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

A discussion on the rules.

1…2223252728…89

Comments

  • #722
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    In relation to the last 2 pages of the "An open letter from Boards..." thread:

    Seems idiocy wins out yet again in Politics. In the face of multiple attempts at logical explanation and various different forms of phraseology to explain a concept, I get infracted/warned for being "snide". Weren't we just discussing in this thread the control of posters who continue to post their opinion without facts and/or just posting that someone else is incorrect without stating why?

    Excuse me for following the rules and not posting unexplained pictures repeatedly and Picard facepalms. Let this place descend into the shíthole After Hours part deux it's rapidly becoming with no moderation of poor posts, a complete inability to follow the most basic rules of the forum and a complete over-moderation for "snide" posting.

    I won't be returning to this forum until something is sorted out, it's beyond a joke now. I anticipate it won't be much longer before other sensible, reasonable and informed posters get fed up with the complete mess here and follow suit.


  • #723
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    In relation to the last 2 pages of the "An open letter from Boards..." thread:

    Seems idiocy wins out yet again in Politics. In the face of multiple attempts at logical explanation and various different forms of phraseology to explain a concept, I get infracted/warned for being "snide". Weren't we just discussing in this thread the control of posters who continue to post their opinion without facts and/or just posting that someone else is incorrect without stating why?

    Excuse me for following the rules and not posting unexplained pictures repeatedly and Picard facepalms. Let this place descend into the shíthole After Hours part deux it's rapidly becoming with no moderation of poor posts, a complete inability to follow the most basic rules of the forum and a complete over-moderation for "snide" posting.

    I won't be returning to this forum until something is sorted out, it's beyond a joke now. I anticipate it won't be much longer before other sensible, reasonable and informed posters get fed up with the complete mess here and follow suit.

    Let me get this straight. You think making comments like "Maybe if I set it out as if I was trying to tell my cat so he'd understand I'll get somewhere" somehow furthers the discussion, and/or reflects the behavior of 'sensible, reasonable and informed posters'?

    Why didn't you just report the post you had an issue with, step away from the thread, and wait for someone to review it, rather than simultaneously reporting and engaging in tit-for-tat?


  • #724
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Let me get this straight. You think making comments like "Maybe if I set it out as if I was trying to tell my cat so he'd understand I'll get somewhere" somehow furthers the discussion, and/or reflects the behavior of 'sensible, reasonable and informed posters'?

    Why didn't you just report the post you had an issue with, step away from the thread, and wait for someone to review it, rather than simultaneously reporting and engaging in tit-for-tat?
    Because repeated posting of a picture completely unaccompanied by any explanation and a wholesale refusal to engage in rational discussion (eg. explaining why I'm "wrong") followed by posting Picard facepalm image is furthering the discussion?

    Yes. Explaining something so that a cat could explain it is a way of putting something as simply as possible. I reported the posts, all of the trolling was fully ignored and I'm scolded for being "snide"?


  • #725
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Because repeated posting of a picture completely unaccompanied by any explanation and a wholesale refusal to engage in rational discussion (eg. explaining why I'm "wrong") followed by posting Picard facepalm image is furthering the discussion?

    Yes. Explaining something so that a cat could explain it is a way of putting something as simply as possible. I reported the posts, all of the trolling was fully ignored and I'm scolded for being "snide" - shockingly poor moderation.

    You started reporting posts less than two hours ago. Again, why not report the posts and wait for someone to handle it? Instead you got right down and rolled around in the mud yourself.


  • #726
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    You started reporting posts less than two hours ago. Again, why not report the posts and wait for someone to handle it? Instead you got right down and rolled around in the mud yourself.
    Nothing ever gets done about it anyway. Look at the state of that thread FFS.

    My post was not "snide" and is certainly no more snide than the majority of the other stuff posted here on a daily basis, especially in the last few pages of that thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #727
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    In relation to the last 2 pages of the "An open letter from Boards..." thread:

    Seems idiocy wins out yet again in Politics. In the face of multiple attempts at logical explanation and various different forms of phraseology to explain a concept, I get infracted/warned for being "snide". Weren't we just discussing in this thread the control of posters who continue to post their opinion without facts and/or just posting that someone else is incorrect without stating why?

    Excuse me for following the rules and not posting unexplained pictures repeatedly and Picard facepalms. Let this place descend into the shíthole After Hours part deux it's rapidly becoming with no moderation of poor posts, a complete inability to follow the most basic rules of the forum and a complete over-moderation for "snide" posting.

    I won't be returning to this forum until something is sorted out, it's beyond a joke now. I anticipate it won't be much longer before other sensible, reasonable and informed posters get fed up with the complete mess here and follow suit.
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Because repeated posting of a picture completely unaccompanied by any explanation and a wholesale refusal to engage in rational discussion (eg. explaining why I'm "wrong") followed by posting Picard facepalm image is furthering the discussion?

    Yes. Explaining something so that a cat could explain it is a way of putting something as simply as possible. I reported the posts, all of the trolling was fully ignored and I'm scolded for being "snide"?

    It's a classic example of a poster rising to somebody just posting to rile.

    You shouldn't have taken the bait.

    I thought facepalm type pictures were banned here, guilty of a red?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #728
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    K-9 wrote: »
    It's a classic example of a poster rising to somebody just posting to rile.

    You shouldn't have taken the bait.

    I thought facepalm type pictures were banned here, guilty of a red?

    I think part of the problem with that thread is that it is set up to pull in posters from across the site, so some people aren't really that aware of posting norms in Politics. Therefore, in that case I think an on-thread warning was warranted, and then things can get heavy-handed if problems continue. Unfortunately, with threads that large, people may just jump in at the end, so they may not see warnings that were ten pages or so back - but the people in the thick of it do.

    That said, civility rules are generally site-wide, so I think those warrant individual sanctions.


  • #729
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    I think part of the problem with that thread is that it is set up to pull in posters from across the site, so some people aren't really that aware of posting norms in Politics. Therefore, in that case I think an on-thread warning was warranted, and then things can get heavy-handed if problems continue. Unfortunately, with threads that large, people may just jump in at the end, so they may not see warnings that were ten pages or so back - but the people in the thick of it do.

    That said, civility rules are generally site-wide, so I think those warrant individual sanctions.

    You mean the site wide notice?

    Probably more suited to AH and let them at it.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #730
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    K-9 wrote: »
    You mean the site wide notice?

    Probably more suited to AH and let them at it.

    Well, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing, and certainly it is a political question, but I guess it feeds into existing problems with rising traffic in the forum and the tradeoff between broad participation and expectations for levels of discourse.


  • #731
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Well, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing, and certainly it is a political question, but I guess it feeds into existing problems with rising traffic in the forum and the tradeoff between broad participation and expectations for levels of discourse.

    Probably not the best board to put a site wide notice leading to it.

    No problem with the intention, none whatsoever, even Dev can get things wrong now and again, it's ok to say it! ;)

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #732
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    Just in case anyone missed the Forum Announcement or the new threads, following feedback here and in other threads, there is now a new version of the Forum Charter in place.

    I'd urge everyone to take a look and familiarise themselves with some of the changes that we have implemented.


  • #733
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    The SF printing thread that was recently moved to the Politics Cafe raises the issue of how to deal with threads that may or may not be appropriate for Politics? The Cafe was set-up for more lighthearted discussions, and to address complaints of AH-style posting. But often if a thread goes too off track, posts can be deleted and/or it is locked.

    The printing thread is just a symptom of a bigger issue: when serious matters are addressed in a less than serious way, how should these kinds of threads be dealt with?


  • #734
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,068 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    Sent a PM to the mod re: moving a thread to the Cafe Forum. A post on the thread asked us to post here instead. Ill quote the jist of my PM. Its in relation to this thread which was moved to the Cafe forum from the main Politics forum, which I can understand based on the contents of the first few posts.

    However seeing as the mood in the discussion has clearly changed, it should be moved to the most appropriate venue - the main politics forum. Moderators should remove posts which are going against the seriousness of the discussion instead of dumping a serious discussion to the Cafe for it be dumbed down.
    Hey,

    I noticed you moved my thread earlier to the Politics Cafe forum, "SF Aengus O'Snodaigh has claimed €50,000 in expenses for Printer Ink". I can understand the reason for moving it because the thread had become a bit of a joke - mainly because of any concrete sources at the time.

    However, considering the contents of the article (appearing on Politics.ie, TheJournal and Irish Independent to name a few additional sources) and the accusation within I feel that its much more suited to the Politics Forum.

    Its not a light hearted banter thread, its a more serious discussion. A TD has claimed well over the industrial wage on one item alone in his expenses. Its an excessive amount that is questionable and deserves a decent discussion in a more serious environment. In addition, he is a TD from the main and largest opposition party which have a track record of complaining about the salary's people are on, including the government. They also regularly object to cuts and taxs. The image they portray has been highlighted as false, yet again, in another damning article proving that even the main opposition are just as bad with claims.

    If people want to craic a few wise jokes - mod the thread rather than moving it to a forum where the jokes can continue and the discussion doesn't get the same viewing or discussion.

    These are my views as the author but you can see a few others complaining in the thread about its location also. It really isn't a Cafe thread, it should be in the main Politics forum.

    Hopefully you will re-consider :)


  • #735
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Sully wrote: »
    Sent a PM to the mod re: moving a thread to the Cafe Forum. A post on the thread asked us to post here instead. Ill quote the jist of my PM. Its in relation to this thread which was moved to the Cafe forum from the main Politics forum, which I can understand based on the contents of the first few posts.

    However seeing as the mood in the discussion has clearly changed, it should be moved to the most appropriate venue - the main politics forum. Moderators should remove posts which are going against the seriousness of the discussion instead of dumping a serious discussion to the Cafe for it be dumbed down.

    Here is the problem with that thread as I saw it last night when I moved it.

    First, when you wrote the OP, there weren't any links or anything to clarify what you were talking about. All we knew is that a AF councillor printed a lot. The next several responses were AH-worthy. At that point I asked for a link, and someone provided one that showed that the actual expenses were pretty much the norm. So the options were to:

    1. Lock the thread - not much verifiable info in the OP, and mostly silly responses
    2. Delete silly responses and hope more of the same don't appear, even though at that point it was not clear that there was anything out of the ordinary with the SF expenses
    3. Move it to the Politics Cafe where an "I heard..." OP and bad puns are par for the course.

    Having locked a fair number of threads in the last few weeks, I chose the third option - people had latched onto the thread pretty quickly (especially considering the time) so it seemed unfair to just shut it down.

    I do think thought that it demonstrates the importance of having some kind of link or outside information in the OP. There is apparently more information out this morning which suggests that this is far outside of the bounds of the normal expense system, and that it is perhaps a serious breach of the spirit if not the letter of the expense regulations. But that is not the information that we had when the thread was started, and given the direction it took, I think it was appropriate to move it to the PC. But I do think it is useful to have a discussion about it because it would both help to clarify what the main page is for versus the sub-fourms, and would also help clarify how regular users of the forum would like to see these kinds of threads dealt with.

    I'll be AFK for much of the day, but I will try to keep up with things as best I can.


  • #736
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,695 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    I just want to voice my concern in regards the moderation of this thread.

    It is an important discussion, and is leading the political agenda of the day. It has been discussed on Morning Ireland this morning and has been discussed in depth on news bulletins across all stations so far today. It was stated that the thread was "bit of ado about nothing" which is simply not the case as there are serious questions that need answering. I fail to see why it was moved to the Cafe Forum. That action has effectively stifled discussion on the matter here on Boards.ie

    If there is a concern that some of the posts in the thread were of a sub-standard quality, then why were those posts not dealt with individually?


  • #737
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    I just want to voice my concern in regards the moderation of this thread.

    It is an important discussion, and is leading the political agenda of the day. It has been discussed on Morning Ireland this morning and has been discussed in depth on news bulletins across all stations so far today. It was stated that the thread was "bit of ado about nothing" which is simply not the case as there are serious questions that need answering. I fail to see why it was moved to the Cafe Forum. That action has effectively stifled discussion on the matter here on Boards.ie

    If there is a concern that some of the posts in the thread were of a sub-standard quality, then why were those posts not dealt with individually?

    Did you read the post above yours?

    Do you think moving a thread to another part of the politics forum constitutes 'stifling' discussion?


  • #738
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,695 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    I just want to voice my concern in regards the moderation of this thread.

    It is an important discussion, and is leading the political agenda of the day. It has been discussed on Morning Ireland this morning and has been discussed in depth on news bulletins across all stations so far today. It was stated that the thread was "bit of ado about nothing" which is simply not the case as there are serious questions that need answering. I fail to see why it was moved to the Cafe Forum. That action has effectively stifled discussion on the matter here on Boards.ie

    If there is a concern that some of the posts in the thread were of a sub-standard quality, then why were those posts not dealt with individually?

    Did you read the post above yours?

    Do you think moving a thread to another part of the politics forum constitutes 'stifling' discussion?


    When it involves moving a thread to an area that infers the discussion is not all thy serious then yes, I do.


  • #739
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Where a post is debunked then it's /thread as far as I'm concerned. Not let it carry on as a joke.


  • #740
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    When it involves moving a thread to an area that infers the discussion is not all thy serious then yes, I do.

    SO based on the first page of that thread, do you think it was a serious discussion?


  • #741
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,068 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Here is the problem with that thread as I saw it last night when I moved it.

    First, when you wrote the OP, there weren't any links or anything to clarify what you were talking about. All we knew is that a AF councillor printed a lot. The next several responses were AH-worthy. At that point I asked for a link, and someone provided one that showed that the actual expenses were pretty much the norm. So the options were to:

    1. Lock the thread - not much verifiable info in the OP, and mostly silly responses
    2. Delete silly responses and hope more of the same don't appear, even though at that point it was not clear that there was anything out of the ordinary with the SF expenses
    3. Move it to the Politics Cafe where an "I heard..." OP and bad puns are par for the course.

    Having locked a fair number of threads in the last few weeks, I chose the third option - people had latched onto the thread pretty quickly (especially considering the time) so it seemed unfair to just shut it down.

    I do think thought that it demonstrates the importance of having some kind of link or outside information in the OP. There is apparently more information out this morning which suggests that this is far outside of the bounds of the normal expense system, and that it is perhaps a serious breach of the spirit if not the letter of the expense regulations. But that is not the information that we had when the thread was started, and given the direction it took, I think it was appropriate to move it to the PC. But I do think it is useful to have a discussion about it because it would both help to clarify what the main page is for versus the sub-fourms, and would also help clarify how regular users of the forum would like to see these kinds of threads dealt with.

    I'll be AFK for much of the day, but I will try to keep up with things as best I can.

    I fully understand the reasoning behind moving it. But, considering the opening tone and headline of the original post (which went into detail) one could assume that the thread had serious merit and therefore should be 1) left where it was or 2) locked and asked for sources (stating that Vinny B wasn't valid because the mods didn't see it).

    But, moving it seemed like you didn't think the discussion had any serious merit. Saying that, its something that some may decide to do anyway at the very least until its proven to be a valid story. Once such is proven and the discussion continues more serious Politics Standard - it should have been moved back. AH style posts removed, note left to cop the feck on etc.

    There is a greater risk that moving the thread could have led to an increasing number of posts watering down the discussion making the move to Politics a bit harder. It hasn't appeared to happen in this case as most people discussed the seriousness it and left the odd jokes to the side.


  • Advertisement
  • #742
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,695 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    When it involves moving a thread to an area that infers the discussion is not all thy serious then yes, I do.

    SO based on the first page of that thread, do you think it was a serious discussion?

    Yes, I believe the opening post was discussing a very serious matter in regards a story which was developing in nature. The thread itself has developed alongside the story, an an argument had beenput forward that an elected representative was abusing an expenses allowance. The matter is of such a serious nature that the TD in question is to appear on an interview to explain his position on the 6.1 news.

    What happened in that thread, in my view, is that certain fun-poking posts were let slide in the thread resulting in the entire discussion being moved away from the main discussion forum. A better course of action, in my view, would have been to remove those posts and ask users to keep the discussion serious.


  • #743
    Silas Salmon Buckle
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Silas Salmon Buckle


    The OP in isolation had merit.

    By the time SSR posted, nearly all the replies were making stupid jokes. That sets the tone of the rest of the thread. At that point a move to cafe was warranted so everyone could keep posting one liner jokes as they wanted.

    Then it was reported and complained that a number of posters would like to seriously discuss the thread. So I cleaned it up and felt it should be moved back.

    The OP often sets the tone of a thread. But if all the replies are messing around, it indicates that the thread is not going to be taken seriously and is not going to go anywhere. If it was serious discussion with a few silly posts, then there could be a case for "deal with silly posts themselves and don't move the thread".


  • #744
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Sully wrote: »

    But, moving it seemed like you didn't think the discussion had any serious merit. Saying that, its something that some may decide to do anyway at the very least until its proven to be a valid story. Once such is proven and the discussion continues more serious Politics Standard - it should have been moved back. AH style posts removed, note left to cop the feck on etc.

    Well, I think this is the crux of the issue. The discussion as it had gone wasn't serious. And the 'proven story' issue is exactly why I am always banging on about setting up an OP that isn't just opinion or 'such and such said' - based on the link that another poster provided, there didn't seem anything odd about his expenses. It wasn't clear until this morning that the printing issue was completely separate and seemed to contravene rules on that sort of thing.

    There is no award for being the first to post on emerging news in this forum. Clearly the story was far more developed at 10am than it was at 1am, but by then the die had been cast. I am not sure that moving threads as they ebb and flow is the best way to deal with this though - it would be confusing for posters and a headache for mods.


  • #745
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,068 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    bluewolf wrote: »
    The OP in isolation had merit.

    By the time SSR posted, nearly all the replies were making stupid jokes. That sets the tone of the rest of the thread. At that point a move to cafe was warranted so everyone could keep posting one liner jokes as they wanted.

    Then it was reported and complained that a number of posters would like to seriously discuss the thread. So I cleaned it up and felt it should be moved back.

    The OP often sets the tone of a thread. But if all the replies are messing around, it indicates that the thread is not going to be taken seriously and is not going to go anywhere. If it was serious discussion with a few silly posts, then there could be a case for "deal with silly posts themselves and don't move the thread".

    I agree with this approach. Initially, moving it was fine considering the tone. After that, when it got serious and people moaned about its location - than clean it and move it back.


  • #746
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    Looking at the last few pages the serious discussion didnt really last too long. If it wasnt going to be left in the Cafe or shipped to AH (where it actually belongs) then it should have been kept in order.


  • #747
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Is it just me or is the forum starting to pick up in serious debate again?
    Pity if the interest awoken by the upcoming treaty campaign/ dogfight undermines this.

    Speaking of which, if we have questions or points of political debate on the treaty, which is likely to be more appropriate: the Elections subforum or the EU Politics subforum?


  • #748
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    later12 wrote: »
    Is it just me or is the forum starting to pick up in serious debate again?
    Pity if the interest awoken by the upcoming treaty campaign/ dogfight undermines this.

    Noticed it myself as a new Mod, seems to be generally less sniping and more civilised debate. The Mods do a lot of work posters don't see to try and facilitate that.
    Speaking of which, if we have questions or points of political debate on the treaty, which is likely to be more appropriate: the Elections subforum or the EU Politics subforum?

    Yeah, had been discussed. I'll bump it up and see where we are at.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #749
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #750
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I'm slightly surprised by the so far muted response to the referendum, although possibly that will change once the various campaigns get rolling.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #751
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement