Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

1…6970727475…77

Comments

  • #2132
    frozenfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,677 ✭✭✭frozenfrozen


    Beasty wrote: »
    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

    I didn't for a second question the card. Thanks for the clarification that the poster I was calling out for selectively deleting their own posts was in fact doing it.

    I won't bring it up again


  • #2133
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    SchrodingersCat wrote: »
    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.

    An announcement is made on-thread so that people know to stop replying to a forum member who can’t reply back. I guess a search of posts by forum mods made in the thread would be the most expedient way to find those posts.


  • #2134
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    SchrodingersCat wrote: »
    Ah right. I thought you might have had actual, not anecdotal evidence.
    Any poster who engaged in that particular thread for any length of time, no matter their allegiance to one side or the other would agree with me. It was pretty obvious SchrodingersCat. Even a few of those who thanked my post on the matter could be hardly described as "right wing" or anti the thread topic. I could delve into that thread and link posts and posters you could follow through the next few pages and you'd see the same pattern, but that's not really cricket in the feedback forum to single out posters like that.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #2135
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,513 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Omackeral wrote: »
    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
    I've had a look at the post and TBH I'm surprised you did not get a PM informing you of a card or forum ban for attacking a poster rather than post. But mod discretion seems to have worked in your favour here.

    If you wish to discuss further though, please PM me


  • #2136
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,513 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    An announcement is made on-thread so that people know to stop replying to a forum member who can’t reply back. I guess a search of posts by forum mods made in the thread would be the most expedient way to find those posts.
    Generally I will advise a threadban by quoting a post(s) that I felt went over the line and simply stating "threadbanned"

    In some threads, and in particular those where we have multiple iterations, we have started listing threadbans in OPs. We do not typically do so in threads which are likely to be short-lived. It is something we may look to standardise in CA perhaps by putting a list when we get to a "thread 2", as clearly it's not as straightforward for anyone to search another earlier thread if they think someone has been threadbanned. It is always useful when posters report posters they think are threadbanned, as we are unlikely to spot them otherwise particularly in longer/faster moving threads


  • Advertisement
  • #2137
    SchrodingersCat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,052 ✭✭✭SchrodingersCat


    Beasty wrote: »
    Generally I will advise a threadban by quoting a post(s) that I felt went over the line and simply stating "threadbanned"

    In some threads, and in particular those where we have multiple iterations, we have started listing threadbans in OPs. We do not typically do so in threads which are likely to be short-lived. It is something we may look to standardise in CA perhaps by putting a list when we get to a "thread 2", as clearly it's not as straightforward for anyone to search another earlier thread if they think someone has been threadbanned. It is always useful when posters report posters they think are threadbanned, as we are unlikely to spot them otherwise particularly in longer/faster moving threads

    Thanks. I would find this useful. From reading the Multicultural thread, and from the numbers being mentioned in confidence by posters here, I thought I was missing a list of threadbanned users.


  • #2138
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,814 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I’ve had several posts ‘silently’ deleted in the CA thread discussing the shooting of George Nkencho. My posts were either responding to or reinforcing existing arguments, the content of which persist in the public domain.

    Is there a specific reason why most recent post was deleted? It feels like a pretty underhand way to censor opinion that was reasonably articulate and did not violate forum rules. I’ll be keeping an eye on this going forward.


  • #2139
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    Beasty wrote: »
    Generally I will advise a threadban by quoting a post(s) that I felt went over the line and simply stating "threadbanned"

    In some threads, and in particular those where we have multiple iterations, we have started listing threadbans in OPs. We do not typically do so in threads which are likely to be short-lived. It is something we may look to standardise in CA perhaps by putting a list when we get to a "thread 2", as clearly it's not as straightforward for anyone to search another earlier thread if they think someone has been threadbanned. It is always useful when posters report posters they think are threadbanned, as we are unlikely to spot them otherwise particularly in longer/faster moving threads

    I think listing threadbanned users would be a good idea.


  • #2140
    .anon.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭.anon.


    Hamachi wrote: »
    I’ve had several posts ‘silently’ deleted in the CA thread discussing the shooting of George Nkencho.

    I've just noticed I've had a pretty innocuous post silently deleted from the unpopular opinions thread (it's quoted in this post). I'm guessing it was deleted accidentally, as a number of posts on the same page were deleted because they quoted a troll. Which is fine, I don't mind. But if, for some reason, it was deliberately deleted, it would be nice to be told why.


  • #2141
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,513 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    .anon. wrote: »
    I've just noticed I've had a pretty innocuous post silently deleted from the unpopular opinions thread (it's quoted in this post). I'm guessing it was deleted accidentally, as a number of posts on the same page were deleted because they quoted a troll. Which is fine, I don't mind. But if, for some reason, it was deliberately deleted, it would be nice to be told why.

    I've just had a look. Caught in the crossfire by the looks of it - the mod was deleting a large number of posting quoting one of our "regulars" who we try not to offer any oxygen to, and yours was inadvertently included. I've undeleted your post

    With something like that it's best to drop the mod a PM


  • Advertisement
  • #2142
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,264 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Nigerian gangs trafficking children into Ireland for sex.

    Are leftie liberals ok with their kids being raped.

    Not his first rodeo.

    Just some of the nice things to pop up on Boards most popular thread in the last hour or so.

    But sure, yeah, clicks.


  • #2143
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Beasty wrote: »
    I've just had a look. Caught in the crossfire by the looks of it - the mod was deleting a large number of posting quoting one of our "regulars" who we try not to offer any oxygen to, and yours was inadvertently included. I've undeleted your post

    With something like that it's best to drop the mod a PM

    The problem is when it’s not clear which mod was involved? Should someone ask in help desk then?


  • #2144
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,490 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    Closure of the 'George Nkencho' thread is over the top and should be re-opened.
    Instead of giving the impression of 'giving in' to serial whingers, maybe remove the sub-conversations (for example, Nigerian sex traffickers) and warn or threadban.
    When a good few posters on the 'Gemma' thread were using a guard's suicide as a side scoring point, the right thing was done - comments were removed and the thread kept open.


  • #2145
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,003 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    osarusan wrote: »
    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.
    The Nkencho thread was closed, and I think this post applies here.

    I appreciate that there were mod warnings and then posters who didn't adhere to the warnings received cards...but why close the thread? Why not say that X, Y and Z are now threadbanned and leave the thread open?

    I get the sense that mods (very understandably) think 'ah f**k this, it's all just too much hassle, I'm closing this thread.' Particularly if it's 1.52am!

    But I think threadbans are the way to go here - you act the dick in a thread, you lose the right to post in that thread.


  • #2146
    Kraftwerk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 472 ✭✭Kraftwerk


    Were the whingers constantly reporting the thread or something? Because there's loads of threads that are constantly going off topic and never closed. The SF thread for example is rarely on topic and is mostly shinners complaining about FG. But it's never actioned.

    Why is the nkencho thread treated differently?


  • #2147
    nullzero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,166 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    Nkencho thread closing is OTT.

    I suppose it shows the power of complaint, those who couldn't argue successfully that the killing was racially motivated went down the route of complaint.

    Anyone posting in the thread and not abiding by the warnings should have been warned or thread banned. Instead the nuclear option was chosen.

    The George Nkencho case is by no means resolved, and we can be sure it will continue to be discussed. Is the topic of this case now not allowed to be discussed on boards? Because other threads will invariably pop up over time.


  • #2148
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,559 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    nullzero wrote: »
    Nkencho thread closing is OTT.

    I suppose it shows the power of complaint, those who couldn't argue successfully that the killing was racially motivated went down the route of complaint.

    Anyone posting in the thread and not abiding by the warnings should have been warned or thread banned. Instead the nuclear option was chosen.

    The George Nkencho case is by no means resolved, and we can be sure it will continue to be discussed. Is the topic of this case now not allowed to be discussed on boards? Because other threads will invariably pop up over time.

    Looking last night, it was regular posters in that thread making incredibly racist remarks about Nigerians. It didn't even relate to the topic. I'm guessing going off topic on rants is a regular feature since it happened a few days back as well when I checked it.

    Also the people making the incredibly racist jabs are more often than not regulars on the site.

    Also this will predictably result in posters blaming me and other posters for the closure of the thread. The reality is it's down to the conduct of those who wanted to go off on racist tangents...


  • #2149
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,546 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Nkencho thread was going nowhere. Open a new one when the result of the GSOC investigation is released and there are more accurate details.


  • #2150
    Kraftwerk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 472 ✭✭Kraftwerk


    Topgear on Dave wrote: »
    Nkencho thread was going nowhere. Open a new one when the result of the GSOC investigation is released and there are more accurate details.

    Just like to clarify the procedure to close threads. From what I see here it's:

    1. Whinge on the thread itself about the thread existing.
    2. Insult other posters because the thread isn't closed.
    3. Get threadbanned for contributing nothing.
    4. Move to feedback to whinge over and over.
    5. Keep reporting anything and everything from the threads you're banned from.
    6. Mods will eventually close the thread.

    Can we stick that in the charter please so we're all clear on it?


  • #2151
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,513 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Overheal wrote: »
    The problem is when it’s not clear which mod was involved? Should someone ask in help desk then?
    Simple enough to PM any of the forum mods. In this particular case it was a clear mistake and I did not have to discuss with the relevant mod before correcting it.


  • Advertisement
  • #2152
    inforfun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,860 ✭✭✭✭inforfun


    I guess some people just never learn.
    If you keep dragging stuff into a thread that isnt really relevant for that thread, you give people for whom the subject of a thread is uncomfortable, the chance to report the **** out of a thread and get it closed.


  • #2153
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,513 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    I'm just seeing from the comments here that the Nkencho thread has been closed

    The incident occurred 18 days ago. The thread has nearly 8,000 posts. Is there really much more that can be said about the incident?

