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

I pointed out what I see as flaws. So yes I pointed out flaws. It is my opinion they are serious flaws at that. I don't have to justify it any more than that for the purposes of this discussion.

They were already discussed earlier on the thread, I'm not going to drag the thread around in a circle if you didn't see them earlier. There were many posts to the effect that opposite to your suggestion on CA, what is needed is a clamp down on low level trolling and negative, petty posters that don't bring anything to the discussion. Not to create a space for them to troll, bait, soapbox and dump away at will.

There's a bit of a divide in opinion on this thread with feedback about "heavy handed" modding and also feedback that not enough is being done about low level trolling type conduct.

In my recollection, that wasn't the situation on the forum at all as has been posted earlier on the thread.

Specifically on the Biden Presidency thread, there was such a warning. Because on that thread, it was being used by drive by posters to drag the thread off topic.

There was another thread setup on CA for Biden's gaffes, and commentary about age and 'doddery' etc was given free reign, lots of colourful language. But strangely, that thread went quiet very quickly when posters couldn't use it to troll and derail the Biden presidency thread. Posters didn't want to seriously discuss it, just use it to bait those who wanted to discuss the Presidency properly.

what is needed is a clamp down on low level trolling and negative, petty posters that don't bring anything to the discussion

Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results

That's a quote often attributed to Albert Einstein. Whether he said it or not, it doesn't really matter. What we do know is that what you are saying has been tried continuously and yet we are where we are.

What I have proposed is creating a corner in which this 'low level trolling and negative, petty posters' (your words) can be pointed to so that their presence doesn't affect the site the way it has done.

You may or may not see me as a one of the negative posters you referenced above, it doesn't matter, what I can tell you is that if the site persists in the manner and style of moderation that it has implemented over the last few years, I don't see it as a place I will be motivated to be a part of.

which you have decided, and mods have decided.

But how am I, as a normal joe soap user, supposed to determine which public figures area allowed to be abused with colourful language, and which ones, should I so choose to abuse in a similar fashion, attract the ire of the mods?

Is there something I'm not saying clearly here? Do you still not understand me?

I think the person in question is rather odd but so are many people - it's a diverse world.

What I'm surprised to see is moderators on this site engaging in what in my view anyway, is hate speech.

I might expect to see a bit of that from regular posters. But honestly I'm very struck to see those who are supposed to be moderating these forums using language like I noted. And it's not just you.

I didn't write nasty derogatory terms, so why are you trying to deflect? Most sensible people would just advise that you should apologise for using that sort of description. We all make mistakes etc. That's what I'd do.

Soapboxing - can we please get some definition of this term, when it applies and where it applies?

To my mind, soapboxing is when a poster raises matters on a thread that are either quite irrelevant to that thread. And who continues to raise them when clearly the points they raise should be on another thread.

Threads are full of posters and posts who make repeated points about the question at hand. Every discussion thread is full of posters making repeated points. Is this soapboxing? I don't think so - or every thread would rapidly grind to a halt.

So under what criteria is it decided by a moderator when a series of posts relating to the same issues is soapboxing? Why are some points of view considered fine to be repeated ad nauseum but others should be censured for soapboxing?

'A' space.

Not 'another' space.

But surely you can see that this definition is entirely subjective. You can't read my mind or that of any other poster. In this case and I'm mindful of not referring to individual cases, I have absolutely posted in good faith and the issues/ questions I raised were not all answered. Nobody has explained anything other that the background to the referendum and why it might benefit some Irish businesses. But that's not what I asked!!

So clearly you're projecting some notion of 'soapboxing' onto what are valid discussion points. I might ask where in the general guidelines to posting on boards is soapboxing defined?