Boards' traveller problem

Overheal wrote: »

Those posts are years old. Individual viewpoints never evolve? It would seem 'retarded' to think that... [case and point]. Took some effort to go digging up dirt on a user, rather than address the substance of what they are saying in the here and now. Is that how we should have talks here? A 2018 account going after a 2009 account pretending they never said anything indefensible in their adult life, with the benefit of an extra decade of anonymity.

Let's not, please.

I didn’t realise there was a hierarchy. I thought everyone’s posts should be judged on merit.

Now that I know in the world according to overheal I have to make sure any poster I disagree with hasn’t had an account longer than I’ve had mine, before I say I disagree with them. Does that mean all I need to say to a newer account “I disagree” and they have to accept that and shut up shop?

Is there some sort of leeway, in the interests of debate. It’ll get fairly boring around here if a posters registered date is to become the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. Plus/minus two years for example??

For what it’s worth, this was my first post on my old account.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50697339&postcount=21

Do old closed accounts count? I hope they do. That one was created in January 2006.

Sooooooo

Overheal. You’re wrong
Now accept it, accept my older account as being superior to your younger account.

anewme wrote: »

I gave a clear example of traveller bashing posts that were not dealt with.

This has turned out to be quite prophetic.

Beasty

A reminder, from the Charter

To post in Feedback, you must have 100 posts on the site and have been a registered member for at least 3 months

end of the road

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not anti traveller in that I judge individuals as I get them.
But there are many aspects of traveller culture which I frankly find abhorrent and there does not seem to be any effort from leaders in the traveling community to tackle to these cultural norms.
Taking kids out of school early is one example, marrying far too young. Abuse of animals especially horses to name a few.

agreed but those are also against the law meaning they are also law enforcement issues.
the gardai should be enforcing the law as well as the other relevant authorities on the matters and the fact they aren't is on them and is a problem.

Buddy Bubs wrote: »

I don't have to get over anything. And I've no problem getting called out on it but I'll defend my stance. Nobody has ever given me a valid reason that makes me reconsider my position. Just get called names which doesn't bother me.
I don't agree that it's a minority of travelers that cause problems, I think its a majority and a lifestyle decision for them and as such they, as a group, can't be trusted. Far too many negative experiences in work and personal life with them over the years, including an ill fated decision to employ one.

it doesn't matter whether you agree with it being a minority or not, whether it's a majority or minority, if you judge or treat all members of a group badly because of the actions of others, it is you who is in the wrong and you invalidate any points made on the basis of that judgement and invalidate any argument you have on similar, that's it, that's just the reality.
a specific individual who has done something being called out for doing that something on the other hand is perfectly fine and justifiable given they have done and been proven to have done something.
if people kept to criticising individuals who have been proven to have done something, or kept to established actual facts that have basis and reliable evidence to back them up, then the traveler discussions on this site would actually be worth more people's time taking part.
as it is, they end up becoming bashing magnets and get closed, which, i disagree with them being closed and those engaging in the bashing should be given all the rope in the world, but we have what we have and the bashers are to blame for that.

With respect eotr, a child can legally be removed from education at 16. Leaving school with only a junior certificate has long-term implications for further educational and career prospects.

Many girls in the travelling community are married off and destined to a life as a subservient housewife and mother with a large family.

While many people in the settled community don't blossom in school, they can return to education as adults, but they do this with support. A culture of disregarding education predetermines the life of many travellers, and that is one the travelling community need to address themselves.

Travellers attend mainstream schools, but their literacy and numeracy skills are generally far below those in the settled community. Why do you think this is? Do you think they have a genetically lower IQ, or that the emphasis on education and familial support is lacking?

Is the settled community responsible for this? Are we responsible for their disproportionate involvement in criminality as shown in conviction rates?

EmmetSpiceland

Feels like we’re moving away from discussing anti-traveller “sentiments” on the site and closer to a discussion on travellers, themselves.

Considering there is a fair amount of anti-traveller feeling about the site is it up to boards.ie, through the mods, to try and curb this, ignore it or should it be directed to the “Current Affairs” forum?

For me, personally, it always looks quite out of place in AH, or any other of the normal forums. The, more, casual stuff isn’t so bad but when some users see one poster “getting away with it” it seems to compound the problem so stopping it at source, and directing it to CA, would be a sensible move.

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Feels like we’re moving away from discussing anti-traveller “sentiments” on the site and closer to a discussion on travellers, themselves.

Considering there is a fair amount of anti-traveller feeling about the site is it up to boards.ie, through the mods, to try and curb this, ignore it or should it be directed to the “Current Affairs” forum?

For me, personally, it always looks quite out of place in AH, or any other of the normal forums. The, more, casual stuff isn’t so bad but when some users see one poster “getting away with it” it seems to compound the problem so stopping it at source, and directing it to CA, would be a sensible move.

Emmet, you need to stop the "cess pit" CA rhetoric, it's getting old now. Time for some "new" material, I'd hate to see you become a "caricature".

dulpit

Even though others have piled onto a different poster, I was the one to actually start this thread. I started it to see if the entity of boards (and partially, I guess, the mods) had any sort of view or interest in trying to do anything to curb (my perception at least) the increase in anti traveller sentiment which is creeping into various forums and threads, some overt, some more subtle.

This thread has instead turned into a bunch of people demanding they be allowed post what they want about travellers because of points like "they've never dealt with a good one" and "all travellers are bad" or "their culture is bad".

If people want to post this rubbish and hate, fine. It would be nice, as EmmetSpiceland suggested, that it be confined to an area where people can just shout at each other (eg current affairs) without spoiling the rest of the site.

I do still have questions though regarding the specific rules and how they are decided on by boards.ie and forum specific mods. There seems to be a general ruling that you shouldn't be a dick, and also that you don't post discrimatory comments. The first is clearly ignored in lots of areas, and the latter is not always followed either. Consistency would be good.

I don't see this thread going anywhere further though, it seems to have devolved into an argument between a few vocal users, so not sure there's any benefit here unless admins can weigh in?

Wanderer78

There's clearly something seriously failing in the way we deal with travellers, the stats certainly do stack up, and most people's interactions with them also do. I seen a local traveller recently driving a brand new merc, there's clearly something wrong there!

EmmetSpiceland

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Emmet, you need to stop the "cess pit" CA rhetoric, it's getting old now. Time for some "new" material, I'd hate to see you become a "caricature".

I’ve never called it a “cesspit”. Now, I’m sure some foot soldier will do their due diligence so, just in case, I’ll say I don’t remember, to the best of my ability, calling it that.

What is the point of the “Current Affairs” forum if all that distasteful posting is acceptable all across the site?

I’ve been a vocal support of the CA forum and believe is serves an important purpose on the site. In fact, I’d like to see it as more of a “free for all” where only the most serious of transgressions are punished, doxxing, legal threats etc. Posters would be informed of this, obviously.

It seems that this thread is going the way of the ‘sexism’ thread, anyone who says there’s a problem gets rounded on. No one wants to close the CA forum, it’s just that when there is a forum there with a higher threshold for, the more, “controversial” opinions it should lead to a tightening of tolerance for that sort of thing across the rest of the site.

Beasty

To be clear

Generalised attacks on travellers will be sanctioned if reported. Sometimes sheer numbers of reports and mods being offline mean reports may be missed. If you think something remains but not clearly dealt with report again. If still not satisfied approach a mod or Cmod to discuss

When it comes to non generalised comments we have to look at context and exercise discretion

So if, for example, the mainstream media report a traveller as involved in an incident we are not going to sanction for repeating that here. If a crime is committed and someone says it must have been a traveller with no independent verification that would be unacceptable

Signore Fancy Pants

dulpit wrote: »

Even though others have piled onto a different poster,

This "pile on" rhetoric that gets thrown around lately, purely designed to suggest an element of bullying to shut down robust debate.

Debates and arguments were challenged and countered by posters who disagreed with the narrative and hypocrisy was called out, the poster was in the minority, thats all.

"Anti traveller sentiment" is a product of prejudice, bigotry, racism, personal experience second hand experience, general knowledge and statistical data.

Sweeping generalisations harm genuine debate but genuine debate should not be censored, both sides have a right to air their views and experiences, however distasteful to the other side.

dulpit wrote: »

This thread has instead turned into a bunch of people demanding they be allowed post what they want about travellers because of points like "they've never dealt with a good one" and "all travellers are bad" or "their culture is bad".

If someone has never had a positive experience with a traveller, are they not allowed share that information? If not, why not?

I agree that not all travellers are bad, would be silly not to. I also agree that elements of their culture are bad, such as their violations of human and animal rights, statistical disproportionate criminality among the community, lack of progression and integration.

Unfortunately, these are some of the reasons where sweeping generalisations are apt, first hand experience is not necessary to hold those views.

dulpit wrote: »

If people want to post this rubbish and hate, fine.

Is it just rubbish and hate or is it also legitimate counter opinion?

dulpit wrote: »

I don't see this thread going anywhere further though, it seems to have devolved into an argument between a few vocal users, so not sure there's any benefit here unless admins can weigh in?

The Mod/Admin team are in a tight spot. Sweeping generalisations are not always able to be dismissed. Some generalisations have merit and substantive evidence to support it.

Ultimately a balance needs to be struck. The ability to be able to discuss legitimate issues or advancements of the community while also being free to disagree.

The Mod/Admin issue should be related to proportionality. I'm quite surprised this thread remains open. While I am not a model poster, I attempted to be reasonable (while maybe also too abrupt) with my replies. In my case, I think they have given us enough latitude to discuss the issue.

Again, proportionality is key. If a house looks like a traveller house to someone, then thats what it looks like. Is there a need to shut down debate on discrimination grounds? A bit weak I would think.

Someone saying "Look at this pikey bastard", yeah that's a bit far like and not something I'd approve of, would warrant intervention.

Thats the issue though, we all have our own boundaries and tolerances when it comes to any issue. Ultimately, it's the Mod/Admin team to decide what has crossed the site's boundaries.

I don't think it is a simple cut and dry issue.

[Deleted User]

dulpit wrote: »

Even though others have piled onto a different poster, I was the one to actually start this thread. I started it to see if the entity of boards (and partially, I guess, the mods) had any sort of view or interest in trying to do anything to curb (my perception at least) the increase in anti traveller sentiment which is creeping into various forums and threads, some overt, some more subtle.

This thread has instead turned into a bunch of people demanding they be allowed post what they want about travellers because of points like "they've never dealt with a good one" and "all travellers are bad" or "their culture is bad".

If people want to post this rubbish and hate, fine. It would be nice, as EmmetSpiceland suggested, that it be confined to an area where people can just shout at each other (eg current affairs) without spoiling the rest of the site.

I do still have questions though regarding the specific rules and how they are decided on by boards.ie and forum specific mods. There seems to be a general ruling that you shouldn't be a dick, and also that you don't post discrimatory comments. The first is clearly ignored in lots of areas, and the latter is not always followed either. Consistency would be good.

I don't see this thread going anywhere further though, it seems to have devolved into an argument between a few vocal users, so not sure there's any benefit here unless admins can weigh in?

Translation: "I don't like what I see" couched in a passive aggressive whine. You may have started the thread, however you do not get to dictate terms. When you have received mod privileges here, I might feel inclined to invest a thimble of worth in your didactic posturing. The banality of invalidating experiences removed from your own as "hate" and wanting to get the last word in. Like a cut-price Bugs Bunny bursting through the screen, "that's all folks!". Here's an opinion of which I am perfectly entitled to hold: you're not arguing in good faith.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Translation: "I don't like what I see" couched in a passive aggressive whine. You may have started the thread, however you do not get to dictate terms. When you have received mod privileges here, I might feel inclined to invest a thimble of worth in your didactic posturing. The banality of invalidating experiences removed from your own as "hate" and wanting to get the last word in. Like a cut-price Bugs Bunny bursting through the screen, "that's all folks!". Here's an opinion of which I am perfectly entitled to hold: you're not arguing in good faith.

except he is arguing in good faith.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I’ll make the same point I made in the previous thread you referred to. People asking mods to justify their actions (or inactions where a report was deemed to be spurious) is quite simply a ridiculous demand on mods. Oversight is provided by CMods and admins. The mods are volunteers. There is quite simply no justification to make demands on their unpaid time to satisfy the general users.

Oversight is there to make sure mods are behaving in a proper fashion in relation to their forums. The mods of PI/RI have to take a much less lenient view of posts than the mods in AH/CA. I’m using those 4 forums as examples.

Why is there a feedback forum at all then?

Annasopra wrote: »

Why is there a feedback forum at all then?

So people can make suggestions. Unfortunately the last two feedback threads that I've become involved in have involved people not making suggestions but making demands.

In the post of mine that you have quoted, you'll see that i was quoting and directly responding to anewme, who was looking for updates on her reported posts.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

So people can make suggestions. Unfortunately the last two feedback threads that I've become involved in have involved people not making suggestions but making demands.

In the post of mine that you have quoted, you'll see that i was quoting and directly responding to anewme, who was looking for updates on her reported posts.

It just seems you dont anyone to give feedback that you dont like so you try to twist it by reclassifying it into "demands"

Annasopra wrote: »

It just seems you dont anyone to give feedback that you dont like so you try to twist it by reclassifying it into "demands"

If it was the first time that I had seen a request for updates on posts that I report then I'd say yep, that's feedback, and then when the Mod/CMod/Admin com back and say nope not gonna happen, it'd take too much time then I'd say to myself, fair enough, there was feedback and responses to that feedback.

But when its the gazillionth time it comes up then its more of a demand than feedback. That's not twisting. That's just plain ol' fact.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

If it was the first time that I had seen a request for updates on posts that I report then I'd say yep, that's feedback, and then when the Mod/CMod/Admin com back and say nope not gonna happen, it'd take too much time then I'd say to myself, fair enough, there was feedback and responses to that feedback.

But when its the gazillionth time it comes up then its more of a demand than feedback. That's not twisting. That's just plain ol' fact.

But you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. Demanding arguments should not be taken seriously because you dont like the arguments.

Annasopra wrote: »

But you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. Demanding arguments should not be taken seriously because you dont like the arguments.

You know what, you're right. I have demanded something on this thread. In this post i have demanded that Overheal accept that my older account supersedes his younger account, and he accepts that he's wrong. but that's just playing him at his own game where it appears older accounts have precedence.

Otherwise I haven't made any demands. Have a look at the attached, It's all my posts in the thread. Which of them is a demand?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If people are making snide remarks about travellers based on the appearance of a person's home, I'm absolutely lost on what should be debated in that scenario...

There's remarks about non-traveller houses too, so the thread is inclusive and non-discriminatory in that regard.

There were 2 traveller houses amongst pages of houses and apartments from Ireland and abroad.

[Deleted User]

I have a solution to at least some issues regarding travellers. The economic ones mainly. We are told that travellers don’t do so well because the state doesn’t spend enough on halting sites and the education system is institutionally racist. If so, in the latter case we need to start firing people in the Dept of education and teachers. Another solution, my preferred solution, is to give grants to Traveller children to go to private schools.

There’s some truth to the claiming that traveller sites aren’t up to scratch, we are putting a poor community in the poorest parts of Dublin and outside the most decrepit towns of the country. So we should put the larger halting sites in the richest areas with access to the best facilities. And just there. No middle income areas until the richest areas are full.

[Deleted User]

Annasopra wrote: »

But you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. Demanding arguments should not be taken seriously because you dont like the arguments.

I think you have to differentiate between posters debating with each other on the same level of authority and posters starting feedback threads appealing for views they disapprove of to be shut down through moderator intervention

It is a very clearcut difference imo and anyone engaged in the latter should absolutely expect any such approach to be subject to objection.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think you have to differentiate between posters debating with each other on the same level of authority and posters starting feedback threads appealing for views they disapprove of to be shut down through moderator intervention

It is a very clearcut difference imo and anyone engaged in the latter should absolutely expect any such approach to be subject to objection.

But in this thread and the other sexism thread basically a lot of posters have through various means tried to shut down the views of the people who opened the threads and those who agreed with them because they disapprove of those views.

banie01 wrote: »

But there has been no personal pile on.

You're having a laugh. Anewme had all of their posts on the site dissected and dredged up.