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

Dispute with mod

1679111261

Comments

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


    Now I'm not a member of CA, nor am I insane enough to willingly participate in there, so I may not have the full story; but from what I have read and am led to believe:

    • The discussion was in the '24 Harris/Trump election thread.
    • The current topic of discussion at that point of the thread was a Harris interview on Fox News.
    • Someone posted a tweet embed to a snippet from said interview, and gave the short comment that they enjoyed said snippet as Harris "didn't put up with any s*it".
    • This post was removed, and the user warned for link dumping, despite the thread acknowledging and interacting with the post.

    This is very much a case of if you chose not to watch either the provided media, or the full interview itself of your own accord; that you couldn't realistically take part in that particular discussion. This is why I'm trying to say that context always matters when it comes to when links are put into threads.

    The above can apply here too. If the context of the thread is discussing a piece of media, someone posts a snippet of said media with a short opinion on it, and the thread interacts with it; how is that considered a link dump?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 83 ✭✭JohnJoFitz


    When you post that for the 1000th time across a multitude of threads, it really doesn't have the breezy, casual, nonchalant bypasser effect that you so desperately want to project when you pretend you don't spend hours of your day buried in Boards threads.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,608 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Not sure about that, myself - it's really on the limit. He was not found guilty of rape - that's definitely a statement of fact. Your assumption that it's legally the exact same thing - as opposed to morally/ethically - seems uncertain to me.

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 83 ✭✭JohnJoFitz


    Whopper reek of projection off this post. How many posters on boards are you again?

    I see a new incarnation on this thread projecting about middle aged men in that familiar style.

    Absolute loser.

    -----------------------------------------------

    Warned: Personal abuse

    Post edited by Big Bag of Chips on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    According to the Irish definition of rape which is 2 fold.... He raped her. In New York it's only penetration by penis... and because she wasn't clear enough if it were his fingers or penis they couldn't reach a rape verdict ..... now while that sinks in do you think a mod should go all gung ho in warning and Banning people on an Irish forum who call Trump a racist given the forum doesn't have enough moderators and the US elections are just around the corner?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,223 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    Ok fair enough - in that context yes absolutely - if I didn’t watch the Harris interview or debate or whatever it was, AND if some posters are giving their view on it who had genuinely watched it, then no it would be wrong for me to have a “personal view” on it and attempt to contribute to that part of the discussion - I could of course refer to external links and say “well this respected journalist says her performance was crap” - but really that’ wouldn’t be in good spirit of debate - I’d probably just scroll on by myself and ignore that part of the discussion .



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,574 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    If a forum mod adds it to the rules, sure. If not, then it does not apply.

    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: 1,044 ✭✭✭_Puma_


    @ancapailldorcha sorry for pasting but the reply isn't working on mobile for me. Maybe the admins can take a look.

    "I think we're fiddling while Rome burns. The internet has moved on from discussion. I asked a question on a subreddit, asking someone to elaborate and got downvoted to heck for it. People there are so thin-skinned, it's ridiculous. It's designed for engagement and likes, not discussion.

    I think Boards.ie could have a future but the site would need to adapt, provide mods with better tools for the job, and have an owner who could at least communicate"

    I think that's precisely why boards is a little special. Where else can you have a discussion about your lawnmower or how to solve the world's woes in an afternoon. People are always thin skinned whether it's at the pub or on an online forum. The key is how it's handled when disagreements come up so that we keep coming back.



  • Administrators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,542 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    When I say "I'm out" I mean... I'm out! It's Saturday morning. I'm outside. Doing stuff. Places to go. Things to do. I haven't time to sit around all day repeating the same explanations that have been explained to the same people and over and over. I am a volunteer administrator of a free website. I also have a life outside of this volunteer position.

    I enjoy being a member of this site and will probably return to it later this evening. For those of you who don't enjoy being a member of the site may I suggest you find another hobby to fill your days. It's a lovely sunny Saturday where I am. Don't waste it!

    By the way for the people complaining that the new rules were brought in to make life easy for the (volunteer) moderators. Of course they were!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭xhomelezz


    I've went through few pages here and the fooking state of this thread, unmoderated I guess. It's like to listen to bitching outside local centra where I live. All those nosey citizens crying at the funeral and 5 mins later gossiping about the person who went under... That's how this thread looks to me.

    I've had a few interactions with Beasty, got banned from some threads, got warnings, points taken on my side, sometimes not lightly of course. But to sums it up, I always got a response in pm and explanation. One of a very few mods who actually went that far. So not much to complain about.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Haven't read all the posts today, but if that's directed at me

    By the way for the people complaining that the new rules were brought in to make life easy for the (volunteer) moderators. Of course they were!

    Not complaining, just pointing out the rules weren't brought in to satisfy a "vocal minority", as some would claim.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Never said it was solely text nor has anyone that I have seen.

    At least you acknowledge that other sources are there to back up actual discussion.

    I'm a user of this site, it's not contentious to me at all. The definition of link dump seems to only perplex a certain type of poster



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


    >I'm a user of this site, it's not contentious to me at all. The definition of link dump seems to only perplex a certain type of poster

    Because it's not explicitly defined anywhere and thus is solely at the whim of the moderator. There's a stark difference between a post being nothing but a random link with no context; and a link posted in the topic of the discussion, relevant to the posts around it, and including opinions.

    ——

    Honestly, if I had to surmise my overall feedback from this thread:

    1. If link dumping is to become a warnable (and by extension in some forums, bannable) offense in any forum, then it needs to be explicitly defined in the forum's charter.
    2. CA still needs a large rework:
      1. New moderators dedicated to the forum
      2. All warnings to be appealable again
    3. All site administrators to step down from all standard Mod and CMod duties; with the exception being to moderate items that are violations of the site-wide rules, or are otherwise a threat to the safety of the site. It is not their job to be warning people, it's their job to manage the moderator team and to ensure that they are dealing fairly and that systems are working smoothly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Without a user adding the discussion part. Both of your examples are the same thing. A link dump



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,023 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    I think the three issues are

    1) is the rule fair

    2) is the rule applied fairly

    3) what happens when it's not

    From my perspective I'd answer

    1) yes

    2) no

    3) there should be action, but instead nothing happens

    Elect a clown... Expect a circus



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 934 ✭✭✭tommythecat


    4kwp South East facing PV System. 5.3kwh Weco battery. South Dublin City.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭The_Macho_Man


    Just so you know your post is absolutely unhinged.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,840 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    This thread has descended into an audition for wannabe mods.

    Seems Beasty has become more even handed in his moderation ans some here don't like it.



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


    And that's why I'm saying that the moderators of whatever forum is punishing for link dumps need to explicitly define a link dump in their charter.

    Politics has somewhat of a reference: When posting or linking to a video please provide a summary of the content as not everybody has access to video sites or the time to view them.

    CA does not. Only saying link dumping [is] specifically not allowed but not actually defining it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    How about a poster backing up a post that was being questioned with a comment 'straight from the horses mouth' and a youtube video? All the context is in the thread already, what more comment would be needed to turn it from a link dump to a constructive post?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,817 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    A brief synopsis to save people from clicking the link would be nice. Links to videos or articles with a ‘can’t believe they actually said this?!’ or ‘showing their true colours here’ are just clickbate tags and, as such, are a pain.

    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



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


    But if you're already reading and engaged in the thread at the point it's posted, you don't need a synopsis.

    If it was the OP of a new thread, I would understand. But it wasn't, it was 140+whatever pages in. The context should be clear and obvious from the posts leading into it.



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


    Sort of excludes anyone “late to the game”, who’s just popped into the thread and those who don’t have the time to read over a hundred pages.

    A couple of lines outlining what is contained in the link isn’t too much to ask.

    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



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


    If you're "late to the game" as you say, you have a lot of reading to catch up on then! Existing conversations shouldn't have to cater to the potential of new joiners. It's the same anywhere else on the site, if you join in a thread late, you're expected to have picked up on the general tones and topic of conversation that has gone on beforehand by reading some of the previous posts.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,092 ✭✭✭✭Jim_Hodge


    Says you (repeatedly). Not everybody feels the same about wading through a large thread to get the context of a particular link dropped with no intimation of it's content or relevance. I don't see a site rule, or even an advisory, that you're expected to read all previous posts and, while your assertion that some should be read is sensible, it wouldn't necessarily give context to a particular link that is without comment. Is it that difficult to put a link in perspective?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    With embedded tweets and links that give a preview of an article, sometimes it's very easy to work out what's being said,



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


    Ok, what about the one other person who’s been discussing the “topic” with you over numerous pages? They might not be in a position to watch a YouTube link, or read a lengthy article, that’s relevant to what you are discussing because they are at work etc?

    Again, a couple of lines outlining what is in the link isn’t that much to ask. Would, even, go so far as to save other users the time, and effort, of dredging through it, themselves.

    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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭scottser


    There seems to be an issue where bans become exponentially worse on 2nd or 3rd offence. Unfortunately this is counter productive when bans are handed out so generously and rules are strict and numerous. So my Rapey Don comment led to my 3rd ban which is a week long but in reality, a heads up message from a mod would have been plenty. So I guess my next infraction will lead to a two or three week ban and if that happens I'd be in two minds about coming back. Longer bans aren't a good way to get posters back on track and keep discussions civil, they just encourage contributers to leave the site.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭The_Macho_Man


    For most somewhat educated, literate, rational adults I think it should be fairly obvious 1. what link dumping means and 2. that insulting derisive nicknames such as "Rapey Don" (or "Sleepy Joe," "Kooky Kamala" and so on) are incendiary when flaming is not wanted or needed.

    It's been said before that BEASTY clearly needs more help in running boards.ie but also, who would bother pitching in in political forums when grown adults need to be told over and over what link dumping without debate is, or that there is a difference between saying that Donald Trump is a proven rapist and calling him "Rapey Don?"

    Genuinely why can't people read the nuance and differentation within those cases? Like, what kind of person aged above the age of about fifteen needs to have those distinctions explained?

    For those utterly confused helpless people: do you need to be told every time you go to the bathroom why you need to wash your hands? We are not dealing with Mensa candidates here.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,634 ✭✭✭Man Vs ManUre


    English or Spanish mods??



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement