Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Discodog · 11-01-2021 06:24PM

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Then go to the politics forum.

Current affairs isn't politics. Sometimes it can be but often not.

nullzero · 11-01-2021 07:13PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And today its not even about George Nkencho at all - just lots of lashing out at left wing people.

The same "left wing people" who are on that thread offering no evidence to back up anything they're claiming, yourself included?

Why should those posters take you seriously or respect your position when you cannot defend it in any form to begin with?

There's plenty of threads on this and other forums where "right wing people" are ridiculed.

You can't have everything your own way all the time.

If you have an argument to make and you can stand over its veracity, then take those people on. So far you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support a single thing you've said on that thread.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 13-01-2021 02:59AM

osarusan wrote: »

I don't see how wanting somebody to provide evidence for a claim they make is anything to do with disagreement. I think it's absolutely reasonable to ask somebody to back up a claim before we get down to discussing it.

Well, snoopsheep is conversing with Joeytheparrot there who is notorious for NOT doing the bolded. He runs when challenged. If Joeytheparrot wants other to back up what they say in the interest of a robust and open discussion, he should be prepared to do the same himself.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 13-01-2021 04:15AM

Discodog wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone ask for it's closure. But why is it the only place where one can discuss current affairs ? I am sure that there are plenty on Boards that would welcome a normally moderated forum for such discussion. Good luck with debunking that Ireland has too many immigrants or people on welfare are scroungers or even that a "scumbag" with a knife deserves to be shot dead.

Some topics can't have an alternative view because the mob will shout it down & so you end up with the "echo chamber" that everyone says they don't want.

I don’t know, call me crazy but I’d say a forum entitled ‘Current Affairs’ is the perfect place to discuss... current affairs. I don’t know what you mean by ‘normally moderated forum’. What is abnormal about the moderation of ‘Current Affairs’?

osarusan · 13-01-2021 08:27AM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, snoopsheep is conversing with Joeytheparrot there who is notorious for NOT doing the bolded. He runs when challenged. If Joeytheparrot wants other to back up what they say in the interest of a robust and open discussion, he should be prepared to do the same himself.

There are plenty of posters who are all for backing up claims when somebody else is making them, but not when they make them themselves. This hypocrisy (in every aspect of debate, not just that one) is a hallmark of CA.

Every poster should be prepared to back up what they say when making such claims. I think it would improve the quality of debate significantly, by removing the bottom layer of baseless claims and resulting pointless back and forth.

Wibbs · 14-01-2021 10:30AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its really not in any way possible to debunk in a mature way when the level of debate is that left wing people are resentful, self loathing, have no purpose in life, make no contribution to society, are miserable, are mentally ill and destroy peoples lives. That isnt in anyway whatsoever a mature discussion.

In the multiculturalism thread as an example the number of "left wing" people who were threadbanned, or banned from the forum itself absolutely dwarfed the number of "right wing" people who were. The examples of insult you give were all present and with some extra spice on top. Indeed the consistent MO for the vast majority of such posters was to come in, respond to a post, when they felt their arguments were debunked or disrespected, or they were running out of steam to call racism or some other ism, then in short order run to insult, then leave, or get banned.

Now I can certainly see and can happily acknowledge examples of what you mention towards the "left" and that's not on, but the fact you seem blind to it going the other way when there are more than plenty of examples says more about your baseline position than the realities involved.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 14-01-2021 04:16PM

osarusan wrote: »

There are plenty of posters who are all for backing up claims when somebody else is making them, but not when they make them themselves. This hypocrisy (in every aspect of debate, not just that one) is a hallmark of CA.

Every poster should be prepared to back up what they say when making such claims. I think it would improve the quality of debate significantly, by removing the bottom layer of baseless claims and resulting pointless back and forth.

Right... but if somebody comes to Feedback to complain about people not backing up their claims and cites it as a reason for not getting more involved in CA and pontificates about the need for robust, evidenced debate, they better be damn sure they are not guilty of same. That’s hypocritical and should be flagged.

And I’d disagree that it’s a hallmark of CA. I have a few threads I contribute to and people are pretty darn good at backing up what they say because the most regular contributors really give a shit about the topics and have given them a lot of thought. So I can’t even really relate to your point here. People might not like the evidence provided but that’s different.

SchrodingersCat · 14-01-2021 04:58PM

Wibbs wrote: »

In the multiculturalism thread as an example the number of "left wing" people who were threadbanned, or banned from the forum itself absolutely dwarfed the number of "right wing" people who were.

Where are you getting these numbers to compare from?

Wibbs · 14-01-2021 06:30PM

From reading and posting in the thread. It was extremely obvious to anyone doing the same. The pattern outlined above was with a couple of welcome exceptions remarkably similar.

TheValeyard · 14-01-2021 07:15PM

Can I complain about the complainers?

osarusan · 14-01-2021 09:44PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Right... but if somebody comes to Feedback to complain about people not backing up their claims and cites it as a reason for not getting more involved in CA and pontificates about the need for robust, evidenced debate, they better be damn sure they are not guilty of same. That’s hypocritical and should be flagged.

No issue with any of that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And I’d disagree that it’s a hallmark of CA. I have a few threads I contribute to and people are pretty darn good at backing up what they say because the most regular contributors really give a shit about the topics and have given them a lot of thought. So I can’t even really relate to your point here. People might not like the evidence provided but that’s different.

There are indeed loads of posters who make great contributions and do offer robust debate, and that's great.

Unfortunately there are also posters who absolutely stink the place up with bad faith hypocritical sh!tposting. It's the apparent need to cater to this kind of poster that I don't understand.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 14-01-2021 10:17PM

osarusan wrote: »

No issue with any of that.

There are indeed loads of posters who make great contributions and do offer robust debate, and that's great.

Unfortunately there are also posters who absolutely stink the place up with bad faith hypocritical sh!tposting. It's the apparent need to cater to this kind of poster that I don't understand.

I’ve used a few different forums and messageboards over the years and still do and shitposters were and are present on all of them. They’ll never be completely eradicated from a site and boards probably does a better job than most at moderating them. But yeah, they’ll always be there so we need to move around them and reply to the people who interest us.

SchrodingersCat · 14-01-2021 11:04PM

Wibbs wrote: »

From reading and posting in the thread. It was extremely obvious to anyone doing the same. The pattern outlined above was with a couple of welcome exceptions remarkably similar.

Ah right. I thought you might have had actual, not anecdotal evidence.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 14-01-2021 11:24PM

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Ah right. I thought you might have had actual, not anecdotal evidence.

There’s hardly going to be a peer-reviewed study about the thread. See who has been threadbanned. If they are a regular user and you are a regular user, you will have a good idea of their political allegiances.

14-01-2021 11:56PM

Is there any good reason to keep on going with the George thread - other than clicks?

This was my last post on it;

"Ugh, here I go with my post to the ether.

The guy is dead. The investigation is presumably ongoing.

The family of the dead guy can read all this.

The family of the Guards involved can read all this.

Does it need to go on?"

But now people are making rap jokes on the thread. Nice look for the site.

It shouldn't be about reporting posters, it should be about shutting down sh*tty threads.

osarusan · 15-01-2021 12:27AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It shouldn't be about reporting posters, it should be about shutting down sh*tty threads.

I think exactly the opposite.

Shutting down threads seems to be the less troublesome thing to do, rather than take action against individual posters who may head to DRP.

Leave threads open for people who want to discuss the topic, get rid of those who just want to act the dick.

15-01-2021 12:32AM

Do you see any value in keeping the George thread open? What new insights are going to be shared there?

15-01-2021 12:41AM

I notice a post of mine was deleted on a CA thread without comment. That's bad form. Nothing via PM or on thread. Don't know who to even say it to as nobody cared to leave a name on their action. It was probably because I called out a user for their continued bad faith posting on a thread. If that's it, then but why not say it? But why are some posters allowed to make all the claims in the world they want without proof and disappear when asked to back them up and then have the neck to ask others for proof in the exact same thread for something to suit their narrative?

Overheal · 15-01-2021 12:55AM

Omackeral wrote: »

I notice a post of mine was deleted on a CA thread without comment. That's bad form. Nothing via PM or on thread. Don't know who to even say it to as nobody cared to leave a name on their action. It was probably because I called out a user for their continued bad faith posting on a thread. If that's it, then but why not say it? But why are some posters allowed to make all the claims in the world they want without proof and disappear when asked to back them up and then have the neck to ask others for proof in the exact same thread for something to suit their narrative?

If it was backseat moderating that could have been why

osarusan · 15-01-2021 12:57AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you see any value in keeping the George thread open? What new insights are going to be shared there?

If posters are filling it with shyte, do something about the posts and posters, clean the thread up, then leave it alone.

When people get tired of talking about it, it will drop away naturally. Just let that happen.

15-01-2021 01:07AM

Posts outright accusing people of being "resident racists" are deemed as yellow cards.

These are the same arseholes that claim that "rightwing" people have free reign.

Laughable.

15-01-2021 01:14AM

osarusan wrote: »

If posters are filling it with shyte, do something about the posts and posters, clean the thread up, then leave it alone.

When people get tired of talking about it, it will drop away naturally. Just let that happen.

I guess we'll have to disagree. I think it's a sh*t look to keep a thread going about someone who has died under whatever circumstances. It's not dropping away and it won't unless Boards.ie decide to take a stance on stuff like this.

I fail to see what benefit there is to keep that particular thread running, other than for clicks. It's certainly not for any new information that the posters are going to add to the thread.

Anyway, I've probably got through my righteous indignation for the night. Good luck.

Kraftwerk · 15-01-2021 01:26AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I guess we'll have to disagree. I think it's a sh*t look to keep a thread going about someone who has died under whatever circumstances. It's not dropping away and it won't unless Boards.ie decide to take a stance on stuff like this.

There's obviously more details to come when the investigation is complete. There's still crowds of idiots breaching Covid restrictions over it daily. Its an ongoing story so it makes no sense to close the thread to keep a handful of whingers happy.

15-01-2021 01:26AM

Overheal wrote: »

If it was backseat moderating that could have been why

It was not back seat moderating at all. It was asking a question directly to a poster why they demand proof and evidence yet never give it themselves. Even if it was considered backseat modding in the opinion of the bosses, why not say it instead of deleting stuff without a note. It’s not a great precedent imo.

Kraftwerk · 15-01-2021 01:33AM

Omackeral wrote: »

It was not back seat moderating at all. It was asking a question directly to a poster why they demand proof and evidence yet never give it themselves. Even if it was considered backseat modding in the opinion of the bosses, why not say it instead of deleting stuff without a note. It’s not a great precedent imo.

Mods routinely delete stuff without saying anything. Seems to be mostly cleaning up off topic stuff.

15-01-2021 01:36AM

Kraftwerk wrote: »

Mods routinely delete stuff without saying anything. Seems to be mostly cleaning up off topic stuff.

Fair enough. I just think the poster deserves to be called on their bad faith posts and it was in keeping with the topic imo

SchrodingersCat · 15-01-2021 10:01AM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

There’s hardly going to be a peer-reviewed study about the thread. See who has been threadbanned. If they are a regular user and you are a regular user, you will have a good idea of their political allegiances.

Here, i'm not looking for a peer reviewed study, I'm wondering if there is a way to see the threadbanned users and to figure out their allegiances rather than going off someones recollection.

Back to the original question, how do you see who is threadbanned? Typically there is a list at the start of the thread, but there doesn't appear to be one in this, nor can i find it mentioned in the thread.

Invidious · 15-01-2021 10:49AM

osarusan wrote: »

Shutting down threads seems to be the less troublesome thing to do...

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you see any value in keeping the George thread open?

It's clear that some posters want to use the Feedback forum to campaign endlessly against threads/forums/posters they don't like. Is that the purpose of Feedback?

The very nature of a large discussion forum means that not every thread will be to everyone's taste ... but this increasing spirit of censoriousness, and these ceaseless calls to lock threads, ban posters, etc., seem to me entirely contrary to the spirit of open debate that Boards should be seeking to foster.

frozenfrozen · 15-01-2021 11:02AM

Omackeral wrote: »

I notice a post of mine was deleted on a CA thread without comment. That's bad form. Nothing via PM or on thread. Don't know who to even say it to as nobody cared to leave a name on their action. It was probably because I called out a user for their continued bad faith posting on a thread. If that's it, then but why not say it? But why are some posters allowed to make all the claims in the world they want without proof and disappear when asked to back them up and then have the neck to ask others for proof in the exact same thread for something to suit their narrative?

Same as me yesterday evening and I only found out as he had given me a card for a separate post so I got a PM. Cleaned up all my posts calling out someone for just dodging questions and left the posts I replied to

No on thread warning about why it was cleaned up either. I pmed the mod who said I was off topic. I'm one of the few on there who refuses for the topic to be immediately changed so others can roll off the questions they never answer...

Usually don't have an issue with boards modding but it was very odd that only my stuff was removed. The mod in pm who had deleted my posts several minutes before also asked to be reminded which posts were deleted and they said they hadn't been reading earlier so weren't sure what we were talking about. So how they could be sure it was just me being off topic is questionable.

You have people coming out with statements which if you tried to question them they roll it off and if you push them for an answer you are deleted for being off topic without warning or a mod summary on thread of why it happened.

My feedback is just are all of the mods aware of the level of silent deleting going on? It seems 1 sided so I wonder if its just one mod with some bias

Beasty · 15-01-2021 01:36PM

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Usually don't have an issue with boards modding but it was very odd that only my stuff was removed. The mod in pm who had deleted my posts several minutes before also asked to be reminded which posts were deleted and they said they hadn't been reading earlier so weren't sure what we were talking about. So how they could be sure it was just me being off topic is questionable.

The mod removed a number of posts in a chain of correspondence that were not discussing the underlying topic. In some cases users deleted their own posts (although some remain in quotes)

The post you picked a card up for was very clearly attacking another poster - that post is fully visible with the yellow card showing. The deleted posts were made about 2 and a half hours later in the thread

Either way it's a specific issue in a specific thread - the deleted stuff is not for further discussion here

Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Comments