Dispute with mod

And if I don't respond I'll be accused of dissappearing.

In practice if you see a point has been countered there's little value in adding the same counter argument over and over.

I understand my suggestion perfectly clearly.

You are being incredibly rude in suggesting otherwise and I believe you are doing so to encourage a reaction I'm unwilling to give you the satisfaction of.

I see it and it was my intention to engender this situation to prove the point I was trying to make.

Mention pile on's as a concept and the same people arrive behaving the same way every time, which demonstrates how it is tolerated as well as the personal insults that come along with it.

Hence it needs to be addressed.

I find the practice disruptive. I want it to be seen for what it is.

I posted about “bickering” a while back but got no response. Ie when is replying back and forth to a post considered bickering?

Certainly I’ve had warnings for “bickering” in the past - all I did was reply to posts - just like posters above are doing- are the posters above at “bickering” stage? What’s the threshold point here? Must point out I’m not suggesting that posters above are bickering - there’s an arguement, there are back/forth replies - that to me is boards.ie - nothing untoward but maybe a mod views that differently?

If I were to try and pinpoint bickering , it would be more around where a poster is starting to be badgered - such as - “so you can’t prove it then blah blah blah “ - and then they respond with something else - but it’s the OP not the person badgering that tends to get the warning about bickering - that’s what I’ve never understood - someone replies to your post- you reply back and at some stage, a mod calls it bickering- so my question is - define bickering- and Shirley it’s the “badger” that should get the warning not the op of the post?

Your claims about what happens on the threads are utterly unconvincing, because of incidents like the below.

If you think it is "being rude when you tell me I've said things I haven't actually said."

Remember, already today you said something about Tell me How's post they haven't actually said.
I won't repost the image, but the proof is on the thread for all to see.

As for what I said about your concept of "piling on", I stand over all the remarks I made.
And I re-iterate I have posted the current accept boards CA definition of "piling on", which differs from your concept.
Readers can judge for themselves which concept they deem to be more practicable for boards.
I don't think I need to say anymore on the points already raised, other than if you continue to bring it up without mentioning there is already a boards CA definition of it - I may do so.

For reference this is it:
1- Piling on is where two or more posters talk directly about another poster (who may or may not be part of the conversation) generally making personalised remarks about them

Eg. Poster X said this previously, they're clearly wrong/stupid/misguided etc.

Yeah I agree, Poster X is a moron...

Yep, look what they said/did here...

And so on. Do not discuss other posters on thread as this is often the end result.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122595871/#Comment_122595871

@Big Bag of Chips @Beasty @awec and any other Admins I may have missed…

Can I suggest to the Admin / Moderation team, that there be a new sticky post (possibly on CA but also on Helpdesk?) with a few lines that explain Boards policies / definitions / rules very clearly on each of the following :

• Transphobia / Transphobic language
• Link Dumping
• Piling On

And anything else you think should be included.

It would probably also be wise to have it locked against comments, as no doubt someone will want to challenge it.

Thank you.

The ignore feature is an absolute necessity for some threads, particularly the "satire" thread

Don't look now but you're piling on.

One person cannot pile on, it requires two or more.

If you did that it'd just be an empty thread...?

It would be helpful, therefore, if there is a definition of what a trans person is, and a definition of what a woman is, but perhaps this is transphobic language, I have no idea anymore. For example, is it permitted to cite the Dr. Hilary Cass report commissioned by the NHS in the context of treatment provided to minors who identify as the opposite sex?

Please delete my comment if it breaks the rules, I am trying to understand what content is permitted on a discussion board and what constitutes "transphobic" language.

Thank you.