Site is a graveyard - How can boards save itself? [Threadbanned users in 1st post]

Three points:

• this site was great for mental health during COVID.
• Re registrations are not always mischievous.
• Sometimes rational posters have irrational weak spots on certain topics (I know mine).

Is it possible that boards.ie served a purpose at a time when it was needed, but the purpose is now being served elsewhere?

Ive been around a while (obviously!) even before Twitter and Reddit became as big as they are now and back then there werent' as many outlets for posting online on such a wide variety of topics - it seems sometimes that it's passed.

Sure, the revamp didn't help and the moderation is questionable sometimes, but even without those issues I sometimes get the feeling that boards has had it's day and interest would still be waning.

Posting anecdotes is not something that is stated in the charter as something that is not allowed in CA.

I got a warning and post removed for saying my mother couldn't get a new dentist when discussing pressure on services in the immigration thread.

I see several posts about people who lived by DP centres and they never seen issues, or posters who lived or have someone they know living somewhere who have nothing but positive things to say about the places when discussing issues around immigration such as Birmingham and Sweeden, so how would someone know anecdotes are not allowed or is just certain ones are allowed.

I just went now and checked the first page after the title says read the first page and it has a note about no anecdotes because they are used to rile people or something to that affect.

Now if my post is riling people up which is ridiculous then remove it, but giving a warning is absolutely childish by the mod in my opinion.

This looks to be a rule implemented by a mod that is not listed in the charter.

If I have to read the first page of a thread everytime I post then I'm not going to see that note and I would lose where I last left off on the thread and the site is bad enough as it is.

This is just one example of where a mod decides something that is not in the charter and unless you read the first page everytime you open the thread which is ridiculous then posters are not aware.

I did not dispute the warning because I find the mod immature and biased and I had no interest in wasting my time.

Maybe it's something that can be looked at here as feedback to update the charter so people know the rules of the forum and not having to look out for rules a mod makes up for a thread.

It's not the mods fault that this site may be dying, it's people like this.

I'd add an extra layer onto that myself.

Yes indeed, there are any number of posters who post utterly bad faith arguments in the way that you've described. Their MO is the same all the time - post a load of crap, get proven wrong, and then disappear, or just repeat it over and over anyway, or claim victimhood.

But again, how mods/admin deal with them, or, in reality, don't deal with them, is absolutely part of the problem. As long as they are careful not to insult other poster, they are allowed to do this over and over and over again, to the point that other posters stop engaging with them, with the thread, with the forum, with the site.

I would say that in general, Boards is truly awful at identifying which posters are more trouble than they are worth, by which I mean: which posters damage the community more than they contribute to it.

It's the crap user interface, plus inconsistent modding. I use another board for a specialised interest field, which is really well moderated, it's a joy to use. There's no favouritism, trolls are not tolerated, very pleasant environment, and the interface itself is a lot easier.

In contast, this one is crashy, slow to load, really annoying blinking ads. you type a message and it bombs out. Finding your threads or posts is not intuitive. Trending posts isn't on the front page when you log in, is a pain. It's like a relic of bad design. And the mods are not trained / all behave like their section has different rules to the other sections.

Maybe there is a way to set it up to work, but I have not invested the time to find it, and it's not obvious. Bookmarking discussions seems to do nothing. Only stay around because of the very specific regionality.

There, really, should be stronger sanctions on users who, continually, attack other posters by accusing them of being re-regs, trolls or in some sort of “sponsored” conspiracy for, simply, having a different opinion to the consensus.

This type of user is a real problem on the site. It should be ok to disagree, without discussion we’re left, only, with an “echo chamber”. Which is what these types seem to want.

That is exactly the experience that I noted earlier up the thread. I recently brought up a case in dispute resolution as the same moderator warned me for 'anecdote' in a quite separate thread that had no such warning on page 1. But aside from that, this criteria about anecdote is clearly a means to censor certain posts and should have no place on boards imho.

I've no doubt that you maybe correct when it comes to forums like personal relationships or nature. I think though your 'zero tolerance' approach would be impossible to police effectively on more contentious forums. Put simply, people have different views - one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. So such 'zero tolerance' would inevitably end up as censorship.

In face such a 'zero tolerance' strategy has echoes of the current ministers 'Hate Speech' legislation. I suspect that if you ran a poll on the 'Hate Speech', you'd find that many posters here from all backgrounds would have reservations.

Doxxing should be a capital offence on this site, and I believe is taken incredibly seriously by the mods/admins. It’s just a shame that they can’t police it when it’s committed on “other” sites.

An excellent mod, poster and person was run off this very site by such actions. And the “Radio” forum has been the lesser for it since.

Thankfully, the suspect in that “case” has, since, been banned from the site, but for other reasons, and, I believe, banned for re-regging and trying to continue their obsessive, and deeply personal, campaign against a, well known, public figure.

The less doxxers online the better, as far as I’m concerned.

Excuse me? I have never doxxed anyone. That is a scurrilous accusation that should be withdrawn.

I never “pointed out” you for anything either. You’re just making stuff up.

Also had a similar experience with my original account.