Dispute with mod

“ but that last line is a rotten apple in the Boards basket.”

On the contrary I was merely using the very same method of communication that the other poster had introduced towards me -an empathetic way of relating to someone who uses “a rotten apple” if you will - but you chose to attack my post not theirs. Interesting.

Not even close.

Link dumping is a warnable offence.

Ignorance isn't a defence.

Your opinion on the merits of an offence is irrelevant.

That you think that is something akin to what judge dredd would say (joke) is perplexing.

Both in lack of accuracy and humour

Can we stop with all this “thanks intimidation”, please? Users should be free to thank whichever post they feel warrants it.

I, myself, thank posts I would agree with, find funny or find “informative”. I’ll even thank ones I don’t, necessarily, agree with but found, somewhat, humorous.

We’ve already seen a “certain cohort” trying to make reporting posts an offence, or something users should be ashamed of. We don’t need the same “campaign” against the thanks function.

I know search is a pain here but some threads seem to be gone or a few threads on the same topics

I assume mods gets reported posts for duplicates or for merging threads

No, I actually got strips torn from me by the mod, calling me a shill and grafting on peoples misery and a few other things. I have spent over €14K this year on training to help people who are struggling with life a bit and was just looking for a volunteer which was part of each of my modules, do a coaching session with a stranger for free.

It was the gentlemans forum and there were people talking about suicide rates, stress etc so I thought it might be a good place to ask. I explained it clearly what I was looking for.

Total abuse I got from the mod wanker.

My post shouldn’t have been aimed at you. There were a few posters, on another thread awhile back, who were having a go at people thanking posts and were calling for sanctions.

Acknowledging this ironically QE 😉

As users we cannot control which posts are “actioned” after reporting. The one thing we can control is how we post, ourselves.

One thing I’ve learned the hard way, on here, is that if you reply to a post that, you feel, is attacking or uncivil, you are liable to get a warning and it would be a “warranted” one.

The best way to approach it is to report the post and leave it to the mods to decide what happens. Sometimes the posts we feel are the same as other posts that got “actioned” might not, actually, be the same at all. The mods make that call.

From the outside, looking in, it would appear that the “new rules” are working well. The DP forum has been, exceptionally, quiet and the forum has a couple of new mods. I’m not sure what else the mods, or admins, can do.

The rules were brought in to save time for the mods, weren’t they? I used to think it was mad they gave so much time to the posters in DP.

You’d have clear “problem posters” posting the, incredibly lengthy, PMs between them and the mod over something that they, really, had no leg to stand on. A complete waste of time. And then they’d appeal the decision when it went against them and it was waste the admin’s time.

From that perspective they must be working very well. I’d follow a couple of threads in there but they don’t seem attract much mod “attention” so I haven’t, actually, seen too many warnings in there. But I will say, the warnings I’ve seen given look well deserved.

Yes. If you dont actually frequent the contentious CA threads but are basing it on the Dispute forum being quiet. The Dispute forum has to be quiet. Instead we get threads like these though.

Saving time for mods shouldnt be the sole criteria for assessment.

I agree with the Dispute changes but given there is no appeal I have made the point the warnings should be time limited.

Also the 50 post requirement has cut down on rereg trolls in CA by 99%.

If saving time for mods was the criteria, en masse lifting thread bans runs counter to that.

The mods and admins can answer for themselves how much time has been spent dealing with previously thread banned posters who promptly resumed same behaviour on those threads.

A big issue I have seen due to the clampdown on "link dumps" is now we have the opposite issue.

Excerpts which appear lifted from an article pasted with no link to source. Sometimes there is a vague reference to the provider eg a newspaper site. Sometimes less than that.

I thought that was against fair use copyright rules.

It also makes it hard for other posters to review the excerpt in context, assess if fairly presented.

(As per previous admin rules on thread, let me be clear I am not trying to question link dump rules but am raising a side effect of it)

Its funny you should mention conspiracy theories.

You mean the ones like Biden would not run for relection or the Democrats were going to switch Harris for Biden, or Trump would do well with black voters and hispanics, or Kamala Harris was hiding from the media and wasnt a good candidate, those type of conspiracy theories ?

There was one poster in particular in the election thread who loved accusing other posters of peddling conspiracy theories and misinformation. Of course it was all just a tactic to try and tarnish other posters character and shout them down.

Everything was a conspiracy theory or misinformation.

The irony was he himself had literally crept out of the Conspiracy Theories forum a day after the new CA rules were introduced. A forum he had posted exclusively in for years before that.

When this valid point was highlighted on the thread, a warning was issued as it seemingly was discussing another poster and posting history, despite the fact it was a perfectly logical argument.

The poster hasnt been seen since the day of the election.

It was clear as day what his goal in that thread was, well to all but some.

My point is, if you are using excerpts or quotes from an article to support your point, that forms part of the reasons why. And if doing so, you should provide a source to those excerpts or quotes, not just a vague reference like the BBC or Twitter. This is not some concept I've invented, my understanding is that it is the Boards policy (see link below from 2012) but it is not being enforced on CA at present. Did the policy change?
Copy and pasting a full piece of an article from a newspaper or blog etc will not be allowed. You may copy a paragraph of the piece and must provide a link to the source under what we hope will be seen as a common sense and fair use approach.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2056565895/changes-to-policy-regarding-copyrighted-material-on-boards-ie/p1

And secondly - if you are making specific claims, statements of fact, that should be supported.

Neither of which is about making Current Affairs = Politics forum.
In the first instance, it is basic online etiquette and fair use of copyrighted material.
In the second instance, it is the rules that were previously seem to have been applied on CA.

As to your point about reams of text copied and pasted, even if with attribution, that is a bit of a grey area. At what point is long too long - from a moderation point of view? Although most of the time I would also skip such a lengthy post unless it was in direct reply to me. And I suspect most posters would do likewise, remembering the quote…

"This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."