Very quiet in here

You claimed that,

some people's views on what constitutes "racism, misogyny, homophobia, anti-immigrant, transphobia, bigotry, hatred and whatever you fancy yourself" differs substantially to what you class it as.

It does not matter what some people's views are, these things are clearly defined.

But, either way, it won’t matter because whatever someone posts, and however someone takes it, won’t be “actionable”. Just no direct, personal, abuse.

Gives the users of the forum far more freedom to express themselves. They just need to know there is a zero tolerance policy regarding anything of that nature outside the forum.

It would be a “win-win” for everyone.

Dictionaries can change, definitions can vary between dictionaries, which one are we going by this week?

That is true, but they all have clearly defined definitions that don't include 'whatever someone thinks it is' and 'someone being offended ' !!

To be fair, the “Radio” forum’s changes were due to some, obsessive, users attacking presenters more than users going at each other.

That seems to have settled down and, now, it seems to go fairly smoothly.

Obviously, they’ve been “checking”. Otherwise we wouldn’t have so many problem posters complaining about the warnings, even though the rules clearly state there are no appeals for these.

Cite an example of one of these "problem posters" posting the bigotry you're claiming is so commonplace then.

The main issue now (in CA) is that you can post absolute rubbish if you do it in a "civil" way, but calling that rubbish out is banworthy.

Ah, it wouldn’t be fair to start picking out individuals in this setting.

It’s fairly obvious, though, you see them in “Dispute Resolution” or wearing the prison bars, which are never a good look, all over the site.

If we went the route of less moderation for, more, general stuff that’s sanctionable now, with only direct, personal, abuse worthy of a ban, it could save hours in mod time and would save the rest of us from having to hear the “usual suspects”, with terrible posting records, claiming persecution or whinging about free speech.

Allowing less moderation ?? @EmmetSpiceland What you are suggesting is a free for all and it would be unreadable and very unpleasant for most people except trolls .

I get the impression you don't rate CA at all and think it's not worth keeping ? Or it's causing too much trouble to moderators ?

If you ? / they feel that way ask for it to be shut it down completely and we'll just go back to having just after hours and politics with whatever moderation that entails .

Watch the engagement drop off further ...(but maybe that's the plan ?)

Or leave it open and concentrate moderation as has , in fact , been done on the more troublesome threads .

That moderation is more visible and some mods are giving nil pointers to posters on thread and explaining what the infractions are which is much better .

The issue is the new rules themselves on warnings and forum bans which were not brought in at the suggestion of the majority of users on the feedback threads , but were decided as the way to go by moderators and admins who were sick and tired of abuse on DRP threads over every warning.

That is the truth of it guys .

What was actually asked for by posters on the feedback I recall , was to outright ban posters and trolls abusing others on threads or mods in DRP .Yes ?

And the new posting minima rules did deal with re reg or new posters trolling .

We asked that context be taken into account and for more moderators so they would have time to read threads to get a feel for what is happening and where the problems are . This is happening and should have made more of a difference

Also we were told it was going to be light touch moderation . This appears to be happening with those that are in the majority of a thread.

Posters who argue on the other side of the debate however appear to be targeted by mods Impeding the flow ? Or just annoying somebody ? Hard to know as bans are not that clear with this group .

But instead we have

• bans for 'snarking ',
• bans for being ' uncivil ( how ?)
• ' or just standing up for oneself a bit forcefully ,
• bans for deleting a post or editing ,
• bans for ' bickering ' when a poster is standing up for themself amidst a load of posts that are attacking .

I have seen a lot of these attacking posts go unsanctioned and yet the poster who is being attacked

• " can't come to the thread " .

That phrase is not funny anymore/ if ever it was .

I have seen posters who are contributing positively banned inexplicably .Why ?

I am asking for a review of the new CA rules and a discussion to see how mods think these rules are going . Some positive engagement would be good from all .

• Think previous bans should be allowed to be appealed / reviewed along when the final 2 or 3 are so that a proper hearing can be given to people before such drastic action as banning them completely . (Unless they are outright trolls or abusive but sure it should be easy to see then why they received the initial warnings in DRP )

At least that way if the bans leading up to the final 2 were being disputed the system would be seen to be fairer .

• I thought that the point was to get rid of the worst of rereg trolls and not ban the average poster from the whole site?
• Why ban people from the entire site ?

Who thought that was a good idea ?

Many people frequent other fora here and never a cross word .

• CA charter to be a bit clearer about what exactly are the rules because some infractions/ warnings appear to be a bit subjective depending on the mod or thread .

• Maybe rotation of mods from easier fora with a spell in CA every so often ? That way nobody would be getting labelled the" CA mod " and be very possibly getting burnt out or developing a bias towards certain posters .

Its done in many contentious areas of work for that very reason ..to keep people fresh , and objective .

• Also we are posting here on feedback not to be a pain but because we are still interested in using the site and are contributing to its continued existence , and so it would be nice if some of the recent rhetoric about not caring whether posters stayed or left which was expressed on the last two feedback threads was rowed back on ?

Even posters supporting mods and moderation have been irked , for want of a better word , by those comments .

It's one thing volunteering to moderate and expecting people to respect the moderators, that I believe should be a given .

But respect goes both ways . If moderators don't behave in a courteous and respectful manner to posters they are dealing with then we and they may as well all give up.

On those comments they appeared to be designed to encourage people to give up and leave ? Was that why they were left up without qualifications ? I was chilled by them as I am sure others were .

And many who expressed dismay over them are not troublemakers as implied by the admin but posters who mistakenly thought their opinion counted for something !

Which begs the question ..what is the current situation with the owner and is the site being gradually allowed to fall apart ?

Site errors reported and allowed to fester or reoccur month after month .

Are mods and admins being given carte blanche to just deal with the site as they wish regardless of previous ethos or mission statements ? I have seen some long standing posters questioning why certain changes have been made .

Some of these posters have since left or been inexplicably banned .

I noticed people stopped asking questions because they or others were being dealt with sharply and rudely on the last feedback thread .

That's not on .😐

TL: DR please can we have a review of bans, appeals and in general, interactions between posters and mods ?

I hear you.

We are told its a discussion forum. Dont just link dump.

Well it is not a discussion forum if a poster can dump in any kind of claim without backing and not engage with any of the responses.

If the mods arent going to enforce Rule 2 then they shouldnt be sanctioning posters who try to hold such tactics to account.

Otherwise its not a discussion forum. Its a charter for propagandists to dump disinformation, fake news and lies.

As mentioned already, none of these people are being banned for bigotry.

Boards is a lot of things, not all of them wonderful, but it's not a haven for bigotry.

I think you know this Emmet, but it isn't stopping you from trying to push the narrative in that direction, not sure why you feel the need to do so tbh.

And which part of having no appeal is fair exactly? Mods can do whatever they want, use whatever excuses they want, because there are no appeals!

It would be fair if everything was fair game besides direct, personal, abuse. The current setup doesn’t seem to be taking as much “heat” off the mod team as, perhaps, they would have liked.

Has anyone even gotten to the stage where they’ve collected enough warnings to be eligible to appeal, yet?

I don't spend much time in AH tbh.

Can you link to it?

I think the answer is self evident, that type of thing isn't acceptable and the poster should be banned.

If I had to guess, I'd say the poster perhaps isn't a regular contributor to the site, is that a fair assumption?