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

1234568»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,396 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    You're stating that as if it's fact, when it's a complete fabrication designed to make me look unreasonable.

    Eh, no. He asked you a question. The only fact he made was

    The changes were made to appease the minority.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,989 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,700 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    This…

    Endless "just asking questions" and "requests for evidence" to frustrate and waste tine is Sealioning, it is not good faith debating and is also not allowed

    Define "endless".

    Because while the "just asking questions" nonsense is obvious and we all know what type of poster does it. The "requests for evidence" is not as clear cut.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,533 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    What they said had no relation to what I said at all. I proposed that rules should be applied evenly to everyone across the board, somehow they've read that and decided what I really said is that people should be stopped posting things in case they offend a minority of people, which is preposterous.

    They've completely misrepresented me and now they've posted twice about the "pile on trope".

    Great "community" we have here isn't it?

    Glazers Out!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭growleaves


    The very least I would expect is a photoshopped picture of the Empire State Building next to the Eiffel Tower.

    I think what I see what you're saying, however what even constitutes "evidence" is determined by underlying assumption. More a problem for religion/philosophy debates than political debates though.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭growleaves


    The posters who claim x or y is a secret coded dog-whistle broadcast by hidden Russian signalmen is crazy. The only evidence that a reference to "carnage" in the unemployment market is secretly a promise to carry out a bloody coup is "Because we said so."

    Some of the worst evidence-free posts on the site are from posters who basically claim that they are hidden meanings behind everything said by people they dislike/disagree with. They won't allow any deviation from any of their opinions, and anyone who does deviate is no longer considered to be posting in 'good faith'.

    So they are in the Trump threads accusing all critics of the Democratic Party of being secret, undeclared Trump supporters.

    I blame Beasty/Ten of Swords etc. ultimately because as I said in a Feedback thread, how can you have a discussion site where you can't even discuss anything without people accusing everything you say of being a lie? That's not a discussion, it's a Maoist struggle session. Subtly approved by moderators since they allow it to happen.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,100 ✭✭✭This is it


    @Ten of Swords I'm sure you're tagged a hundred times a day, would appreciate if someone could confirm the "posts from other threads/forums" is for PI/RI only, or is it all threads/forums including threads in CA?



  • Subscribers Posts: 42,862 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    "sealioning" is THE SAME POSTER asking the same question of the same person over and over.

    A poster being asked to back up their opinion (usually in the significant minority) by many posters (usually in the majority) is NOT "sealioning" and shouldn't be treated as such.

    If you hold a minority position, you should be expected to be able to explain why you hold that position, and you should not be afraid to enter robust debate to defend that position.

    Arguments made without basis should not be protected by moderation action (or inaction)



  • Administrators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,544 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    I'm going to say it again, you are all making something very simple, very complicated. And I don't know how much of the posting in these feedback threads is genuine or is "bad faith", "concern trolling", or just outright trolling?

    2 feedback threads overwhelming called for changes in the CA forum. Called for moderators to look at the forum and make changes to make it a better place to post. Called for updates to be provided.

    So far on this thread looking for "clarity" we've had

    • A poster concerned that someone might get banned in 8 years time
    • Posters questioning whether or not reports they don't see are actually abusing the moderators or 'just asking questions'
    • Posters complain about posters who ruin threads by 'just asking questions'
    • Posters complaining that trolls won't be dealt with
    • Posters deliberately misinterpreting what moderators (and other posters) post
    • We still have the left/right/'other' side will get away with everything and the 'good' posters will get punished

    (And as I said earlier, I haven't read all, or even most, of the posts here)

    Changes have been made in the forum. The changes made are for the moderators. For posters it's business as usual. Carry on. Carry on posting. Carry on reporting. You'll be told very quickly if what you are doing is a problem. The moderators are the only ones who will decide what is acceptable or not in the forum.

    Hundreds/thousands of posters on this site are capable of contributing without ever coming to the attention of moderators. It's not actually that difficult. I find it mildly amusing that so many of you seem to be totally confused about how to avoid moderator action.

    @This is it the rule is for people who pull up other threads to take digs at posters. If someone says something on a thread and then says the complete opposite on another thread it is ok to question. But bringing other threads in to the argument just to take a dig at a poster is not allowed. A poster was warned for exactly this earlier in the week. They brought an argument from another thread into a thread which was completely offtopic and only used to belittle the poster.

    This is the type of posting that will not be allowed. Moderator discretion is a thing - at all times!

    This thread is now locked. The new rules are in place and will become clear over the coming weeks. For posters, carry on. You'll either be pulled up or you won't. If you're pulled up once or twice it should be enough to provide clarity on what is now acceptable or not. If it doesn't, then you'll eventually be forum banned and will be no loss 😉

    Post edited by Big Bag of Chips on


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement