Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Very quiet in here

1…1214161718

Comments

  • #392
    suvigirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,424 ✭✭✭✭suvigirl


    With regard to the no anecdotes and the no appeals of warnings, both were brought in to make mods lives easier. I think they have succeeded in doing that? Maybe mods would confirm.

    In that way both changes have done exactly what they needed to do. Personally I still don't agree with no appeals up to a 6 month ban, but I guess if it's easier for mods, it's not for changing.



  • #393
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397444#Comment_123397444

    Whether it's a stupid rule or not is irrelevant, play stupid games and win stupid prizes is my response to someone who clearly has no intention of following the rules in spite of already knowing it's going to earn them a sanction. That's not on the mods, that's entirely on them.

    And this is exactly what's killing the site as a functioning discussion forum on any topical issue.

    If mods think that the quality and logic of the rules they are enforcing are irrelevant it's hardly surprising the level of discussion is in the gutter, and mods are having an increased workload enforcing the rules making sure nobody mentions how many siblings or children they have.

    The stupidity or otherwise of the rules is on the mods, not the posters.



  • #394
    Yvonne007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397539#Comment_123397539

    I know you weren't addressing me, but I also disagree with the no anecdote rule. A f*cking discussion forum not allowing personal experience to be stated. Why even have a thread to cater for contentious subjects if any contentious opinions are sanctioned?



  • #395
    suvigirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,424 ✭✭✭✭suvigirl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397562#Comment_123397562

    Because when anecdotes were allowed the entire thread was posters arguing over nonsense anecdotes. Real or fake. The best thing for mods was to ban them all.



  • #396
    Yvonne007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397584#Comment_123397584

    A discussion is usually based on peoples personal experiences, and followed up with facts.

    Unless…. you only want facts to be acceptable and personal lived experience is absolutely inconsequential?

    I doubt you'd advocate that unless it's only in certain circumstances where it's advantageous to your opinion.



  • Advertisement
  • #397
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397584#Comment_123397584

    By all means clamp down on nonsense, but do you agree that mods should to take it to the level of sanctioning posters who mention how many siblings or children they have because that's an unverifiable anecdote?



  • #398
    suvigirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,424 ✭✭✭✭suvigirl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397602#Comment_123397602

    I merely explained to you what happened, and why anecdotes were banned. Personally I had posters have a go at me because they couldn't seem to understand that I knew people from different countries, despite having lived and worked overseas.

    Everything about the anecdotes created huge rows. Better for the mods to stop them, for their own sake.



  • #399
    Big Bag of Chips
    Administrators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,610 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    @Yvonne007 none of your warnings were for stating Kamala Harris was a terrible candidate in CA or Politics.



  • #400
    Necro
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 56,378 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397552#Comment_123397552

    Eh, no it isn't. The stupidity in repeatedly breaking a rule is 100% on the poster.

    Moderator: Current Affairs/IMHO, Soccer, Pro Wrestling



  • #401
    Irish Aris
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 7,017 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Aris


    The no anecdotes rule on the immigration thread goes back to the beginning of 2023, the first edition of the immigration thread. I can see it makes a reference on a Ukrainian thread that was closed, but I honestly don't know how bad things were. On the point that it makes life easier for the forum moderators, it is primarily (in my opinion) that it is less likely the discussion will run off topic and people snipe at each other, so less posts to action.

    On the no appeal process: it doesn't make a difference (or much difference) on a moderator level, probably does for the next levels (cat. moderators, admins).

    2025 gigs: Selofan, Alison Moyet, Wardruna, Gavin Friday, Orla Gartland, The Courettes, Nine Inch Nails, Rhiannon Giddens, New Purple Celebration, Nova Twins



  • Advertisement
  • #402
    Necro
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 56,378 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397609#Comment_123397609

    So what is real and what isn't - you are asking mods to make a judgement call about completely unverifiable information. And we go back to accusations of bias etc…

    Ban it altogether - level playing field. That's much fairer.

    Moderator: Current Affairs/IMHO, Soccer, Pro Wrestling



  • #403
    Yvonne007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397625#Comment_123397625

    I might stand corrected. Apologies. I will look into that later. If I am wrong, I will gladly retract, but for the time being, I accept I may have been wrong.



  • #404
    Yvonne007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397629#Comment_123397629

    Not really true.

    If a rule is stupid, it's ok to question it.

    The stupidity would lie on people enforcing rules that they know are stupid. Especially on a voluntary basis.



  • #405
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397629#Comment_123397629

    You missed my point. I was not talking about the rule breaking. If the rule is stupid, it is that stupidity that is 100% on the mods.

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397652#Comment_123397652

    Fair enough if that's what the mods think, but as I said that is exactly why the quality of discussion is in the gutter.



  • #406
    Yvonne007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397625#Comment_123397625

    You were completely right and I retract what I said.

    I was warned because I called her a woman of colour.

    Yvonne007Oct 14, 2024

    Jesus!

    I said Kamala Harris was a woman of colour.

    That can be constued as "encroaching on" Hate Speech?

    Ok. Seriously. What the **** it that?

    My "hatred" of Kamala Harris is rooted in sexism and racism?

    Because i said she is a woman of colour?

    What is the preferred term these days?

    You are a parody of an internet politically correct stereotype.

    Hate speech…. **** off.

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122718392#Comment_122718392

    Sincere apologies.



  • #407
    Big Bag of Chips
    Administrators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,610 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    @Yvonne007 - No you weren't!! You were warned for an uncivil post.

    The last 2 lines of that post is what you were warned for.



  • #408
    Necro
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 56,378 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397684#Comment_123397684

    Mods don't create content. That is the responsibility of posters.

    Moderator: Current Affairs/IMHO, Soccer, Pro Wrestling



  • #409
    Yvonne007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397709#Comment_123397709

    Absolutely. I was wrong for defending my position when someone accused me of hate speech for saying a woman of colour was a person of colour. I should have accepted it.



  • #410
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397739#Comment_123397739

    Posters don't create the rules. That is the responsibility of mods. That is the point I am making.



  • #411
    Big Bag of Chips
    Administrators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,610 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    @Yvonne007 - you were never warned for stating Kamala Harris was a terrible candidate.

    Move on now.



  • Advertisement
  • #412
    Irish Aris
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 7,017 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Aris


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397684#Comment_123397684

    hometruths,

    I think part of the problem is that posters cannot unfortunately be trusted all the time to keep the discussion civil and, to an extent, self-moderate. For example, someone would post an anecdote and often the response is "yeah, that didn't happen" and then a whole back and forth starts that's off topic and clogs the thread. I think the gathering/march last Saturday is a good example of this.

    2025 gigs: Selofan, Alison Moyet, Wardruna, Gavin Friday, Orla Gartland, The Courettes, Nine Inch Nails, Rhiannon Giddens, New Purple Celebration, Nova Twins



  • #413
    suvigirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,424 ✭✭✭✭suvigirl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397799#Comment_123397799

    It was an absolute sh1tshow. Posters claiming things didn't happen, original posters taking offence and arguing back and forth forever.



  • #414
    Big Bag of Chips
    Administrators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,610 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397769#Comment_123397769

    Feedback from posters shapes the rules. The number of reports and complaints about anecdotes, about someone's sister's neighbour who saw something definitely happen involving a group of [insert whoever you want here]. And then someone else claiming that their neighbours, sisters, colleague heard something else completely about [insert same group here].

    It's not a stupid rule. It's a blanket rule.



  • #415
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397799#Comment_123397799

    I get it. But from a posters point a view who might wish to discuss an IMHO view of current affairs in the Current Affairs/IMHO forum is it is pretty pointless getting involved in these discussions if IMHO is going to lead to a sanction because mods are unwilling or unable to make a judgment call on this stuff.

    More often than not I think that both the bad faith anecdotes, and the "Yeah that didn't happen" deliberate derailing attempts, are fairly obvious and the mods should be tougher on sanctioning those posters to stamp them out.

    But the mods have decided instead to issue the blanket ban which leads to posters being sanctioned for totally harmless posts along the lines of how many siblings/children they have.

    And that is why the thread is dominated by posters with an agenda (both sides) rehashing fairly repetitive points and arguments. Because anybody who just wnats to contribute to the discussion rather than rant or push an agenda will have no interest in contributing if they risk a sanction for expressing a view based on personal experiences

    If there is no room for IMHO, there is no room for posters who want to have a discussion in good faith on both sides of the topic. And that inevitably affects the quality of the discussion.



  • #416
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397861#Comment_123397861

    I get this too. If any mods or posters intended the rule to sanction posters for sharing the number of siblings they had then I'd be surprised.

    In any event, I get that mods/admins take these decisions based on feedback as to what they think think in the best interests of the site.

    As mentioned above, fair enough if mods believe this blanket rule and the consequences of its implementation is in the best interest of the site, that's entirely up to them, I'm just voicing my disagreement in the feedback thread. And if I thought it was only ever going to be an issue in the immigration thread I wouldn't really care that much, but I suspect it will spread over time.



  • #417
    Irish Aris
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 7,017 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Aris


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397915#Comment_123397915

    This is a fair point hometruths.

    My counter argument is that making a judgement call WILL inevitably lead to accusations of bias and targeting of posters. I also don't fully agree that bad faith anecdotes are pretty obvious. If anything, I am of the opinion that my own biases could come in play when arbitrarily deciding if something is good faith or bad faith, I think it is something rather subjective. There are of course some clear cut cases, I would consider though that these are in the minority.

    2025 gigs: Selofan, Alison Moyet, Wardruna, Gavin Friday, Orla Gartland, The Courettes, Nine Inch Nails, Rhiannon Giddens, New Purple Celebration, Nova Twins



  • #418
    Big Bag of Chips
    Administrators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,610 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    Unfortunately rules have to cater to the lowest common denominator. Which means sometimes genuine posters get caught up in the rules aimed at the problem posters.

    Reducing this particular instance to "a poster got banned for stating how many siblings he has" is disingenuous. If that was the only episode, the poster would have gotten a PM, or the post deleted etc. The fact is it was a poster who repeatedly disrupted the forum. He was on his 6th or 7th official warning in a short space of time. Prior to the warning which triggered the ban he had been asked, twice I believe, to not do something. He then continued to do it so the warning was triggered. His behaviour after that then earned him a siteban.

    This was not a case of an ordinarily otherwise exemplary poster getting banned out of the blue.

    One poster with a long history of warnings and bans (even prior to the new CA rules) being banned from the forum is really not a good example of why this particular rule should be looked at.

    The rule has been in place for a number of years.



  • #419
    JP Liz V1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 91,100 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397230#Comment_123397230

    From what I can see far right thugs getting used alot with no punishment but something against the left brings punishment

    https://forumofgames.com/




  • #420
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397969#Comment_123397969

    I've got no issue with mods/admins site banning posters they think are disruptive. I think they should do it more often in fact, for more egregious offences than anecdotes.

    If this poster was particularly disruptive, I guess that explains why this particular poster was sanctioned for sharing the number of siblings/children they had. It does beg the question of why not just wait until the next disruptive offence than immediately jumping on the sibling anecdote.

    If my example is disingenuous because of the above then it rather confirms that the rule is not blanket - it is selective and open to bias. In which case a better solution would seem to be to expect mods to make judgment calls. IMHO.



  • Advertisement
  • #421
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,064 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123397641#Comment_123397641

    So is it finally decided now that there IS an appeal process by PM'ing a mod (not cat mod or admin) and the charter is irrelevant?



Leave a Comment

Rich Text Editor. To edit a paragraph's style, hit tab to get to the paragraph menu. From there you will be able to pick one style. Nothing defaults to paragraph. An inline formatting menu will show up when you select text. Hit tab to get into that menu. Some elements, such as rich link embeds, images, loading indicators, and error messages may get inserted into the editor. You may navigate to these using the arrow keys inside of the editor and delete them with the delete or backspace key.

Comment As ...
Advertisement