the highlighted section. It is important that Christian posters here can start and engage in the type of conversations this forum is intended for without being constantly harangued by inane one liners that have been repeated ad nauseum for many years. As with the previous poster, I'd ask that you report rather than respond here. The charter as it stands is already being applied rather more strictly than in most other forums but this can be increased if needed.

Again, one concern here is the polarizing effect that this can have, with posters effectively siloed into either the Christianity or A&A forum based on their own personal position. While I accept and understand your frustration in your recent thread, the sad truth is that if you were to limit such a discussion to Christians only you might not get any discussion at all. This is probably something worth experimenting with a bit on future threads. Yourself excepted, there are also few enough Christians on here regularly starting new threads.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

I would have no issue reporting them if they would be dealt with in the manner I described. As things stand I do not think they would be if I reported them, or if smacl or any moderator happened to see them when reading the thread (because of policy, not because of any moderator failings !)

The issue here is not me not reporting posts...

With respect, I dished out a total of six cards in your recent thread. There was just one post reported and that by an atheist. There are without a doubt those popping into this forum with the intent of having a dig against Christianity. Where this is in any way blatant, I'd recommend against engaging as that is precisely what they are looking for. Better to report the post and allow us to deal with it, including both carding deleting it where it adds nothing to the conversation.

John Hutton

I think I may have worded my comments incorrectly giving rise to conclusions other than I intended:

1. I have confidence in smacl

2. I didn't report because I was not sure it would actually be considered to be against the rules (because of the rules/policy not any failing on anyone's part)

3. I didn't want to be wasting people's time or coming across as reporting stuff just because I disagreed with it if it was not actually against the rules

4. If the approach that I outlined in my first post here today is the one which smacl and co agree with and intend to proceed (or maybe where all along and I didn't realise) with then yes I will report posts that go against the thrust of what I outlined.

Can I make a couple of suggestions that may be helpful:

1. I think a superthread on the 'problem of evil' should be started, that one has come up loads

2. Where possible offending posts should be deleted. I think they should be because often the forum can be hit by a poster doing a "drive by" and they wouldn't care about a yellow card cause they get their "thanks". So for example, if a few people posts variations of "god doesnt exist/you're cultists" etc, then delete those and put a comment in saying you deleted some posts saying x, go to y thread or forum for that. This is done on a few forums on the site and seems to work well, keeps threads on track. Some discretion would obviously be needed, if someone posted a big long post and the offending section is egregious but the rest fine, then perhaps that bit should be snipped. I think this would be rare enough, more common would be long good posts with a small bit being against the rules but not egregious, here the normal card/warning would suffice.

John Hutton

Should I start reporting posts on the thread or should we just pull the plug on it and close it at this stage?

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

1. I think a superthread on the 'problem of evil' should be started, that one has come up loads

Go for it. If you start it up and outline what you see as the main arguments, we'll divert all posts on the matter there. I agree there should be more redirection of the more tired and repeated soapbox arguments to their respective mega-threads.

2. Where possible offending posts should be deleted. I think they should be because often the forum can be hit by a poster doing a "drive by" and they wouldn't care about a yellow card cause they get their "thanks". So for example, if a few people posts variations of "god doesnt exist/you're cultists" etc, then delete those and put a comment in saying you deleted some posts saying x, go to y thread or forum for that. This is done on a few forums on the site and seems to work well, keeps threads on track. Some discretion would obviously be needed, if someone posted a big long post and the offending section is egregious but the rest fine, then perhaps that bit should be snipped. I think this would be rare enough, more common would be long good posts with a small bit being against the rules but not egregious, here the normal card/warning would suffice.

I agree for one liners and repeated soap-boxing that are primarily trolling and looking to elicit thanks from like minded types. More generally, I tend to avoid censorship so where a post makes a reasonable stab at contributing to the debate I'd let it stand and card it where it is in clear breach of the charter.

From the perspective of transparent moderation, probably makes more sense to snip the offensive content and leave the post with any infractions present and visible. The reason here is that repeated infractions will lead to bans and it becomes clear to all why a given poster has been banned.

homer911

SMACL, I think you are doing a great job. Every so often a thread comes up that throws the forum into overdrive. Sometimes you need the wisdom of Solomon to get the moderation right and you seem to get the balance right, much appreciated. Its an easy task to report a post if it infringes on the charter and more often than not, its acted on. Thank you.

iagreebut

As you can see his or her post wasn't offensive, the comment was about Unitarians... they like to question thing's, and if you look into Unitarianism you'll see what they meant...

Their comment was just an observation of Unitarians, as far as I can see you jumped to conclusions.

I didn't take offense to their post, because I commented underneath that I got what they said.

So can you lift the warnings, I wouldn't like to see someone get a warning because a mod didn't understand the depth of their post.

Thanks

smacl

iagreebut wrote: »

As you can see his or her post wasn't offensive, the comment was about Unitarians... they like to question thing's, and if you look into Unitarianism you'll see what they meant...

Their comment was just an observation of Unitarians, as far as I can see you jumped to conclusions.

I didn't take offense to their post, because I commented underneath that I got what they said.

So can you lift the warnings, I wouldn't like to see someone get a warning because a mod didn't understand the depth of their post.

Thanks

Welcome to the Christianity forum. As you are very new here can I recommend you read both the charter and this feedback thread. The moderation on this forum is stricter than on many other fora in an attempt to reduce an ongoing problem with low level trolling. Both warnings stand for their stated reasons.

[Deleted User]

I think it is bad form to edit someones post, deleting a portion of it, without saying anything to the person who posted it. Even worse is leaving a cryptic note, leaving it to the imagination of the reader to speculate about what horrendous thing the poster had said.

My comments about the north were accurate. If it was felt (wrongly I would say) that my pointing out of the irony of the south banning mass when the north, founded explicitly as a sectarian state, has defended and protected the right to worship, was too robust, a sentence summarizing what I said could have been inserted in place.

Or if my post warranted moderator action, why not card and leave the offending text?

Anything would have been better than what Smacl did - an unfortunate lack of basic courtesy.

smacl

Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »

I think it is bad form to edit someones post, deleting a portion of it, without saying anything to the person who posted it. Even worse is leaving a cryptic note, leaving it to the imagination of the reader to speculate about what horrendous thing the poster had said.

My comments about the north were accurate. If it was felt (wrongly I would say) that my pointing out of the irony of the south banning mass when the north, founded explicitly as a sectarian state, has defended and protected the right to worship, was too robust, a sentence summarizing what I said could have been inserted in place.

Or if my post warranted moderator action, why not card and leave the offending text?

Anything would have been better than what Smacl did - an unfortunate lack of basic courtesy.

There was a delay between your post being edited and a follow up explanatory post as I had something else going on. Explanation is now in place. I considered the snipped portion of your post to be both sectarian and objectionable, falling foul of a number of points on the charter.

[Deleted User]

Calling what I said sectarian, rather than just inflammatory, is a serious escalation, a serious charge. Please explain how what I said was sectarian.

EDIT: I will also add that it is most unfair to make such a charge when the offending text has been censored - again leaving it to the imagination of the reader.

smacl

Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »

Calling what I said sectarian, rather than just inflammatory, is a serious escalation, a serious charge. Please explain how what I said was sectarian.

I had censored out the section I considered offensive as I was concerned it would become troll bait. I'll discuss this with the other forum moderators and CMods to get their take on it and should they consider the content acceptable, restore it.

[Deleted User]

smacl wrote: »

I had censored out the section I considered offensive as I was concerned it would become troll bait. I'll discuss this with the other forum moderators and CMods to get their take on it and should they consider the content acceptable, restore it.

To be honest, I am more concerned now that you have leveled the charge of sectarianism at me.

Inflammatory, troll bait etc, while I would disagree with that opinion, is much different than something which is deemed "sectarian" - essentially a hate crime, and something which could be prosecutable in Northern Ireland.

It is possible (I am hopeful this is the case) that you may not be familiar with some of the things I referred to and thought I made them up or something, which would make your charge of sectarianism a result of an understandable misunderstanding, bringing us back to the lower level of "inflammable or objectionable" which can be looked at separately.

