Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Smee_Again · 04-01-2021 10:53PM

osarusan wrote: »

CA has no rule requiring posters to source or otherwise back up anything they say

IMO this is a major flaw of CA.

Smee_Again · 04-01-2021 10:57PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think it's abundantly clear that there's a cohort of posters that don't think certain topics should be discussed at all if they can't control the outcome.

That's where you see ridiculously high bars being posited for what is essentially a conversation.

It's not a bit genuine imo that anyone could demand citation in a current affairs forum.

I cannot understand why posters cannot just live with others disagreeing with them, tbh. That's the world out there, folks. Boards shouldn't be sanitized from it beyond covering their legal obligations and keeping the conversations from genuine chaos and ugliness, which is a line I think they draw pretty well.

Opinions are fine, it’s when they are posted as fact that is the problem.

But I just realised that it’s CA/IMHO so my suggestion of banning secondary sources wouldn’t really work wrt opinions.

04-01-2021 11:05PM

Smee_Again wrote: »

Opinions are fine, it’s when they are posted as fact that is the problem.

Yep, in fairness i can see that and we've *all* been frustrated in threads at different times and at different levels of investment in whatever topic when you are debating a chimera or repetition or "what the dog in the street knows".

You either think that the debate matters, in which case you have to engage people where *they are* not where you *think they should be*

Or you think that the debate doesn't matter, in which case you should be able to let it go on without demanding control over it.

The only other angle I can think to add right now is the argument for you to take the high road, engage to your best level and demonstrate the superiority of your viewpoint, if not for the person frustrating you, then for the gallery and readers you might be getting through to.

But coming in here crying out for shutting down a debate that you dislike (I wont use a stronger word, once a mod has ok'd it to continue) is very weak stuff indeed

osarusan · 04-01-2021 11:10PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's abundantly clear that there's a cohort of posters that don't think certain topics should be discussed at all if they can't control the outcome.

That's where you see ridiculously high bars being posited for what is essentially a conversation.

It's not a bit genuine imo that anyone could demand citation in a current affairs forum.

I cannot understand why posters cannot just live with others disagreeing with them, tbh. That's the world out there, folks. Boards shouldn't be sanitized from it beyond covering their legal obligations and keeping the conversations from genuine chaos and ugliness, which is a line I think they draw pretty well.

But it isn't anything to do with 'disagreement', not on my part at least.

An example from the Nkencho thread is the claim, oft repeated, that he had 30+ convictions. Posters were repeatedly asked to provide some kind of source, evidence, anything to back this up, but offered sweet f**k all.

And that kind of stuff is rife in CA, from all sides. Claim what you like: X said this, Y did that, Z never did that. Ignore requests for evidence, let some posters latch onto it and others bitch about it, job done.

That's not an issue of disagreement, it's just trying to esablish basic facts.

EDIT: All that said, somebody linking to some randomer on social media achieves nothing either, as it's still unreliable. So I appreciate the difficulty in identifying 'reliable' sources, but I don't think anything is as bad as the complete lack of need for any source.

Discodog · 04-01-2021 11:10PM

Beasty wrote: »

I think you need to adopt a common sense approach

If something is stated in the mainstream press, or an official press release from a relevant authority that would constitute verified information.

If someone sees something on Social Media (Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and the like, including this site), or hears a rumour, or speaks to someone directly involved, none of that is verified or verifiable.

People don't use common sense. The thread in question is full of totally unverified information. So why isn't it this in the charter & enforced?

Sweetemotion · 04-01-2021 11:30PM

Discodog wrote: »

People don't use common sense. The thread in question is full of totally unverified information. So why isn't it this in the charter & enforced?

It's a discussion forum.

Beasty · 04-01-2021 11:55PM

Discodog wrote: »

People don't use common sense. The thread in question is full of totally unverified information. So why isn't it this in the charter & enforced?

