Dispute with mod

Ok so this thread allows discussion of mod behaviour so I hope I'm not out of line but the "End of" is just not needed and comes across as aggressive tbh.

Ok thanks for the reply could have been me taking it up as aggressive, I'll 🤐 it now.

If that's the thread I think it is, it's no longer before the courts

Honestly it should only be used when bans are applied 😅

"You're banned for x months.....end of"

I just checked there and 11/20 of the threads on the front page of After Hours are from 1-2 days ago. This is (was? I don't keep up tbh) the sites biggest page and back in the day would be unheard of to have one single thread over a day old on the first page.

The website is dying. Mods can continue to point blame on the posters (and let's be fair, there are some posters who should be held to account) all they want and year after year the users on here will get lower and lower and lower until one day you won't have any new posts to moderate and you can be at rest.

I would rather see that then have threads "kept active" by a handful of posters bickering about pathetic childish crap.

If there were actual conversations and thoughtful opinions then it might actually attract people back.

Most of the forums that exist for a specific niche dont have this childish crap. Thats probably because they are aimed at like minded people, but AH/CA exists for people to share opinions, so it will never run like other forums.

But people have to learn how to share an opinion without, to borrow a phrase, being a dick.

A forum I was part of many years ago went through a similar experience, every second post was bickering and tit for tat. We laid down the law for a couple of months and it just stopped, people either grew up or moved on. I would suggest that forums like CA need more moderation and not less. But it MUST be even handed.

It's also a significant part of the traffic of the site and contains discussions that Boards needs to be able to facilitate the type of discussions that happen there to a certain degree if it is in any way serious as being considered as a reasonable discussion forum.

On the last edition of this type of thread, I suggested it be like to soccer forum and you'd have to request access. That idea was not pursued.

Actually, you might have highlighted why the idea wasn't considered.

It wasn't proposed that it would be somewhere from which people would be excluded (for the most part). Rather that it would be a place where people would have to make an explicit choice to request access to it, but once in there, would have to play by the specific rules of that forum.

Those rules, I suggested, would facilitate more of the forthright style of posting and not have mods taken up with dealing with posters being slightly rude or discourteous to each other, but if they did cross a line and outright post unacceptable content, then they would lose access to the discussion; viewing and posting.

The idea around it is that most of the site users would not have to tolerate the topic/tone that causes a lof of the mod interventions that we see them having to deal with a lot of the time.

But, it's a moot point now because it was proposed, and didn't go anywhere.

Stop. Stop. It's already dead.

(post written on my Olivetti Manual and sent via first class post)

Who are these people?

Maybe it's you that's the problem not them.

Everyone has to request access by signing up in the first place.

And everyone has to "play by the specific rules of that forum", for every forum and often for some threads.

The idea around it is that most of the site users would not have to tolerate the topic/tone that causes a lof of the mod interventions that we see them having to deal with a lot of the time.

I'm still missing the point of why anyone would have to tolerate the tone of these posters…?

”attack the poster” was a constant theme in the Harris/Trump thread for months- posters who wished to have a conversation in general terms on what strategies either party were taking in the election were completely shut down and sneered at by a group of self appointed “moderators” who assumed everyone who didn’t think like they did were “rapist sympathisers” - or just kept up the stupid mantra of “but Trump” , again as some sort of moral guardians of discussion - the atmosphere in that thread was toxic and it’s only changed recently because it’s apparent Trump has a significant chance of winning and posters are forced to face this reality.

Clearly pushing a load of posters into an approved access “back room” is only going to create a situation of lots of threads as echo chambers of the few posters allowed to post there-back in the day boards just gave such posters a private group option so they could have their fun there.

Hiding away and blocking access to general discussion on the current affairs topics of the day will completely kill the site. I can see why CA is limited for new posters as it greatly reduces re reg trolls and hence, work for the mods- but if you’re pushing such discussions into a deeper more hidden forum, that’s certainly not going to benefit the site in any way

“And it seems strange posters who dont seem to want to discuss topics in CA because of some perceptions about current posters in CA rarely if ever instead try Politics. Instead they seem determined to stay somewhere supposedly hostile and toxic to them, while trying to claim some sort of victimhood.

It never adds up as a claim.”

It most certainly does stand up as a claim - and the fact that by standing up to this pathetic and juvenile abuse by self appointed thread moderators resulted in a prohibition on posters calling others rapist sympathiser's is proof positive of that .