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

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

1242527293045

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,370 ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    No.

    Reddit is such a sinkhole. It has its uses but I've seen actual pro-genocide stuff on r/europe along with raw, mod-approved hatred for Irish and Spanish people. I find it very useful for very niche things like political memes and tips for Swedish strategy games but so many subs are just vile.

    This place has its flaws, not least the handicapped framework we're lumbered with but at least there's actual conversation and you can just ignore threads and forums that do not interest you. With Reddit, you only ever get to see stuff that's upvoted and any dissent just gets sent to the bottom.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,703 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Yes some people have patented the whole "suicide by mod" move where they inflame things so much they guarantee themselves a ban, only to immediately scurry to dispute resolution to rant about censorship/free speech etc



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,104 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    It is the software platform Boards runs on... replaced a more bespoke platform that was stuck together with gods glue but over tine had evolved to be user friendly.

    During the transition the site was down for a week or so. A lot of posters lost during the migration downtime / or were put off by the initial interface which was lacking a lot of user friendly shortcuts.

    The current interface is more usable but there are still recent glitches such as losing the bookmarks icon on desktop

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭Packrat


    There's a place for both to be honest. There are of course shytehawks who need to be asked for proof of their wild claims.

    There are also decent sensible genuine people who aren't enough of a whack job to make stuff up to win an internet argument, and they get asked for links when they make a statement of fact obvious to all except someone trying to prove that black is in fact white.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Yeah, but you get the same issue: how can we discuss something only one person seems to know about?

    And I don't ask because I want to prove them wrong, I ask because I want to read something alternative. There are times when I learn more about an issue or someone else's stance by understanding the influences that formed their opinion rather than the opinon itself.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭TheChrisD


    If anything, DRP just showcases how much red tape seems to be involved in the overall moderation process here. Warnings have to be appealed first to the mod in question (since all mod actions are advertised as coming from a specific mod), then escalated up the tree to CMods/Admins; however, the amount of time that is allowed to pass between each of these steps seems almost ludicrous.

    If appeals went straight to all mods and CMods of a forum as the first step, I'm sure there would be a lot less of the nonsense you see in DRP; and perhaps much better and quicker resolution.

    Comments like this don't necessarily help the opinion that a fair portion of the userbase has regarding the moderation team…

    €100-200 a month? I mean it's definitely nowhere near minimum wage, but factoring in the amount of time some mods probably spend performing moderation duties during their spare time, it would seem fair.

    If you appeal a Reddit ban, your appeal goes to the entire mod team; and is always permanently accessible in modmail to the entire team. While there is never any public logs of bans or appeals, there's also no public notices that a specific user is banned from a particular subreddit (only if they are suspended or site-banned by the admins).

    Now there is a difference in that a user can be muted from modmail, which prevents appealing for that period; but mod teams which ban and mute at the same time have been actioned by the admins in the past for not allowing a proper appeal system.

    Boards tried a mobile app in the past and it didn't work out. But not having an app means that posts can be hard to make (Vanilla often struggles with mobile browsers, and most mobile ads are pretty invasive), and notifications of things like replies or new threads don't get sent. It's probably why Reddit tends to be more favourable towards mobile-focused users.

    Heck, I can tell you from the r/ireland traffic stats that about 75% of all our unique users are on mobile in some form (between the official Reddit apps, and mobile browsers in general), and they contribute over 80% of the pageviews.

    Perhaps not having every mod labelled as a moderator site-wide would be a start. I don't know if Vanilla offers a way to "distinguish" mod/admin posts as such like we can do on Reddit, but it would might help for a start in terms of distinction.

    You're making me want to go looking through the ban list to have a look see as to what you did to cop a ban. Anytime I hear someone complaining that they're being censored, they're almost always actually being abusive somewhere in the comment tree.

    Why am I suddenly getting the feeling that you are one of the people that were in our modmail recently enough trying to play the Digital Services Act card to contest a clear-cut abuse ban? 🤔

    Post edited by TheChrisD on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 22,610 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    I like this, there's no ambiguity about whether a post has been actioned or not, although it does make more work for mods.

    I shall, however, absolutely disagree when it happens to me. 😂



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,709 ✭✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    ^^^yeah it’s very clear modding - in addition there’s a time limit- banned for x days -I said it here already but no harm in repeating - a 24 hour no appeal ban could really help save a lot of mod time - it’s a long enough ban to potentially cool your heels but short enough that you’re not going to get overly worked up about it and will likely accept it - perma thread bans (and I’m not talking about any specific case here btw) should only be used if it’s a serious breach of forum rules like major abuse of another poster or if warnings or shorter sanctions haven’t worked -

    In relation to mods posting in the forums they mod in, I think 85% of the time I’ve seen this working fine - but I’ve seen a number of mods through the years for have turned their forum into their personal playground -it never ends well when that happens. If there’s a particular thread a mod enjoys posting in that they are also a mod for, no harm in asking another mod to be responsible for modding that thread except in extreme circumstances - it gives the mod a chance to just be another poster posting for that topic. Just a thought



  • Administrators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,248 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    Ideally a moderator should not moderate a thread they are very active on. It obviously could lead to a moderator perhaps warning posters that are disagreeing with them rather than warming posters who are breaking the rule. But even if a poster absolutely 100% deserves a warning for being abusive/uncivil etc they will still cry victim if warned in a discussion with a moderator.

    I do like how @Shield is moderating this thread. I like the clear notes. The timeline for bans etc. It's definitely something that can be looked at in other forums - Threadbans having an expiration date rather than being permanent. A persistently disruptive poster will obviously eventually be permanently thread banned. But maybe a shift in moderator behaviour/actions will lead to a shift in posters behaviour. Some forums will be too busy and fast moving for this level of attention and feedback for every warning, but it is definitely something to be considered.

    Once again a genuine thank you to posters who are engaging with this thread. Some good ideas have come from it and will definitely be implemented where possible.



  • Subscribers, Paid Member Posts: 44,883 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    "Ideally a moderator should not moderate a thread they are very active on. It obviously could lead to a moderator perhaps warning posters that are disagreeing with them rather than warming posters who are breaking the rule"

    Certain sports related threads could take note of this. It has happened in a few instances that a mod sanctions a poster they are in direct conflict with in an argument on a thread. The optics are terrible as it looks like the mod uses their powers to shut down the opposite view point.

    I think it should be a rule that a moderator should not be allowed to moderate threads they are extremely active in, especially when it comes to sports and they are avid fans of the team being discussed. There should be enough mods in those forums to allow for mods who are fans of other teams to moderate the threads about certain teams



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 7,522 ✭✭✭ Charleigh Tinkling Squadron


    I didn’t say it was. But my main point is the general idea they are suggesting has some merit albeit as is it’s a bit OTT and unnecessary.

    I would generally avoid modding threads I post a lot in where possible. If you have a certain take on something those who feel the opposite, rightly or wrongly, will infer moderation as the mod just doing it because of that. It’s not worth the hardship tbh if another mod can deal with it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,709 ✭✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    it’s actually just common sense and you’d think the mod themselves would have the cop on to do that- like how many times in the past have the same mods trotted out the olde line of “you’ve been here long enough you should know better” when warning other posters about something 🤪



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,002 ✭✭✭ToweringPerformance


    Does Boards have more active users now than say 5 years ago, 10 years ago. If so it's working if not well maybe a lot of the critic is warranted.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,998 ✭✭✭✭Rothko


    !00% agreed. Everyone who reads that will know exactly who you are talking about. He/they are one of the biggest issues with AH/CA and nothing is done about it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,709 ✭✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    100%

    Mods here take note - enough of us are saying it now so listen - you know exactly who these posters are- they’re reported often enough and no visible warning is given to them - they’re members of this site for well over a decade - if we did the same behaviour we’d be banned - there’s just a few who quite simply are immune to banning -and they’re cute out- no one action will get them sanctioned - it’s their repeated behaviour that’s known as low level trolling and it has to stop now



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,395 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    Well I'd go further than that. Anytime I as a regular poster, go to reply to another user that has 'Moderator'… or whatever under their name, a little alarm goes off. You'd be thinking 'I'd better choose my words very carefully here'. It's a bit like driving along and you notice a Garda car behind. Is this good or bad? I wouldn't say it's all that great for either poster or moderator. So maybe best be like Beasty and presumably others and stay off threads/ forums that are anyway contentious.

    For example, I know you often contribute helpfully on personal issues which forum has a whole different atmosphere. But there are others where strong differences of opinion are common and where IMHO mods should stay off.

    On a separate matter, I notice some here talk of 'winning or losing arguments'. Personally I don't see how this works, except in very simple areas. Views are expressed, positions modify one way or another or not and that's about it. I can't really think of a thread that concerns debate of any great substance where you say, this won or that lost.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 436 ✭✭Patrick Mahomes


    One thing also appears to me to be happening in a number of forums is that there are cliques of posters that band together to report posters they don’t agree with, This may not be happening as much as it might appear but it does appear from the outside to be happening. Is there a boards policy for this kind of behaviour the abuse of the report button or is that even considered when reports are looked at that these reports constantly come from the same cliques of posters.

    Regards,

    p.



  • Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Reporting is worth nothing if the poster has not breached any rules. You can report every day for the rest of your life and if it's not legitimate no one will get sanctioned apart from maybe the reporter for wasting everyone's time.

    The thing that people seem unable to get here is that if your reported and banned there was a very good reason for it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    How do you quantify what "abuse" is?

    And if posters in a certain thread or a certain forum or whatever all report on a similar post - and bearing in mind that we as regular users have no idea if posts are reported on or who even has reported what in the first place, so we're on weak evidential grounds to begin with - is that evidence of some concerted effort to eject dissenting voices or just people who share similar outlooks being in agreement about something they object too.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,709 ✭✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    this isn’t a court of law - there’s enough posters on this site who can sniff a troll a mile off - low level trolling by it’s nature is covert not overt - you combine a reduced amount of mods and limited time and it makes conditions that favour low level trolls - they can exist simply because boards doesn’t have the resources to deal with them- it’s that simple

    I could call you a &@%#*# and get banned - that’s a simple one and done mod action.

    But what if I stated for the 40th time in multiple threads something like - “do you have evidence to back up your claim Arghus?” - and then went down the rabbit hole of something like “well the daily mail isn’t exactly a peer reviewed article now is it” …

    Try dealing with that type of bollox on a thread you and others are wishing to contribute to- a thread permitted by the mod of that forum - a thread running for quite some time- try that for a while and see how long you last before calling the poster -who’s only motivation is to troll the thread and never gets as much as a slap on the wrist -a pr1ck, before you get banned - try it- many have - they’ve lasted weeks some months - but ultimately these pr1cks win - well no more - every time one of these pr1cks does this I’m quoting this post and this thread when reporting them - they’re destroying this site.

    Moderator: Last line removed. I get the frustration but don’t let your emotions cloud your othwise stellar contributions to this discussion. -Shield

    Post edited by Shield on


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Those are all perfectly legitimate requests for support of a position. You call it bollox but most people call it backing up your claims with evidence.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,709 ✭✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    there’s only one forum that I know of that asks you to support your position and that’s politics if I’m not mistaken - all other forums are discussion - sure back up your claims if you want to but there’s no onus on you to do so -this is a discussion forum not a fcking university -

    in addition I note that you have conveniently ignored my example where I said of continuous requests for references over and over again and then criticising and near mocking those references when posters provide them in good faith - that was the crux of my argument- so your counter argument is meaningless in this example and anyway only appropriate to one forum- politics if even



  • Posts: 7,522 ✭✭✭ Charleigh Tinkling Squadron


    we can’t (and shouldn’t) moderate that type of thing. If that makes you upset I can’t help you. Asking for evidence to support a claim and then rejecting evidence is bad faith posting and it MIGHT be actionable depending but if there’s any poster(s) who engage in such behaviour just ignore them in future.

    You’re basically saying someone should be banned because they’re slightly annoying to you.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,709 ✭✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    it’s reassuring that you’re listening to what’s been said in this thread - there’s a few of us who post in particular threads and frankly we thought we were all going mad -this thread has been a great opportunity to highlight low level trolling which has been a cause of many an argument and ban, but not unfortunately for the low level troll . Whatever comes of this thread I’ll be watching closely to see just how much we’ve been listened to and just how much things will change in relation to low level trolling



  • Posts: 7,522 ✭✭✭ Charleigh Tinkling Squadron


    Ah here man you can’t seriously sit here and demand that mods moderate posters asking you to support claims with evidence and then complain it’s “only for the politics forum”.

    I mean come on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,709 ✭✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    I see at least some boards moderators need education on what low level trolling is.
    I’ve spelt it out as clearly as I can but you for whatever reason either don’t get it or accept it .

    Oh and by the way- do you have an official boards reference you could quote for me refuting the SPECIFIC example I gave that it’s not trolling?
    Thanks (smiley face)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,709 ✭✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    Again it’s the “40 times over and over” then subsequent “ mocking behaviour” description I gave you’ve conveniently decided to ignore - funny that

    I’ve seen enough mod warnings in my time to know that REFERENCES ARE NOT OBLIGATORY and also THERE IS NO OBLIGATION ON ANY POSTER TO SUPPLY THEM - so why are you saying that when I was recently asked 3 TIMES for an online link and I refused 3 times - that YOU wouldn’t do anything about that???



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    I don't really believe that's entirely relevant to the point I was trying to make - I was adressing a different poster about a different issue?

    But, in any case, to address your point - Is it really that onerous to be asked for evidence or links to something to support a claim? Fair enough, it isn't a court of law, but if someone is asserting something then someone with an opposing view is usually going to look for links or evidence or whatever. If I had credible evidence to back me up then I'd love to drown them in it - I'd relish it - but, on the other hand, if I didn't have evidence that stacked up, then, yeah, I can see how I would get annoyed by people asking me for it.If you were having a debate with someone down in the pub you could get asked for evidence - it's a pretty common place feature of debate.

    I absolutely agree with you that low level trolling is a feature of the site, but, most of it does fall within the rules if the poster isn't actually being abusive. Pretty hard to police that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,104 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Really a mod would need to be following the thread to see the patterns of low level trolling you are describing. Its not something that will be obvious from one or two reported posts. Dont have to follow every thread. A sample.

    If someone makes a definite statement of fact I think it is reasonable to look for evidence but from your description this seems to be demanded of expressions of opinion / concerns.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,709 ✭✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    a fair point you were replying to a different poster - apologises

    It’s good to see that a seasoned poster agrees low level trolling exists - at least that’s a start



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement