Very quiet in here

I was warned today and a post removed from the thread for saying that I recognised a incident posted by another poster - in violation of the anecdotes rule apparently. Maybe we should provide signed statements witnessed by a member of the Gardai or a solicitor?

I didn't bother responding to the mod in question, but ye really aren't helping yourselves with petty, pedantic nonsense.

Ultimately ye can do what you will as it's a private site, volunteers giving their time, and all the other usual justifications offered but as others have said above, it's very clear that some posters are given a much freer hand on the thread when all they seem to do is stir/bait and otherwise offer very little to the discussion

Maybe it's someone's notion of "balance" to the conversation that allows it (?) but it's very obvious if you read the posts objectively.

I've been here a long time but if there was another site that offered the same content I would have long ago moved on.

So exactly HOW does moderation work? Serious question.

Ye don't read the whole thread which is fair enough in a busy one, but do you read back maybe a page or two when considering whether to action a post to get the context of what led to the "objectionable" post, or do you just judge the specific post in question?

What prompts the review in the first place? I'm presuming reports from others? Are any records kept of "serial reporters" and the quality of their own posts or if they had prior engagement with the aforementioned "objectionable" post?

What sort of onboarding or training is given for mods? Actually, what criteria is used to select them in the first place?

And I am very confident the majority of people reading this know who you are talking about.

In fairness, 'don't be a dick' has been a rule here from year dot

The prison forum was nothing to do with sensitivity on the part of some, but everything to do with it being a disgrace of moderating standards generally.

The phase : 2 wrongs don't make a right probably sum it up - and I would be the furthest from the offended type you refer to. I didn't even frequent it much because it just struck me as childish and a bit sad really and certainly not a good advert for this site or how it was run.

Toning it down as you say was no loss at all.

Couple of PMs sent there,

We should really open that political satire thread tho

😬

This thread is gas

Has a serious bang of "I'm telling teacher on you".

This thread has posters getting offended all the time and proclaiming that other people are the entirely offended.

You really can't make this stuff up as satire anymore.

Others outraged at the mere presence of a dissenting voice in current affairs.

Also I see feedback isn't safe from the rise of bullshit conspiracy theories either.

I don't think it is as anywhere as bad as it was the last few years.

There are only a handful of pro immigration posters so of course it looks skewed.

I have seen people pick up warnings who never did in the past.

I have noticed two who would be pro immigration look like they got site banned recently.

Obviously their is one poster who doesn't have to stick to the rules and gets others banned quite regularly which is not ideal.

I would also say not many people are anti immigration, the majority want sensible policies put in place.

Their are a few who are anti immigration and who are as bad as open border posters but they are usually dealt with.

In my opinion moderation of immigration is much better than the last few years.

We should do mod awards 😄

Amodemy Awards