To that end, here is the basis for the references (that I can remember):

1. I made a reference to "priestcraft". This was a pejorative term used extensively by the more vocal and fundamental loyalists/unionists, especially the late Dr Paisley.

2. "Not having a catholic about the place" - this is a reference to a famous comment by Sir Basil Brooke (third Prime Minister of NI) about the fact he didn't employ Catholics.

3. Reference to categorization of the Pope as "anti-christ" - this was a claim commonly made by some powerful people in the North, most famously by the late Dr Paisley at the EU parliament as a "protest" against Pope Saint John Paul II who was speaking there in 1988.

4. Reference to Catholics being viewed as "the enemy within" this is a reference to (aside from the fact that this was the case and the phrase was something commonly repeated) commentary by the respected academic Professor John D Brewer, in his landmark study of anti-Catholicism in Northern Ireland "The Mote and the Beam". (I do not have the book at hand for a page reference, I will ask you to trust me on this).

4. Reference to denial of vote, housing and jobs - there is ample evidence for this, this is a widely accepted fact. As well as the previously referenced book, Michael Farrell's "The Orange State" covers this in great detail, if further citations are required let me know.

5. Reference to beating and murder of Catholics by agents of the state on the basis of their religion - there is ample evidence of this, from the batoning of NICRA marches to the murder of civilians by state agents in collusion/direction of loyalist murder gangs. I can give more citations here if required, although I think the fact of this is broadly accepted.

6. Reference to NI being set up as a sectarian state: it is a fair argument to make that NI was set up as the smallest, yet still economically viable, entity it could be, while ensuring that Catholics remained a minority - with a protestant majority in a position of ascendancy - a sectarian headcount. Or as Lord Craigavon put it, (first Prime Minister of NI) "A protestant parliament and a protestant state".

That is all of the references I can recall at the moment, if there is anything else let me know and I can provide the basis for what I said. If anything the thrust of my point is complimentary of how much the North has changed where it protects the rights of its citizens to exercise their religion more than the south this IS very ironic.

If you think that what I said was irrelevant, or likely to derail the thread or cause an argument, that is entirely different from the far more serious charge of sectarianism that you have levied at me here - although to be fair if you are not familiar with Irish history you may not have "got" the references I made, and, hence, picked them up as made up slurs or accusations. (at least that is the only way I can think a charge of sectarian comments - a hate crime - could be arrived at.). Now that I have elaborated (as much for the benefit of onlookers who now no doubt had all kinds of imaginings going through their heads as to what horrendous sectarian comments I may have made), I hope you will withdraw your accusation that I made sectarian comments, and we can return to the altogether less serious ground of your original accusation that they were irrelevant/provocative etc.

[Deleted User]

Just to add,

It is fair enough and reasonable that you were busy and forgot or didn't get a chance to put an explanation in.

If you withdraw the accusation of sectarianism and you are content for me to put this line in my post:

"Given the history of Northern Ireland, it is most ironic that public Mass is not banned there - rather, public worship is protected as a human right in NI to a greater degree than it is in the south where it is banned".

I think we can draw a line under it and move on - I think this is a fair enough compromise without taking up an inordinate amount of time?

smacl

I'm waiting for some further feedback from the moderator team and will post back here following that discussion.

[Deleted User]

smacl wrote: »

I'm waiting for some further feedback from the moderator team and will post back here following that discussion.

In the meantime then perhaps you should remove reference/accusation of sectarian commentary given the seriousness of it, and reinstate it when/if you and the other powers that be decide you are happy to stand over such a serious charge?

smacl

Mod: Following concerns raised here, the section of text below has been restored. On the basis that there are likely Northern Irish Protestants also visiting this forum, I'd consider the text to be inflammatory. I personally would also consider it sectarian and divisive.

In the north worship will be allowed. How ironic! In the six counties, the orange state, founded on a basis of bigotry, the loather of "priest-craft" with the Pope being the DUP's "anti-christ", where the powers that be would not have a Catholic "about the place", where Catholics were denied the vote, housing, jobs, literally "the enemy within", beaten and even murdered by agents of the state because of their religious beliefs - it is this state, one hundred years or so since its foundation that respects and upholds the right to practice ones religion, and it is the 'free state' which seeks to make it illegal, outlawing the Mass and other sacraments to a degree not seen since the penal days.

[Deleted User]

If you are going to double down on accusing me of hate speech you should explain why. I can accept (and respectfully disagree) with it being called inflammatory or divisive, but sectarian? Come on. Even if you said it was "nasty" or something that would be different, but as I have explained to you, you are accusing me of sectarian hate speech. You should back up such a serious accusation, or withdraw it, or at the least replace it with some other "opinion" that is not accusing me of a crime.

EDIT: And thanks for restoring the text.

smacl

Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »

If you are going to double down on accusing me of hate speech you should explain why. I can accept (and respectfully disagree) with it being called inflammatory or divisive, but sectarian? Come on. Even if you said it was "nasty" or something that would be different, but as I have explained to you, you are accusing me of sectarian hate speech. You should back up such a serious accusation, or withdraw it, or at the least replace it with some other "opinion" that is not accusing me of a crime.

EDIT: And thanks for restoring the text.

Ok, so lets have a look at what sectarian means, when used as an adjective. Merriam-Webster is a bit brief here;

Definition of sectarian (Entry 1 of 2)
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect or sectarian
2: limited in character or scope : PAROCHIAL

Cambridge is probably better in this context;

sectarian
adjective disapproving
UK /sekˈteə.ri.ən/ US /sekˈter.i.ən/

caused by or feeling very strong support for the religious or political group that you are a member of, in a way that can cause problems with other groups:

I would say that your post illustrated a very strong support for a religious group (Catholicism) in a way to cause problems for another group (the DUP) on the basis of your referring to 'the orange state, founded on a basis of bigotry, the loather of "priest-craft" with the Pope being the DUP's "anti-christ"'. While you might well be able to defend the points raised, the combination is, in my opinion, quite clearly sectarian.

[Deleted User]

smacl wrote: »

Ok, so lets have a look at what sectarian means, when used as an adjective. Merriam-Webster is a bit brief here;

Cambridge is probably better in this context;

I would say that your post illustrated a very strong support for a religious group (Catholicism) in a way to cause problems for another group (the DUP and/or NI Protestants) on the basis of your referring to 'the orange state, founded on a basis of bigotry, the loather of "priest-craft" with the Pope being the DUP's "anti-christ"'. While you might well be able to defend the points raised, the combination is, in my opinion, quite clearly sectarian.

We are talking in the context of Ireland, specifically Northern Ireland, where sectarianism is a rampant issue, a word used analogous with 'racism' and hate speech.

This is the definition the PSNI use, who record several thousand "sectarian" crimes and incidents each year:

Hate crime is defined as any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic. PSNI also use the principles of this definition to record non-crime hate incidents. The term ‘sectarian’, whilst not clearly defined, is a term almost exclusively used in Northern Ireland to describe incidents of bigoted dislike or hatred of members of a different religious or political group. It is broadly accepted that within the Northern Ireland context an individual or group must be perceived to be Catholic or Protestant, Nationalist or Unionist, or Loyalist or Republican. However sectarianism can also relate to other religious denominations, for example, Sunni and Shi’ite in Islam.

So you are maintaining that while what I said may be true, the fact that I said them together is sectarian, but not sectarian by the meaning which the clear context of Ireland dictates it must mean, but rather another way. Fascinating.

So lets be clear then, you are not accusing me of hate speech or anything that could constitute a crime in NI? If you are not, can you not think of another word to use then, could you not say something like you view it as "biased, irrelevant to the thread and inflammatory to a degree likely to provoke", especially as I have raised concerns both on this thread and by PM about the seriousness of the accusation of sectarian commentary? Why are you persisting? The person who read what you wrote, and did not take it as meaning something akin to racism or the way in which "sectarian" is taken to mean in the context of Northern Ireland, would be very few in number.

I could have made the statement I did with equal validity where I of any Christian denomination or none.

Let me state for the record, I do not hate anyone, especially not fellow Christians. I do think northern Ireland was an anti-catholic state (I would be interested in seeing any argument saying that it was not), hence the irony of Mass not being banned in that state, with the DUP doing the most to defend it.

Can you not just withdraw the word sectarian and let us move on?

smacl

Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »

So lets be clear then, you are not accusing me of hate speech or anything that could constitute a crime in NI?

I'm not accusing you of anything, I am pointing out that I consider one paragraph of your post to be offensive, most particularly to any Northern Ireland Protestants who may be reading here, which leads me to the conclusion it is sectarian. From the PSNI definition you provided, I would also note that sectarianism is not necessarily analogous to hate crime, i.e. "PSNI also use the principles of this definition to record non-crime hate incidents" That said, I would imagine if you were to read your paragraph in question to a selection of PSNI officers, it would not go down well.

Given the potential to cause offense, I initially deleted the text in question. Your follow up here left me few options other than re-instate the offensive material. I would strongly suggest if you are that concerned about being called out on such posts, you choose your language with more care in future.

[Deleted User]

smacl wrote: »

I'm not accusing you of anything, I am pointing out that I consider one paragraph of your post to be offensive, most particularly to any Northern Ireland Protestants who may be reading here, which leads me to the conclusion it is sectarian. From the PSNI definition you provided, I would also note that sectarianism is not necessarily analogous to hate crime, i.e. "PSNI also use the principles of this definition to record non-crime hate incidents" That said, I would imagine if you were to read your paragraph in question to a selection of PSNI officers, it would not go down well.

Given the potential to cause offense, I initially deleted the text in question. Your follow up here left me few options other than re-instate the offensive material. I would strongly suggest if you are that concerned about being called out on such posts, you choose your language with more care in future.

This is obscene, and defamatory. I would like an admin to look at this please.

smacl

Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »

This is obscene, and defamatory. I would like an admin to look at this please.

Dispute resolution forum is probably what you're after, https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1397

[Deleted User]

I have not been carded, or banned, I do not think that is a suitable venue to complain about a "personal opinion" of a moderator about a post, rather it seems a place to appeal moderator decisions. The issue here is with, what you have made perfectly clear, your "personal opinion" and content of several posts.

Should I just report your post in that context?

smacl

Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »

I have not been carded, or banned, I do not think that is a suitable venue to complain about a "personal opinion" of a moderator about a post, rather it seems a place to appeal moderator decisions. The issue here is with, what you have made perfectly clear, your "personal opinion" and content of several posts.

Should I just report your post in that context?

Better to directly contact a cmod or admin. Reporting a post in this forum is looking for action from the local mods only.

[Deleted User]

smacl wrote: »

Better to directly contact a cmod or admin. Reporting a post in this forum is looking for action from the local mods only.

I've done that Smacl, I don't see why you can't just say you think I was being a jerk or something like that instead, and leave it there rather than accusing me of making sectarian comments which is a very serious accusation.

Hotblack Desiato

Is describing the belief system held by some people as "defunct mythology" appropriate and in accordance with the charter? The charter refers to all beliefs not just Christian beliefs.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116606619&postcount=31

The Charter wrote:

3. Bigotry, crude generalisations and unreasonable antagonism will not be tolerated. This rule encompasses all intolerance towards creeds, beliefs, lifestyles or opinions that differ from one's own.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Is describing the belief system held by some people as "defunct mythology" appropriate and in accordance with the charter? The charter refers to all beliefs not just Christian beliefs.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116606619&postcount=31

I think if you're happy to discuss what you mean by "defunct", and the ways in which you consider the beliefs concerned to be mythic, and why that matterse, it's all fair game. On the other hand if you're just looking to dismiss a belief system by pejorative characterisations rather than engage with it, that's probably not in the spirit of the charter.

Tl;dr: I don't think you can pick a two-word phrase out of a post, and then adopt a one-size-fits-all characterisation of all posts that employ that phrase. Whether a post, or a poster, complies with the charter or not calls for a more holistic judgment.