    I appreciate there will be a follow up by relevant authorities, which can be addressed at the relevant time. However the thread is a magnet for anyone wanting to raise any immigration or indeed race issue. It had run its course on the thread topic.

    If anyone has any new information or has an relevant aspect they believe has not been covered please drop me a PM and we can look at re-opening it to discuss the relevant issue


  • #2154
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,513 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    As I said - PM me with any new info and we will consider re-opening


  • #2155
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,490 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    Beasty wrote: »
    I'm just seeing from the comments here that the Nkencho thread has been closed

    The incident occurred 18 days ago. The thread has nearly 8,000 posts. Is there really much more that can be said about the incident?

    I appreciate there will be a follow up by relevant authorities, which can be addressed at the relevant time. However the thread is a magnet for anyone wanting to raise any immigration or indeed race issue. It had run its course on the thread topic.

    If anyone has any new information or has an relevant aspect they believe has not been covered please drop me a PM and we can look at re-opening it to discuss the relevant issue


    There are very valid (sub)topics that are a result directly from and relating to the incident and these are ongoing and very important IMO.



    I have to say the closure smells or can legitimately be seen as acquiescence to an agenda whereas the very best effort should be used to ensure bad faith posts and posters are dealt with and yes, I understand the hard work on that can be onerous but simply crumpling to vocal activist posters no matter their status here, is wrong for the board IMO.


  • #2156
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    nullzero wrote: »
    I suppose it shows the power of complaint, those who couldn't argue successfully that the killing was racially motivated went down the route of complaint.

    Aka cancel culture


  • #2157
    nullzero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,166 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Looking last night, it was regular posters in that thread making incredibly racist remarks about Nigerians. It didn't even relate to the topic. I'm guessing going off topic on rants is a regular feature since it happened a few days back as well when I checked it.

    Also the people making the incredibly racist jabs are more often than not regulars on the site.

    Also this will predictably result in posters blaming me and other posters for the closure of the thread. The reality is it's down to the conduct of those who wanted to go off on racist tangents...

    There were several posts that could be described as anti immigration, or more precisely against people who avail of asylum here and accuse this country of being institutionally racist heading back to where they came from.

    Racism would suggest comments made about skin colour and ethnicity which wasn't the case.

    I think your comments are indicative of the rush to cry foul over anything that isn't complimentary to certain members of society.

    I think you would be hard pushed to find many posters on that thread that were actually overtly racist, but there were a lot of posters who were fed up with the double standards in relation to immigrants in this country who accuse us of being racist nation when that demonstrably isn't true.


  • #2158
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,513 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Sir Oxman wrote: »
    There are very valid (sub)topics that are a result directly from and relating to the incident and these are ongoing and very important IMO.

    Please PM me with details of what you would like to discuss that has not already been covered


  • #2159
    KyussB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    I mean, is a news story that is still being actively written about in newspapers, with new details emerging, not still a 'Current Affair'?

    We've learned that citing facts posted by newspapers does not shield people from mod action, when mod disagreement with those facts is the basis for the sanction (and that is not reversed even after emerging news stories continually back up the cited facts, in greater and greater detail...) - now the whole news story, that is still being published about with new updates, is apparently 'old news' now and has already been completely/entirely covered...

    Granted, I'm certain the moderation of the thread has been and is very difficult - but can some effort please be made to undo the screwups in moderation, and not to make more? It comes across as trying to suppress the news story and facts involved - even though I'm certain it is more likely just a difficult to moderate discussion.


  • #2160
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    KyussB wrote: »
    I mean, is a news story that is still being actively written about in newspapers, with new details emerging, not still a 'Current Affair'?

    We've learned that citing facts posted by newspapers does not shield people from mod action, when mod disagreement with those facts is the basis for the sanction (and that is not reversed even after emerging news stories continually back up the cited facts, in greater and greater detail...) - now the whole news story, that is still being published about with new updates, is apparently 'old news' now and has already been completely/entirely covered...

    Granted, I'm certain the moderation of the thread has been and is very difficult - but can some effort please be made to undo the screwups in moderation, and not to make more? It comes across as trying to suppress the news story and facts involved - even though I'm certain it is more likely just a difficult to moderate discussion.

    3 days old news link. Surely the content has been ravenously covered by the nature of the thread; loads of people just bickering around one or two of these breadcrumbs that crop up every few days and with dwindling frequency?

    Also in Ireland isn't there in fact a real danger that by not exercising some restraint about discussion of ongoing cases that you begin to seriously risk the possibility of mistrial?


  • Advertisement
  • #2161
    KyussB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    If there were a 3 day staleness rule for news stories (including the weekend, it seems...), the entire Current Affairs forum would be locked.

    I've looked back through the thread up to the date of that link, and there are still falsehoods being routinely repeated, which are in contradiction with facts cited in that link - I can't go into them, though. The contents of the story itself is extremely notable and important.

    It's a bit weird that you're inventing concerns about a non-existant trial, as an ex-post-facto justification for the locking.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement