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

It's a Politics forum & thread!! Politics.

It is well understood in this country that referendums are tricky matters. That quite often, referendums become about a whole range of other issues and not the topic that is to be voted on. I presume most people would agree with this.

Therefore it follows that no government engages in a referendum without good strong reasons. I simply asked in a Politics forum what these strong reasons might be and who might have been pushing for it. No one has answered this, that's why I politely asked again. If that can't be seen that this is a reasonable question, we may as well give up. Baffling degree of what is censorship by moderation.

The problem with that is that these cranks and ne'erdowells crave attention, and will follow the normals to the supposed normal spaces and begin to do what they do there, and then in a year or two you'll be back here asking for yet another normal space away from them.

It's because there isn't the wherewithall to remove them.

what gives?

I think we're maybe on the same page. But I still feel making it, (or a portion of it) members only for the more relaxed mod environment would be necessary for it to function.

Doing this would do a few things

• Make it clear that it was a different area (where different rules apply)
• People would have to seek it out instead of accidentally finding themselves in it
• Threads from within it would not clutter up the latest posts or trending tabs which would frustrate people with no interest in that type of conversation
• Would make it easier to explain different mod approaches
• Would allow CA to function as it was intended if that remained as its own area
• May alleviate the fears Arghus has in post above.

Current Affairs is not full of 'nuts'. It's populated by a whole range of posters who dip in and out, with their opinions on well 'current affairs'. Indeed there's many moderators here who engage in discussion in CA, some might be 'nuts' but hardly all. I have no doubt but that you yourself sometimes contribute your thoughts to CA threads?

From a site point of view, activity is essential and one way of driving activity is to have a good healthy level of debate. Not least in attracting advertising and creating value etc.

So if the site wants people to engage then it has to facilitate healthy and perhaps sometimes spicy debate. Just as long as posters don't endanger the site with loose language.

No, I've accepted that these cranks exist. I think ignoring that reality is problematic in a way that is almost worth its own thread itself.

My issue is that mods try to moderate conversations with them in it in the same way as conversations without. And that that has tightened the net to deal with the problems generated by the the most problematic participant.

So now lots of posters regularly feel the effect of this tighter net whereas that problematic participant has found a way to navigate through it and to continue to influence conversations.

And I haven't seen anything since the changeover that has indicated revamping or improving the moderation process or presence to deal with this issue. The contrary in fact has been the case.

Few things ..

How would making it clear that rules never mind different rules apply , make to people who cannot adhere to rules on a regular forum .

People can bypass CA or any threads they don't have an interest in already, simply scroll by .

As it is , the discussion is about creating interest and increasing footfall , your proposal reduces it .

Don't see how CA would be improved upon .just moving some to a group where it is a free for all will just turn more posters off this site .

As it is there are so many extreme threads on the front page it is embarassing .

Credit to you for your level and well thought out argument in favour of a private group in CA.

I just don't agree , and am in favour of increased moderation on contentious threads .

How do I comment on this without abusing Mike's advice?? I've been accused of soapboxing and now sealioning.

I have genuinely no idea what sealioning is and if it is or isn't allowed in the boards T&Cs and charters. Can you educate me and probably several/ many others as well as to what 'sealioning' is in boards parlance?

The suspicion of many ordinary posters that presumably the site wishes to engage and more importantly keep, is that these criteria are made up by whoever is moderating to close down avenues that they personally do not care for. How is the ordinary poster supposed to navigate these minefields? And it's not just I saying this, the thread is full of frustrated users/ posters, at least two of which have departed since the thread started.

Maybe a closed group for everyone who wants to troll , 'sealion' (?) or soapbox with a few circus clown acts thrown in for good measure 😝

Be like prison but more fun .

Then everyone else could just get back to enjoying the site as best we can in between CloudFlares !

C'mon man, you were given the answer on the thread that a Yes vote to the patent ref would mean anyone who developed a new widget would only have to apply once to have it registered in the EU, and have it count in multiple countries, rather than having to apply multiple times. Give it a rest. It's not a conspiracy. Your refusal to accept the answer to your questions is your problem.

This:-)

But why sea lions ?

Is it because they keep muscling in and passing the ball to and fro ?

Ahh. Thanks

Cos I like sea lions :)

….

Some forums just won't stay long term because of other reasons though. That forum had a highest post count in a thread in the 200's so not very popular in all fairness. I agree that mods on the speciality forums are far better but they have less aggro to deal with because the usual suspects rarely venture into them.