I posted this 2 days ago

Beasty wrote: »

If anyone has a reliable source for any prior convictions of George Nkencho please post it. Otherwise drop the point

Then yesterday I posted

Beasty wrote: »

Do not post any such "rumours". Stick to verified facts

If posters are ignoring either instruction report it and we will have a look

In terms of the Charter, have you actually read it? It is deliberately short and to the point. We are not going down the route of trying to spell out everything that warrants action. "Don't be a dick" is essentially a "catch-all". If a poster is acting the dick, it may be a straight card or ban, or perhaps a warning. If they disobey any warning then it's easy to apply a threadban, card or forum ban

KyussB · 05-01-2021 01:58AM

Beasty wrote: »

I think you need to adopt a common sense approach

If something is stated in the mainstream press, or an official press release from a relevant authority that would constitute verified information.

If someone sees something on Social Media (Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and the like, including this site), or hears a rumour, or speaks to someone directly involved, none of that is verified or verifiable.

The treatment of mainstream press as verified informatiion bit, doesn't seem to be applied consistently...

Separate to that: We see Facebook, Twitter and other major social media platforms rising to make themselves arbiters of 'truth' today, with their fact-checking and even censoring of stories - am I right in feeling a hint that Boards may be taking a similar more active role like this, as well?

If so, there are extreme dangers to free speech in doing that. Twitter and Facebook for example, censored the Hunter Biden story just prior to the US election - potentially influencing the outcome of the US election - a story which now is proven to be true, with Hunter Biden under investigation.

Additionally, the archetypal example of mainstream press 'verified information' which turned out to be the most dangerous type of lie, was the Iraq War Dossier and supposed 'evidence' of WMD's in Iraq. The mainstream press lies all of the time - even the most supposedly 'reputable' news outlets.

So, while I get that Boards mods/admins want to curb the worst of disinformation etc. - you can quickly get into very dangerous territory where key details of important news stories get censored - which, with the popularity of Boards, could potentially have an actual influence on real world politics by suppressing information.

Glenn Greenwald (think I linked him here before) - a journalist of extremely high repute, and with extremely strong/consistent principles - writes on these dangers a fair bit:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/instagram-is-using-false-fact-checking

05-01-2021 02:14AM

Ya, next stop is Beasty with a clicker getting the country involved in a ground war in Iraq, definitely

Fr_Dougal · 05-01-2021 07:51AM

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I, personally, think the problem there is that you have a small number of users who think the usual “standards” from across the site apply to CA. Which they don’t and nor should they.

Maybe this needs to be addressed, more prominently, in the charter? To be honest, it would suit the place better to do away with cards, bans and thread bans for all but the more serious “attacks”.

This would, hopefully, lead to less contamination of normal forums, like AH. The longer threads like the ‘Wokeism of the Day’ or the ‘Onlyfans’ threads are left in AH, with posts calling for “leftists” to be thrown into a “ghetto” with, albeit implied, black people to be “cannibalised” really have no place in AH and they really do create quite a nasty, and hateful, atmosphere.

Threads, such as these, would thrive in “Current Affairs”. Especially one with a “lighter touch” moderation. The “regulars” could get it all out, could actually be, somewhat, therapeutic for them.

If you’re talking about “cleaning up” AH, and are “looking” for more “suitable” fora for threads, that repulsive “toilet thread”, with undertones of the “Thunderdome”, would be better “suited” to the Cuckoos Nest. It would certainly “thrive” there, where it belongs.

Discodog · 05-01-2021 08:26AM

Beasty wrote: »

I posted this 2 days ago

Then yesterday I posted

If posters are ignoring either instruction report it and we will have a look

In terms of the Charter, have you actually read it? It is deliberately short and to the point. We are not going down the route of trying to spell out everything that warrants action. "Don't be a dick" is essentially a "catch-all". If a poster is acting the dick, it may be a straight card or ban, or perhaps a warning. If they disobey any warning then it's easy to apply a threadban, card or forum ban

Yes & quoted it here .....twice.

You are adopting the Coronavirus approach. Giving advice & hoping people will take it. The obvious problem is you have to act after the "crime". The lies can sit there for hours & by then, others have piled in to reinforce them.

I have no problem with a no rules approach. I just wish there was somewhere to discuss Current Affairs that is moderated.

Invidious · 05-01-2021 11:13AM

Discodog wrote: »

I have no problem with a no rules approach. I just wish there was somewhere to discuss Current Affairs that is moderated.

First, CA/IMHO does not adopt a "no-rules" approach. It might be handy for you to portray it as such, but it's also a lazy generalization that denigrates the moderators and admins who have put effort into building and running the forum.

It's more correct to say that, in CA/IMHO, the proverbial line in the sand is not where posters like yourself and Joeytheparrot want it to be. Calling for less free speech and more politically correct crackdowns on allegedly -ist and -phobic expression is all very well, but it completely misunderstands the intent behind creating CA/IMHO in the first place. It was never meant to be a sanitized safe space — if that's what you want, there are numerous other forums on Boards that cater to that need.

Second, if you want more stringently moderated forum where you can discuss current affairs, have you tried posting in Politics or Humanities?

EmmetSpiceland · 05-01-2021 11:38AM

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

If you’re talking about “cleaning up” AH, and are “looking” for more “suitable” fora for threads, that repulsive “toilet thread”, with undertones of the “Thunderdome”, would be better “suited” to the Cuckoos Nest. It would certainly “thrive” there, where it belongs.

“Repulsive”, really, D? I do get that there are a cohort of “bound up” individuals who seem to really dislike that others are discussing, enlightening, supporting, and, even, celebrating something that, most of us, do everyday.

But, let’s face it, the ‘Etiquette’ thread is one for everyone, all are welcome, man, womxn, people of colour, all creeds, and orientations. Everyone. To see nothing wrong with a thread that is just an excuse to abuse and mock others (the ‘Wokeism of the Day’ thread) or to hate on women (the ‘Onlyfans’ thread) while disparaging a thread that brings people together is just wilful ignorance, if you ask me.

“Thunderdome”? Like ‘two enter, one leaves’? I don’t follow. There has, certainly, been some combative posts in the ‘Etiquette’ thread but it’s in no way an “aggressive” thread.

If the mods decided to move the thread, although I can’t see why they would, that’s up to them. But considering I’ve never heard of the ‘Cuckoos Nest’ I’m not sure the thread would do well there. Maybe some of the other, if you’ll pardon the pun, “regulars” in the ‘Etiquette’ thread are familiar with it, I don’t know, you’d have to ask them.

I understand that it may be hard for some to read post after post of others having very regular “movements” when they, themselves, are straining to get any joy. But, believe me, every poster in that thread is there to support, encourage and advise anyone who wants to “reach out”.

While the ‘Etiquette’ thread may not sit well with those users, it is not the stain on the AH forum that both the ‘Wokeism’ and ‘Onlyfans’ threads are. I’m not a mod, myself, but I just can’t see how they are still there, fouling up the rest of the forum. Especially, considering there is a forum that is perfectly welcoming and, indeed, encouraging for that sort of thing right there, in CA.

Fr_Dougal · 05-01-2021 12:43PM

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

“Repulsive”, really, D? I do get that there are a cohort of “bound up” individuals who seem to really dislike that others are discussing, enlightening, supporting, and, even, celebrating something that, most of us, do everyday.

But, let’s face it, the ‘Etiquette’ thread is one for everyone, all are welcome, man, womxn, people of colour, all creeds, and orientations. Everyone. To see nothing wrong with a thread that is just an excuse to abuse and mock others (the ‘Wokeism of the Day’ thread) or to hate on women (the ‘Onlyfans’ thread) while disparaging a thread that brings people together is just wilful ignorance, if you ask me.

“Thunderdome”? Like ‘two enter, one leaves’? I don’t follow. There has, certainly, been some combative posts in the ‘Etiquette’ thread but it’s in no way an “aggressive” thread.

If the mods decided to move the thread, although I can’t see why they would, that’s up to them. But considering I’ve never heard of the ‘Cuckoos Nest’ I’m not sure the thread would do well there. Maybe some of the other, if you’ll pardon the pun, “regulars” in the ‘Etiquette’ thread are familiar with it, I don’t know, you’d have to ask them.

I understand that it may be hard for some to read post after post of others having very regular “movements” when they, themselves, are straining to get any joy. But, believe me, every poster in that thread is there to support, encourage and advise anyone who wants to “reach out”.

While the ‘Etiquette’ thread may not sit well with those users, it is not the stain on the AH forum that both the ‘Wokeism’ and ‘Onlyfans’ threads are. I’m not a mod, myself, but I just can’t see how they are still there, fouling up the rest of the forum. Especially, considering there is a forum that is perfectly welcoming and, indeed, encouraging for that sort of thing right there, in CA.

You see, E, it just goes to show that people have different “standards”. Whilst you might think it’s okay to “discuss” your bowel movements in a forum, most people would not. There is a “reason” why toilets have a “door”, and people don’t all wander into one area together to have a “movement”, that’s what animals do; quite similar to that thread.

So standards are “different”, you might not find certain threads palatable, others don’t find that rather disgusting “discussion of bowel movements” thread low brow, so be it.

You need to learn to “accept” the Wokieism thread, and many other threads that you might not understand, just as others have accepted threads that you can “relate” to.

excludedbin · 05-01-2021 02:00PM

Invidious wrote: »

First, CA/IMHO does not adopt a "no-rules" approach. It might be handy for you to portray it as such, but it's also a lazy generalization that denigrates the moderators and admins who have put effort into building and running the forum.

And I'd say it's a testament to just how bad the users are that even with the considerable work the mods put in, the forum is in the state it is.

It's more correct to say that, in CA/IMHO, the proverbial line in the sand is not where posters like yourself and Joeytheparrot want it to be. Calling for less free speech and more politically correct crackdowns on allegedly -ist and -phobic expression is all very well, but it completely misunderstands the intent behind creating CA/IMHO in the first place. It was never meant to be a sanitized safe space — if that's what you want, there are numerous other forums on Boards that cater to that need.

There's a lot of room between "sanitized safe space" and not allowing vile abuse against whatever the hated group du jour is. And I think we all know what the "intent" behind the creation of CA/IMHO was; Politics Café was an abject failure because the kind of people who wanted it, wanted an unrestricted ****-fest where they can sling whatever abuse against marginalised groups that they want. Inevitably, it failed because they wanted more leeway than could be reasonably given.

But those people still make up an exceedingly loud (but I would say not particularly large) portion of the Boards userbase that isn't going away (or, more likely, the new owners are terrified of turning away any traffic). So they needed a home, rather than spreading out onto the rest of the site and dragging it down to that level. Because after the shuttering of Politics Café, they moved to AH, making an already bad forum worse. Then CA/IMHO came into being and now here we are.
Because even they know that the reason that, shall we say, certain right-wing sites (e.g. the Twitter alternative Gab) have languished in obscurity is that as it turns out, most people don't want to deal with sites largely made up of petulant children screeching abuse at anyone they don't like.

So CA is a dumping ground, where the absolute minimum is done only to stop the absolute worst because it's a tightrope act of corralling them in the forum while still not letting it go too far. It should be obvious, by now, that the rules about racism, etc. are nothing but a fig leaf. It may not be "no-rules" but Jesus, it's not as far from it as you're making out.

As with Gab and sites like that, the problem becomes self-perpetuating. The dregs drive out any reasonable people which just keeps shifting discourse more and more into the extreme, which drives out more, and around it goes. The solution isn't particularly novel or difficult to understand or realise. Sadly, it just seems that the people in charge have zero interest in grasping that nettle.

I know, I'm being very cynical in my belief that it's a desire from the owners to keep site traffic up at literally any cost but what other conclusion is there? It's no secret that Boards has been haemorrhaging users for years and I doubt Distilled Media have been particularly pleased about that. But it's the kind of short-sighted solution that may buoy numbers in the short term but long term, if it continues, the site will eventually end up like Voat. Extremists don't make for a sustainable userbase, after all, and extremists are the audience the likes of CA/IMHO are courting.

But hey, it's not my site so it's not really any skin off my nose. It's just sad.

Second, if you want more stringently moderated forum where you can discuss current affairs, have you tried posting in Politics or Humanities?

Politics is strictly for politics and Humanities has been a walking dead forum for years (because it's not really for 'current affairs' but more academic discussion of, well, the humanities). There doesn't really exist any kind of general 'current affairs' forum apart from CA/IMHO.

Beasty · 05-01-2021 02:05PM

The "state" of the forum is really down to the users

And if people do not like that "state" there are many other forums on the site catering for different subjects and indeed discussing current topics in a different fashion

People really need to look back at the Feedback threads on Politics Cafe, Politics Cafe 2.0 and the like to start to understand the need for Current Affairs and the sort of posting it does cater for. Keeping it in one place allows us to keep an eye on controversial issues (and many threads in CA are not controversial) and allows posters to ignore the forum if they do not which to view such content

EmmetSpiceland · 05-01-2021 02:15PM

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

You see, E, it just goes to show that people have different “standards”. Whilst you might think it’s okay to “discuss” your bowel movements in a forum, most people would not. There is a “reason” why toilets have a “door”, and people don’t all wander into one area together to have a “movement”, that’s what animals do; quite similar to that thread.

So standards are “different”, you might not find certain threads palatable, others don’t find that rather disgusting “discussion of bowel movements” thread low brow, so be it.

You need to learn to “accept” the Wokieism thread, and many other threads that you might not understand, just as others have accepted threads that you can “relate” to.

Well, I certainly don’t want to cast any “aspersions” but I, myself, would have a wide circle of friends. From school, to the club, college, work and from my home area. With almost every “group”, once there’s a few of us and the pints are set, the talk will inevitably turn to the toilet. Whether it be a humours yarn, an informative experience, or a cautionary tale the subject will come up.

I will grant you that one lad I know, he was a rather sickly boy and I believe he suffered from a “shy colon”, did tell me that he didn’t really like the lavatorial exchanges. He wasn’t much into sports either so, while we wouldn’t see too much of him, when we did we’d do our best to work around him.

It is quite odd that you find the discussion of bowel movements “disgusting”, I mean, no one is asking you to smell them and, if you know that such talk makes you, rather, squeamish then I would advise not reading it.

Here is where my “issue” with both the ‘Wokeism’ and ‘Onlyfans’ threads arises. Both of them attract a certain type of poster, an angry, malicious, type who spread out from these CA staging points and infects the forum at large. This wouldn’t be an issue if both of these, which I do, personally, feel are, in fact, “current affairs”, were moved over there.

I took a look at this ‘Cuckoo’s Nest’ you mentioned. It doesn’t seem very active, one user posting and most threads months without any posting. It appears to be, what could best be regarded as, “zany”. No place for such an esteemed thread as the ‘Etiquette’ thread.

If the two, aforementioned, threads were, in fact, moved into CA they would get more posts than they currently do, not less. And with the extra “leeway” from stricter moderation they would be more popular than ever.

I’m failing to see where the “downside”, for you lot, is here?

05-01-2021 02:39PM

excludedbin wrote: »

And I'd say it's a testament to just how bad the users are that even with the considerable work the mods put in, the forum is in the state it is.

There's a lot of room between "sanitized safe space" and not allowing vile abuse against whatever the hated group du jour is. And I think we all know what the "intent" behind the creation of CA/IMHO was; Politics Café was an abject failure because the kind of people who wanted it, wanted an unrestricted ****-fest where they can sling whatever abuse against marginalised groups that they want. Inevitably, it failed because they wanted more leeway than could be reasonably given.

But those people still make up an exceedingly loud (but I would say not particularly large) portion of the Boards userbase that isn't going away (or, more likely, the new owners are terrified of turning away any traffic). So they needed a home, rather than spreading out onto the rest of the site and dragging it down to that level. Because after the shuttering of Politics Café, they moved to AH, making an already bad forum worse. Then CA/IMHO came into being and now here we are.
Because even they know that the reason that, shall we say, certain right-wing sites (e.g. the Twitter alternative Gab) have languished in obscurity is that as it turns out, most people don't want to deal with sites largely made up of petulant children screeching abuse at anyone they don't like.

So CA is a dumping ground, where the absolute minimum is done only to stop the absolute worst because it's a tightrope act of corralling them in the forum while still not letting it go too far. It should be obvious, by now, that the rules about racism, etc. are nothing but a fig leaf. It may not be "no-rules" but Jesus, it's not as far from it as you're making out.

As with Gab and sites like that, the problem becomes self-perpetuating. The dregs drive out any reasonable people which just keeps shifting discourse more and more into the extreme, which drives out more, and around it goes. The solution isn't particularly novel or difficult to understand or realise. Sadly, it just seems that the people in charge have zero interest in grasping that nettle.

I know, I'm being very cynical in my belief that it's a desire from the owners to keep site traffic up at literally any cost but what other conclusion is there? It's no secret that Boards has been haemorrhaging users for years and I doubt Distilled Media have been particularly pleased about that. But it's the kind of short-sighted solution that may buoy numbers in the short term but long term, if it continues, the site will eventually end up like Voat. Extremists don't make for a sustainable userbase, after all, and extremists are the audience the likes of CA/IMHO are courting.

But hey, it's not my site so it's not really any skin off my nose. It's just sad.

Politics is strictly for politics and Humanities has been a walking dead forum for years (because it's not really for 'current affairs' but more academic discussion of, well, the humanities). There doesn't really exist any kind of general 'current affairs' forum apart from CA/IMHO.

Theres an awful lot of mental contortions there to justify one forum with one "right" set of rules being dead on its arse and another with all the "wrong" rules being busy

There's no chance- no chance at all, mind- that you have the politics forum you wanted and its not, by god, to your taste (nor, it seems, anyone else's)?

having chased the rabble- who seem, by the way, to cover a range that includes the vast majority of the users of the site both by number and by post volume- out of yer vaunted high castle, it ill-becomes ye to sniff the hanky at how they carry on down in the streets.

Again, nothing of substance raised that isnt covered by "people shouldnt be *allowed* post things I disagree with."

Dress it up all you like.

Invidious · 05-01-2021 03:43PM

excludedbin wrote: »

...extremists are the audience the likes of CA/IMHO are courting.

I don't believe that's true at all.

As I noted above, almost 7 in 10 people in the country believe that Irish society has become too politically correct. The majority is weary of the woke inquisition dictating what can and cannot be said, and tired of being called -ists and -phobes every time they voice a frank opinion.

In your view, there are seemingly two kinds of people: those who fit compliantly into the woke, progressive, D4 lefty-liberal mold, and the "extremists" who do not.

Reality is more complex. There are plenty of intelligent, non-extreme posters on Boards who still can't accept ideological notions such as that a man identifying as a woman actually is a woman, or that Traveler criminals are just victims of settled society's institutional racism.

Overheal · 05-01-2021 09:11PM

Invidious wrote: »

I don't believe that's true at all.

As I noted above, almost 7 in 10 people in the country believe that Irish society has become too politically correct. The majority is weary of the woke inquisition dictating what can and cannot be said, and tired of being called -ists and -phobes every time they voice a frank opinion.

In your view, there are seemingly two kinds of people: those who fit compliantly into the woke, progressive, D4 lefty-liberal mold, and the "extremists" who do not.

Reality is more complex. There are plenty of intelligent, non-extreme posters on Boards who still can't accept ideological notions such as that a man identifying as a woman actually is a woman, or that Traveler criminals are just victims of settled society's institutional racism.

But 57% of statistics are made up. 98% of mathematicians acknowledge that!

(Argumentum ad populum)

Timberrrrrrrr · 05-01-2021 09:12PM

Overheal wrote: »

But 57% of statistics are made up. 98% of mathematicians acknowledge that!

And they are right 60% of the time every time!

05-01-2021 10:50PM

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.

We reserve the right to delete any post for any or no reason whatsoever.

That would appear to be the rules for CA. All joking aside, a f*ck tonne of posts and or / accounts would be done and dusted if this was strictly applied.

I'm not having a go at any mods or admins, I know you clearly have a deluge of stuff to deal with lately, but the charter doesn't really add up to the reality of what goes on in CA.

I'll shut up now:-)

CtevenSrowder · 06-01-2021 05:52PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Do you honestly think the CA forum is genuinely a place where "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly".

I do. It only seems to be those with a certain political slant that have issues with CA, at least based on this thread. Those who tend to see racism, sexism, xenophobia, transphobia etc. everywhere. Most people who post on CA seem to think it's fine. There are a multitude of opinions, and those that cross the line tend to be dealt with. The moderation is perfectly fine, with mods more than happy to rescind threadbans when you interact with them and those that post actual racism swiftly being banned for the most part.

There is plenty of good discussion in CA, a lot of ****e too, but that will always be the case regardless.

KyussB · 07-01-2021 11:23AM

Returning again to topic of evidence/facts reported by mainstream newspapers - it appears that mods/admins are able to decide that some facts don't count, even when cited from reputable newspapers - and that you can receive mod action out of the blue for citing those facts.

Even when the weight in favour of those facts increases, as they are independently cited/repeated by other newspapers, there appears to be no recourse for this once a final decision has been made by mods/admins.

This leads to a fairly Kafkaesque situation, where it is impossible to even cite statements of fact made in news stories from reputable newspapers on Boards, without risking mod action.

Does this not seem utterly bizarre to anyone, and in need of clarification/fixing? (including retroactively fixing past mod actions - as otherwise the bizarre situation stands)

Once someone falls enough into mod/admins target sights, it feels a lot like it becomes a free-for-all where pretty much any excuse can be made up for mod action - even when that's completely inconsistent with the stated rules and guidelines for the forum. Like the social media equivalent of constructive dismissal from a job.

Invidious · 07-01-2021 03:51PM

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I do. It only seems to be those with a certain political slant that have issues with CA, at least based on this thread. Those who tend to see racism, sexism, xenophobia, transphobia etc. everywhere. Most people who post on CA seem to think it's fine. There are a multitude of opinions, and those that cross the line tend to be dealt with. The moderation is perfectly fine, with mods more than happy to rescind threadbans when you interact with them and those that post actual racism swiftly being banned for the most part.

There is plenty of good discussion in CA, a lot of ****e too, but that will always be the case regardless.

An excellent summary of the current situation. The vast majority of posters (950 active users at the current moment, making it easily the busiest forum on Boards.ie) seem happy enough with CA/IMHO. Then we have a small yet committed contingent of posters, all hailing from much the same ideological position, who complain and campaign ceaselessly, trying to have the forum censored or shut down because what they see there offends them.

Any forum will always have a small number of disgruntled outliers who want it censored, closed, or changed in some other way. But they're not representative of the majority.

Beasty · 07-01-2021 05:31PM

Invidious wrote: »

s (950 active users at the current moment, making it easily the busiest forum on Boards.ie)

Not quite - the majority of that number are actually viewing the Coronavirus forum, but CA has cetainly been the second busiest forum since the pandemic hit with nearly as many posts as AH and Soccer aggregated

09-01-2021 02:29PM

Mostly not ban worthy posts but in recent days, I think the current affairs forum has done a fine job of demonstrating how it attracts the far right.

end of the road · 09-01-2021 04:02PM

well of course it does, but so what? they are a tiny but very vocal minority who the majority think are crack pots.
how about taking some responsibility and debunking their drivel?
current affairs is not going to be a forum that only caters to our views, you need to understand and accept this.

09-01-2021 04:09PM

end of the road wrote: »

well of course it does, but so what? they are a tiny but very vocal minority who the majority think are crack pots.
how about taking some responsibility and debunking their drivel?
current affairs is not going to be a forum that only caters to our views, you need to understand and accept this.

In fairness I believe myself and plenty of other posters have done plenty to combat that but ultimately there are other threads that simply are pointless to engage with.

Invidious · 10-01-2021 10:53AM

Beasty wrote: »

Not quite - the majority of that number are actually viewing the Coronavirus forum, but CA has cetainly been the second busiest forum since the pandemic hit with nearly as many posts as AH and Soccer aggregated

Thanks for that info, Beasty. I didn't realise that the number of active users included those viewing the Coronavirus forum.

That said, I think my point stands ... that CA/IMHO has become a large and busy forum, and most people seem relatively happy about it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Mostly not ban worthy posts but in recent days, I think the current affairs forum has done a fine job of demonstrating how it attracts the far right.

For some people, it seems, the world is divided into "people who think exactly like me" and "the far right." Usually, people who see "the far right" exerting some major sway over Boards or Ireland are simply conflating all non-left opinions into "the far right," and thus vastly exaggerating the influence of genuine far-right beliefs.

Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Comments