Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

(Site is a graveyard - How can boards save itself?) Any update?

1474850525370

Comments

  • Administrators Posts: 55,020 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    One persons fact is anothers fiction.

    If you think this is true then perhaps it explains why you have so much trouble staying off mod radars.

    A fact is a fact. We don't deal in "alternative facts" or any other such nonsense on here.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,547 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    Abusive? Not agreeing with you is a form of abuse now?

    I wouldn't give you the satisfaction of being openly abusive towards you and you know it.

    Essentially what you're saying is that if you're proven to be unreasonable you'll feign victimhood to regain the moral high ground.

    Like I said previously, utter hubris, and I had YOU reviewing my dispute resolution in that case.

    All that is beside the point, I'm not making this an attack on you, but rather the idea that you and people aligned with you have a monopoly on facts, which is a preposterous notion.

    You're creating a level of emnity and contempt between yourself and others that is impossible to overcome.

    You're starting from a position where you are telling anyone you disagree with that they are beneath your contempt and nothing they say or do will ever be sufficient to satisfy you. Until you can begin to be a bit more reasonable you shouldn't expect a whole lot of respect flowing in your direction.

    Glazers Out!



  • Administrators Posts: 55,020 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Again, nonsense. RTE are a reputable news organisation reporting facts. "Citizen journalists" are by and large Twitter lunatics/ simpletons peddling an agenda. The idea that these people are closer to reporting reality is quite laughable.

    If you think the two carry equal weight, if you think the two are in any way comparable, then again this might explain why you struggle to stay off mod radars.

    This American stuff about mainstream media, NGOs and all that is absolute garbage that is unfortunately appearing more and more in Irish discourse. It's a shame.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,555 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    For the record, I do think there's a real form of citizen journalism. Eg you'd see plenty of open source intelligence in the Ukraine threads but those are researched and sourced. It's very different to the idiots on Twitter.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,547 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    The media in Ireland has given a veneer of legitimacy to these citizen journalists though.

    We have high profile journalists like Kitty Holland making outlandish claims and defaming people without anything resembling facts to back up their claims. Should we refer to her as a simpleton?

    That's another thing, abusive terms making reference to a person's intellectual ability are rightly seen as unacceptable in modern society, unless of course you're saying it about someone with the wrong opinions, then it's open season.

    People see these inequalities and gravitate to people who question them, not to defend those people or what they say but there's been a massive breakdown in trust in society and this is one of the results.

    Glazers Out!



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,595 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Since all you can do is respond to things nobody said, I see no point in continuing this.

    Ad admin reviewed an upheld my decision. Funny how you keep leaving that bit out.

    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: 5,555 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    Holland is a pretty accomplished journalist. The likes of Philip Dwyer or Derek Blighe are not.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,595 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Genuine question: What lies is she alleged to have told?

    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



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You do realise you're making claims on a public forum about a named person who has just won a defamation case against someone in the courts? You must be very sure of your "facts".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,555 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    Relates to remarks that some of Ashling Murphy's boyfriend's statement had the potential to be incitement of hatred against a group of people and that parts of the far right were latching onto them.

    https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/boyfriend-of-murdered-teacher-ashling-murphy-sues-bbc-for-defamation/a210456663.html



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,547 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    It took a month to get it reviewed after I pointed out that you had been arguing with me in the thread in question. When I pressed for it to be dealt with I saw a flurry of mod activity around unrelated posts that were at that stage weeks old.

    The idea that I omitted anything is dishonest as well, should I post the entire content of that DR here?

    Like I mentioned previously, you condescend to others routinely and display a level of contempt that's difficult to fathom.

    Only others have to reflect on their behaviour, you couldn't possibly be culpable for anything.

    Glazers Out!



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,595 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    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: 18,547 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    Kitty Holland amongst others made claims related to the Carlow Presentation College scandal about school uniforms and body shaming that was proven to be inaccurate by the press ombudsman.

    She also accused Aisling Murphys partner of being a hero of the far right after his victim impact statement was released.

    If that is an accomplished journalist it's little wonder people have developed a distrust of the media in recent years.

    Glazers Out!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,278 ✭✭✭Backstreet Moyes


    Their are several posters who will not engage honestly.

    All they do is answer a question with a question, always ask for proof or claims but never provide any themselves.

    You could say someone started a fight and provide a link that shows that happening.

    Then all you get is I wouldn't look at anything from gript, I am not looking at a dump from Twitter.

    The link proves that the claim the person made is true.

    They go around demanding proof for claims and the source is never good enough for them.

    Yet they play that same game over and over again.

    Why do they ask for proof of claims when they have no intention of looking at that proof, it just ruins threads.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Was Kitty Holland named by the ombudsman? I first came across the story on the car radio, it was reported in the hourly news bulletin. That's how widespread it was.



  • Posts: 6,597 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I ain't looking for no special protection. My opinions stand or fall on there merit.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,547 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    Nobody else is seeking special protection either. That's a narrative that has been created out of nothing to make people look unreasonable.

    Not a great starting point for good natured well intentioned discussion.

    Glazers Out!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭I.R.Y.E.D


    Among other things one of them likes to creep around creches and kick dogs, while the other likes to go around stealing clothes and wants guns, while both like assaulting women.

    Totally respectable people and citizen journalists in some eyes which tells you a lot about those that think like that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    I find that troubling, and a good example of bias. You seem to have a history with the poster you are questioning and the tone is confrontational.

    Would you extend your "a fact is a fact" to a discussion on transgender issues? Or is "alternative facts" only acceptable when you agree with the alternative.

    Its seems very odd that an admin would state something like this but I am not sure what the difference is between and admin and a moderator but this post seems to fly in the face of everything else that was said on this thread.



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


    These comments are quite telling. And should concern anyone who engages on boards to debate various issues.

    They reflect an attitude of 'my way or the highway'. An attitude that that has been commented on by posters here giving helpful feedback on how the site is managed. There's a need to open the ears.

    Rarely is any topic, issue or event black or white. There are usually multiple facets and angles according to who is interpreting what has happened or what the 'facts' are. This is a truism throughout everyday life.

    You state that ""Citizen journalists" are by and large Twitter lunatics/ simpletons peddling an agenda". Can you not see that this is a very broad sweeping generalisation?? And an insulting one.

    It's beyond my comprehension as to how a site can be moderated in any fair and equitable way, when this ethos prevails among those who are the gatekeepers. That is, unless the aim is to have a user base that is broadly aligned with the views of those who shape threads.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,598 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    Why do they ask for proof of claims when they have no intention of looking at that proof, it just ruins threads.

    Because they are bad actors.

    All they really want to do is be argumentative, troll and try and upset other posters.

    Thats how they get their kicks.

    Its pathetic, they are pathetic.



  • Administrators Posts: 55,020 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    I can see why it is beyond your comprehension to see how this would work, but the site is moderated in a fair and equitable way. The issue arises when one side of the argument cannot put forth their argument without wading into nonsense tactics and cannot discuss the topic in good faith.

    When your argument relies on sources like Philip Dwyer and other "citizen journalists" then obviously you're going to have a hard time when you're counted by points supported by much more reputable sources of information.

    Your argument here is that all sources of information should be given equal weight, this is obviously rubbish. If you want to bend the truth, deal in conspiracy theories and engage in soapboxing then Twitter seems like a much better platform for you to engage on, there's a pretty low bar over there for what is acceptable and what isn't.

    If we take your contributions to the EU Patent thread in Politics for example, you went into that thread suggesting there was some conspiratorial motive for those changes. Posters who were much more knowledgeable than you on the subject corrected you, provided you with the facts and explained how your understanding of the issue was incorrect. Rather than discuss the subject in good faith, you continued to make the same unsubstantiated, ignorant point over and over and over and over again, until after 3 mod warnings you were finally removed from the thread.

    This was not stifling an alternative point of view, this was removing someone from the thread who was ruining the thread for the other posters who were actually discussing the topic on merit, and weren't there trying to drag it into conspiracy theories. This is a familiar pattern when it comes to your posting on this site.

    So yes, anyone who engages on boards in bad faith, doesn't discuss topics on merit and who soapboxes threads, anyone who expects moderators to force every source of information as being of equal merit should be concerned, as this is a discussion site that asks for a minimum standard of post to ensure the enjoyment of all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,026 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    I'm going to challenge this, because I've seen this play out too many times.

    The request for proof is a valid request, as is the proof provided, but it doesn't have to be accepted as sufficient to prove the point implied.

    It's acceptance is only to the extent you can say ' I have proof, and here it is'. But it doesn't mean that that proof has to be accepted in terms of the origin point being argued.

    Person A claims Greta is funded by George Soros"s dog.

    Person B asks for proof of that.

    Person A shares a link from New York Post of Logan Paul claiming it on a video.

    Person B Dismisses it out of hand as non sufficient because of the Person involved, the communication platform and the supposed topic.

    Neither Person A or B is wrong to this point, in terms of Boards behavior in my view.

    Person B is not obliged to consider something as fact just because Person A wants them to.

    I know this can cause the conversation to drift in to the trustworthiness of various news sources, but that is a validtemporary detour on a lot of these conversations.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    Again, surely someone who is an administrator on this site, should perhaps not post with such dismissive language and refrain from becoming personal with someone.



  • This content has been removed.


  • This content has been removed.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,595 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Over the years, there's been a growth in the proportion of posters who just spout whatever conspiracy theories a portion of the American right indulge in like climate science denial, anti-vaxx, the great replacement, or whatever. When they're asked for proof, they get annoyed when they either can't produce any or whatever random tweet they've pasted is quite rightly rejected.

    The problem isn't that people are rejecting evidence, it's that some people are so desperately clinging to an ideology that they can't bear to have it questioned and respond angrily when it is.

    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: 1,630 ✭✭✭Packrat


    This isn't an isolated set of biases on display either.

    It's literally all of the currently active Mod/Admin team who involve themselves in CA.

    As long the current team get to pick the replacements it's just a packed jury of buddies who are all of the same set of opinions.

    They cover each other's arses, when the modding becomes too blatantly one-sided. They adjudicate when some poster tries to protest the lack of balance or fairness by their colleague.

    It's like going to court in Russia. An utter waste of time.

    Until this changes or is changed by the site owners, all 50 whatever pages of this thread are just pissing into the wind. It'll just blow back into your own face over the next few posts in other threads.

    In fact this thread and the previous one are but a further insult to to those of us who try to suggest improvements.

    It's a truly despicable state of affairs that a formerly great site which I joined 20 odd years ago has been allowed to become like this.

    There is basically no hope for this place.

    “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command”



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The problem is that I and many others I know haven't come across any "citizen journalists" who are anything other than Twitter lunatics and simpletons. There may well be "citizen journalists" out there somewhere who are rational, impartial and intelligent just like that there may be aliens out there in space. Thing is, I haven't seen any of those rational, impartial and intelligent "citizen journalists" and I suspect that if there are any, they quickly get a real job.

    I can't prove what I belief, but somebody can disprove me by producing a cadre of rational, impartial and intelligent "citizen journalists" rather than the occasional exception to prove the rule.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement