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

Clarity on new Current Affairs rules

245678

Comments

  • #32
    This is it
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,102 ✭✭✭This is it


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597002#Comment_122597002

    You haven't answered the question though...

    "can you clarify if a poster claims one thing in a CA thread, and then completely contradicts that in another CA thread, are they allowed to be called out for it?"



  • #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The Elon-Muskification of the CA forum. Fan-fucken-tastic.



  • #34
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,028 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596961#Comment_122596961

    I disagree.

    You'll have people getting sanctioned right and left because someone is offended that their opinion was challenged so they'll report posts claiming a 'Pile On'. or personal insult, or cross thread reference, or any of the other completely subjective things that are now apparently going to be enforced.

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597002#Comment_122597002

    Any warnings prior to the 7th (ie a 6 month ban) are absolutely out of scope and trying to bring them up will likely end the appeal

    Huh? So you've no recourse whatsoever about warnings 1-6 and warnings 7 and 8 will judged in isolation?

    Maybe, but nobody can seem to find these rules written down when they go looking for them so, as I mentioned earlier, issues like these have been a grey area and we are clarifying that they are explicitly not allowed

    You can't be explicit about something that will be subjective.



  • #35
    Raichų
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Raichų


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597012#Comment_122597012

    they don’t need to ask this isn’t a democracy?



  • #36
    TheChrisD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭TheChrisD


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122595259#Comment_122595259

    What was needed was more mods and people causing issues removed, permanently. Instead we've the same amount of mods but the rules softened. The change to the forum access rules was good but the latest changes re to a hands off approach is a step backwards imo.

    It sounds like CA moderation has become what most people consider to be a stereotypical Reddit sub moderation — iron fist ruling, all mod opinions/decisions are final, tough shite, get insta-muted when you try appeal.

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596923#Comment_122596923

    in all fairness where did ye expect more mods to come from?

    I think most people expected the current batch of mods to put a bit more effort in, rather than decide that their meagre amount of time spent on the site per week was better spent in fora other than CA.

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597002#Comment_122597002

    Do warnings on the new scale expire - no

    Well that is incredibly silly; and definitely needs to be explicitly mentioned in the rules post. Especially since all warnings come with immediate bans, even the first one.

    That's nice

    Not helping the mantra and opinions that the users already had on moderators from the previous feedback thread there…

    Any warnings prior to the 7th (ie a 6 month ban) are absolutely out of scope and trying to bring them up will likely end the appeal

    But given that it's only the accumulation of all the warnings that cause the ban, and that one can't appeal them until that point; surely all should be appealable, since if the previous warnings were ruled to have been frivolous the user in question wouldn't have such an accumulation of them by then, no?

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597012#Comment_122597012

    How many people did they ask?

    Almost undoubtedly, zero. Or no-one responded when (if) there was a request for more current mods to also jump into CA.



  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,606 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    I think this is the biggest change to how the site works that I can remember, and I'm including the 'responsive site' rollout and move to vanilla in that, they were mostly just cosmetic



  • #38
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597118#Comment_122597118

    You're right they don't, but if the objective was to increase traffic onto the site I can't see it working. Imo, it's going to alienate more people than it will appease.



  • #39
    Ezeoul
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,659 ✭✭✭Ezeoul


    They don't have to ask people to become mods?

    Or would you prefer the word "invite"?



  • #40
    Raichų
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Raichų


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597238#Comment_122597238

    sorry I thought you were talking about the rule changes.

    I don’t know either way if they have asked posters if they’d like to be a mod or not. Maybe they did and no one wanted to. In all fairness I couldn’t say I’d blame anyone for saying no as being a CA mod doesn’t seem like a lot of fun.



  • #41
    Raichų
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Raichų


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597141#Comment_122597141

    they are all volunteers man you can’t reason expect people to give up their free time even more than they already do just to satisfy your desires for the forum to be moderated a certain way.



  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Jim_Hodge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,094 ✭✭✭✭Jim_Hodge


    @Ten of Swords

    Any warnings prior to the 7th (ie a 6 month ban) are absolutely out of scope and trying to bring them up will likely end the appeal

    That seems absurd. So somebody could face a ban based on previous infractions that could possibly have be justifiably been disputed?



  • #43
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,150 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    I think the time limit and post count steps were great ideas.

    On the face of it, this other aspect of the changes, seems like it could lead to CA becoming close to a wild west type of environment.

    It's fair to say that a certain amount of people in the feedback thread wanted something like that, but, I'd be doubtful if that was really what the majority of users were after. I think those that shouted the loudest got what they wanted.

    Look, I generally don't care about CA really and, sure, let them at it if you want.

    I'm just quite surprised at the pace - which probably more interesting in and of itself - at which a significant change like this is being implemented: it's quite a radical change of approach. Very un-boards.

    But, hey, who knows. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't with these kind of things.



  • #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597012#Comment_122597012

    I experienced this for the first time yesterday, I'd generally do my best to follow guidelines and treat everyone with the same level of respect that I'd want to be treated with but there were contentious issues and people were being piled on and there was no moderation, when the pre warning came I bowed out of the conversation and hoped that would be it.

    Instead, the poster contacted me privately to continue their personal crusade. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, answered their questions, explained my point of view and they just continued raging at me at which point I politely asked them to" go away." If this is self moderation then I'm ok with that but I won't tolerate harassment in private. It took two requests before they stopped contacting me and even gestured for me to contact a mod on the second. I won't be contacting a mod in this instance but I expect this will become a more common result of unmoderated on thread contention.



  • #45
    Ezeoul
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,659 ✭✭✭Ezeoul


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597286#Comment_122597286

    Fair enough!



  • #46
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,817 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    My only fear with these new rules is now that the “usual suspects” have been given enough rope they’ll head over to, more, normal forums like AH once they’ve gotten banned from CA.

    Any chance ban from CA could extend to all “Social & Fun” forums? Or, at the very least, AH?

    EmmetSpiceland: Oft imitated but never bettered.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • #47
    Ezeoul
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,659 ✭✭✭Ezeoul


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597401#Comment_122597401

    No, you don't have to put up with that. If someone harassed me like that I'd contact a mod, Cmod or Admin, immediately by PM, and forward the aggressive PMs to them too.

    In fairness, I believe they'd act on that kind of aggressive behaviour.



  • #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597477#Comment_122597477

    I genuinely have zero confidence in the admin who gave the pre warning so chose to deal with it myself. They stood back hands off in a thread until no words were spoken and then gave a warning shot which resulted in it being taken to pm. Zero confidence that it would be dealt with privately and I'd have no desire to do that anyway.



  • #49
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,002 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    What on earth kinda broken AI spat out infractions 1 - 6 are uncontestable/non discussable but the 7th open to debate? Why not dispute the 3rd or 5th of the 7 instead?

    Also the weird halfway of everyone has a clean slate but known troublemakers may be treated differently due to past behaviour - despite the supposedly clean slate and amnesty from thread bans.

    There was no thought put into this at all. Its less clear than ever and just outright bizzare. When the answers make things less clear you know its a bad broken idea.

    Thats nice.



  • #50
    TheChrisD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭TheChrisD


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597291#Comment_122597291

    And? I'm a volunteer for multiple Reddit communities, and I know I can't only spend about an hour every 3 days or so looking at the mod queue…

    It's clear the current team has too much on their plate, but from the sparseness of the interactions with some of the higher-up mod teams in these forums, it's seemingly in total due to a lack of overall person-hours spent on the site. So either more mods need to be added promptly (and ideally with less of the what is interpreted by the end-users as faffing around doing the internal Pope-style promotion from within), or the current team size need to scrub up and power through whatever backlog there is.



  • #51
    Polar101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,036 ✭✭✭Polar101


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597566#Comment_122597566

    By the time someone gets to the 7th warning, they've already been banned for six months and eleven days. Isn't any appeal gooing to sound like "I have 200 previous convictions, but this time I really am innocent"?



  • Advertisement
  • #52
    TheChrisD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭TheChrisD


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597708#Comment_122597708

    But since the warnings can be given seemingly willy-nilly without any form of appeal, who is to say that a user like that hadn't racked up a bunch of frivolous warnings that really should never have been issued in the first place?

    All it takes is one mod having a bad day and half the forum could find themselves on a short holiday from the place; and rules say they're not even allowed to ask the other mods or CMods whether they need to be looked at from another angle.



  • #53
    This is it
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,102 ✭✭✭This is it


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597566#Comment_122597566

    It's as clear as mud.

    In 15 years I've about one warning and one ban, so I'm not one of those that take up hours of mod time, but all the same, I like to know and understand the rules that I'm suppose to abide by.



  • #54
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,002 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597708#Comment_122597708

    Thats true, which is why appeal the 7th above any other and none of the other ones?

    But this new clearer system also has the caveat that a posters past behaviour means a mod might do something else entirely. What if after 4 warnings they get given a longer 6 month ban?

    The system will allow a 7 warning 6 month ban be appealed but not an equal length but only 4 warning ban?

    Its less clear and more subjective and random.



  • #55
    odyssey06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,375 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597771#Comment_122597771

    Under the new rules as written, all it would take is one warning every 2 years and you'd be at risk of a permanent ban from CA. They don't expire, and the first 6 cannot be appealed.

    Post edited by odyssey06 on

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



  • #56
    Raichų
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Raichų


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597698#Comment_122597698

    Why can’t you? Did you agree to certain hour commitments or is that your own position on the matter?



  • #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597722#Comment_122597722

    ripe for abuse and they've already been trying it out



  • #58
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,002 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597771#Comment_122597771

    It'd be very handy to know alright. Although the amnesty has already rendered some threads unreadable again so I guess thats the new standard?



  • #59
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597002#Comment_122597002

    Any warnings prior to the 7th (ie a 6 month ban) are absolutely out of scope and trying to bring them up will likely end the appeal

    Head-scratching. How can they be out of scope when they directly inform the scope of the size of ban



  • #60
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597818#Comment_122597818

    This is a gift to re-reg trolls who have it out for legacy users.



  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122597401#Comment_122597401

    at which point I politely asked them to" go away."

    You have my permission to post the full exchange so people can see for themselves how polite you were about anything.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement