Vatnik

Absolutely ridiculous decision and one that flies in the face of logic tbh. It's a perfectly valid description and indeed is very much an "if the cap fits, wear it" descriptor.

If someone is upset at being labelled a putinist pet propagandist? Surely they can execute it easily if untrue?

It's also a term very germane to the identification of bias and questionable information (both ways)on threads involving Russia.

I will think out loud on this for a moment.

It was banned because the moderator viewed it as a derogatory term. Yet it has a clear definition and someone offered that definition. Including the origin of the use, that being a clearly defined group of people who do exist.

Given that the word exists and people who do meet the definition exist, why then would the use of the word be banned? To defend the sensibilties of liars and propagandists?

Ok, I agree there is no good reason to ban the word.

Weren't you banned from that thread because you fitted the exact definition of that word?

If "vatnik" is to be banned then so should similar terms across the forum eg Zionist, Hasbara.

Let's have some sort of clear set of rules across the forum on such terms.

If "vatnik" doesn't "advance the argument" then how does "Zionist"?
Or other similar terms?
"Friends of Ukraine"?

Why has this word been singled out?

There is no basis for claiming it to be a "racial" slur.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatnik

And a bigger issue is the blatant concern trolling being allowed on the forum, even though it is specifically called out in the updated CA rules linked below. Vatnik is being used in response to such posting tactics.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058368026/new-rules-for-the-ca-forum#latest

It was a handy way to describe the three posters who constantly post disinformation.

Jaysus banning Zionist would be cruelty for the Israel threads. Some of the regulars can hardly manage a post with less than two utterings of it.

The new CA rules were supposed to be permitting more 'robust' discussion requiring less moderation.

Introducing new rules like this flows against that.

Either moderate the behaviour that has caused it to be used as was done in the past on CA.

Or don't, and allow posters to call out the conduct for what it is.

But this is not coherent with that \ contradictory.

Is it just pandering to the “vocal minority” again? That’s why the rules changed originally and they haven’t been happy with them.

And to pre-empt things, if this thread is not tolerated by admins in what is the Feedback forum, clarify what content is acceptable and how\where it should be raised - or just shut the forum down.

Why is it uncivil to call someone a vatnik but not a "friend of Ukraine" is an utterly sarcastic and derogatory manner?

Or to use "Zionist" or "Hasbara" as a derogatory description of a poster or their stance?

How does it "advance the argument"?

So yes, it does have to be spelled out when the moderation is so inconsistent, capricious and selective across threads in the same forum.

Yes, documented on earlier thread.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058374842/dispute-with-mod/p10

So this is confirmation that now Zionist/Orc/Vatnik et all are all terms that will lead to bans.

As I've said before changes are fine but keeping to make sudden stealth changes and blaming users for not knowing about the stealth rule changes is bizarre.

If these changes were announced publicly BEFORE bans started being chucked about there wouldn't be so many confused feedback threads.