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.

1232426282989

Comments

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


    When I grow up I want to be a "bailout people" too.


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


    This post has been deleted.


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


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    This is quite a labour intensive suggestion but it might be interesting to have one thread where everybody could post (once) outlining, in less than 500 words, why they are voting Yes or No in the Fiscal Treaty Referendum.

    The points might have to be based on the Treaty itself or on verbatim deductions which have been made by the Referendum Commission pertaining to the Treaty's implications. And it might be better to disallow replies too. Just an idea, but I recognize it could be a moderating nightmare.


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


    Wouldnt you lot be better off in the Café where this crap your posting is meant to be ? I was under the impression this was a discussion of the rules and modding of the forum and not a general chit chat thread.


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


    MungBean wrote: »
    Wouldnt you lot be better off in the Café where this crap your posting is meant to be ? I was under the impression this was a discussion of the rules and modding of the forum and not a general chit chat thread.

    I'm not seeing any particular harm in what is obviously meant as a light hearted comment on the picture.

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



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    K-9 wrote: »
    I'm not seeing any particular harm in what is obviously meant as a light hearted comment on the picture.

    The problem is that these posters here including a mod of the forum are displaying one of the main reasons for the trouble encountered when the forum gets busy. They harp on about how much contempt and little regard they have for how others put forward their opinion and all they offer themselves is little digs, based on grammar and phrasing rather than the actual argument. This topic hasnt even arose and they are already on the offensive in the rules discussion with a pre-emptive strike. They are creating an argument where one currently doesnt exist.

    If it was anyone else I'd have taken it as a light hearted comment (something that should be in the Cafe anyway if its not relevant or serious discussion, you'd think the mods would know that) but these posters here do this consistently. Its what they do, they ignore the argument and attack the people and how they put forward that argument at every single opportunity. This is a huge reason why threads go to hell when the forum is busy, its the other side of the mud slinging wall. And no matter how deluded they are into believing they are the epitome of reasonable discussion they are no different than some socialist shouting "bailout people not the banks".


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


    What are you talking about?


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


    bluewolf wrote: »
    What are you talking about?

    I'm talking about you and your libertarian pal going post and laugh at pictures/socialist content somewhere more appropriate.


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


    What's this really about?


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    report.gif


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


    Over sensitivity is also a problem in the forum and contributes just as much to "conflicts".

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



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


    later12 wrote: »
    What's this really about?

    Its about what I have said its about. The other side of the mid slinging wall creating an argument where none existed to have a go at certain political agendas or parties. Plenty of places to do that but they chose the rules discussion thread to try and validate their own mud slinging.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ...and you've dragged the thread further off topic instead of reporting the posts that bothered you.


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


    K-9 wrote: »
    Over sensitivity is also a problem in the forum and contributes just as much to "conflicts".

    I'm not being over sensitive, I have no allegiance to the socialist party nor do I take the comments as an insult. My issue is with the fact that they are comfortable doing this in this thread. Like I said. never an opportunity missed to throw a few digs.


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


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ...and you've dragged the thread further off topic instead of reporting the posts that bothered you.

    I did report it and a mod of the forum posted on thread and said they seen no problem with it. There are plenty of mods around and anyone of them could have pm'd me or even posted on thread and asked me not to drag it off topic. The problem is they didnt see the discussion I have issue with as off topic so my discussion cannot be off topic.


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


    Fair enough MungBean, you made your point.

    Mod

    Probably better we just end this particular discussion now then

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



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


    This may not be the best time to raise it since the thread on travellers is still active, but is there any possibility of extending the charter to cover prejudice against ethnic or similar identifiable groups like travellers and the Romani?

    The charter specifically precludes racism, but some people will inevitably use the excuse that specific ethnic or cultural groups are not a race of people to perpetuate prejudice towards, or generalisations about, these groups.

    There have been some unfortunate and repeated references to travellers not paying tax and insurance, and getting involved in brawls, or car ownership. By referencing, I don't mean any sort of objective analysis. When statistics are provided to the contrary, they are flat out denied.

    We've all heard of the dismissive stereotypes that have been used in relation to black people in the past. Perpetuating them is no longer considered socially acceptable in most company. But a quick read of the traveller thread seems to indicate that endorsing stereotypes with wild abandon is something that many contributors are quite enthusiastic about, and I was wondering if there is any possibility of resolving this?

    I'm sure that pejorative references to other identifiable communities of people would not be tolerated to this extent? The problem with reporting these posts is that the line between anecdotes and endorsing stereotypes is sometimes, perhaps deliberately, blurred. I'm not sure the latter is even against the rules in any case.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,428 ✭✭✭MysticalRain


    How the fcuk are travelers an "ethnic minority"?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    TBH Later12, your call for a ban on identifying particular groups of society with certain types of activity might be more reasonable if it hadn't been come hot on the heels of you raising a thread on why traveler concerns were not mainstream concerns.

    There's a couple of reasons traveler concerns are not mainstream concerns (insular society which deliberately place themselves *outside* of the mainstream for one) but it seems you're just looking to ban people who disagree with the viewpoint that traveler issues should be mainstream concerns.

    Travelers aren't an identifiable ethnic group. And if prejudice against "identifiable groups" is to be banned, then people would be unable to make any negative comment whatsoever against groups like...criminals, guards, nurses, bankers, politicians, etc...etc...etc

    Even if Travelers are an ethnic group, banning negative stereotypes against an ethnic group would result in 80% of this forum getting banned for smearing the Irish as good for nothing, lazing, stinking, thieving so and sos who get the government they deserve. Christ - there's an AH thread where the Irish "rape culture" is being discussed.

    And even if there is a demand for evidence - its quite permissible to present anecdotal evidence. Someone who has truly found every single member of (insert group here) to have stolen from them can quite truthfully claim that "Every single member I have encountered of <group> has stolen from me!". So the demand for stats does not invalidate their claim - people just have to take their anecdotal evidence for what its worth.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Manco


    later12 wrote: »
    This may not be the best time to raise it since the thread on travellers is still active, but is there any possibility of extending the charter to cover prejudice against ethnic or similar identifiable groups like travellers and the Romani?

    The charter specifically precludes racism, but some people will inevitably use the excuse that specific ethnic or cultural groups are not a race of people to perpetuate prejudice towards, or generalisations about, these groups.

    There have been some unfortunate and repeated references to travellers not paying tax and insurance, and getting involved in brawls, or car ownership. By referencing, I don't mean any sort of objective analysis. When statistics are provided to the contrary, they are flat out denied.

    We've all heard of the dismissive stereotypes that have been used in relation to black people in the past. Perpetuating them is no longer considered socially acceptable in most company. But a quick read of the traveller thread seems to indicate that endorsing stereotypes with wild abandon is something that many contributors are quite enthusiastic about, and I was wondering if there is any possibility of resolving this?

    I'm sure that pejorative references to other identifiable communities of people would not be tolerated to this extent? The problem with reporting these posts is that the line between anecdotes and endorsing stereotypes is sometimes, perhaps deliberately, blurred. I'm not sure the latter is even against the rules in any case.

    Well said. Anti traveller bigotry is absolutely rife, with anyone who challenges the consensus getting shouted down.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Sand wrote: »
    TBH Later12, your call for a ban on identifying particular groups of society with certain types of activity might be more reasonable if it hadn't been come hot on the heels of you raising a thread on why traveler concerns were not mainstream concerns.
    Yes, I'd acknowledge that. I'm sure it looks like a whinge, that's why I said it was unfortunate that I'm raising it simultaneously.

    But I am actually asking about the endorsement or perpetuation of stereotyping ethnic and/or cultural groups like the travellers... or indeed making crass, derogatory generalisations about any sort of identifiable groups (after all, the charter protects 'beards' and 'stickies', but not travellers).
    Even if Travelers are an ethnic group, banning negative stereotypes against an ethnic group would result in 80% of this forum getting banned for smearing the Irish as good for nothing, lazing, stinking, thieving so and sos
    And that's an issue for the moderators. Personally I don't see how proposing such negative stereotypes could be acceptable in a serious forum like this.

    In fact, I'm not quite sure anyone could expect to come on here and put forward an anti-Irish diatribe as you describe and not get banned.

    I haven't gone into your points about travellers being an ethnic group or not, or why their concerns are not mainstream, because it's separate to the point i'm raising about the inflammatory use of stereotypes. Imagine if I started shovelling stereotypes about gays or Northerners or blacks or public sector workers? I would expect to be reprimanded sternly, really. And quite rightly so.


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


    This post has been deleted.


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


    This post has been deleted.


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


    There will be no more discussion of the traveler thread and bringing that ever decreasing circle here.

    There will also be no using of this thread to insinuate any poster is campaigning to have posters banned. End of.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭#15


    What is considered soapboxing by the mods?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    #15 wrote: »
    What is considered soapboxing by the mods?

    It's dealt with on a case by case basis. Generally speaking, if all you ever do on the forum is push one side of one issue and you don't contribute anything else, if you're being disruptive you might be asked to stop it. It's fine to hold one position, the key is the being disruptive part. E.g. someone from a political party only ever coming onto to threads to ridicule and mildly insult people disagreeing with the party might fall into this category. Someone from a political party who reasonably defends their party without being disruptive is absolutely fine though. Constantly dragging threads off-topic so they can be about your hobby horse is another way to be disruptive. So dragging every thread off into a rant about FG/Lab or FF would not be welcome. More generally, being disruptive is bad, soapboxing is merely a particular subset of disruptive behaviour.

    None of the above is an exclusive definition, just some examples where it's come up in the past.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    EDIT: Clarification since my post was moved: This is requesting more mod intervention on Libertarianism threads.

    Reiterating my last post, I would like the mods to have a discussion in the private forum or whichever, and try to implement mod-intervention similar to the Israel vs Palestine threads (another very contentious topic).

    In those threads, people seem to be forced to address each others arguments, rather than attacking posters; before a sensible discussion can be had about Libertarianism, that kind of stuff needs to be curtailed here (on both 'sides').


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


    Kyuss, stop derailing threads with complaints about moderation. I have moved your post into here which is our general feedback thread.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Fair enough; another post from same thread, relating to same topic:

    Honestly, can we avoid dismissing peoples posts based upon labelling them as "anti-Libertarian" etc., and throwing these accusations around?

    Seriously, could there be some mod intervention to force people to address peoples arguments, instead of dismissing their posts?
    It is totally inevitable, that threads will spin into the usual ideological arguments, without them getting anywhere, if honest arguments aren't enforced; it seems totally counterproductive to wait for that to happen, and then just lock the threads.

    Maybe this is better suited to Feedback, but three times lately, discussion on Libertarianisms core issues in a topic has been shut down, which is very counterproductive; you can't have any discussion on Libertarianism without it immediately focusing on its core issues, so shutting down discussion like that basically helps limit criticism of Libertarianism.

    Maybe I'm wrong on that point, and excuse me for criticizing mod actions (I understand how sick of these threads some mods are), that just is increasingly my impression of how these topics have been going lately; it would be good to see a different tack taken.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Bringing this up again; there is a lot of low-level misrepresentation of peoples posts, putting words in peoples mouths etc. for the sake of evading questions while personally attacking/dismissing posters, in Libertarian-related threads.

    It's low-level/subtle stuff, and it makes honest arguments in these threads extremely difficult, and it does not seem to be addressed even with active moderation in these threads; I got warned calling someone out on it (admittedly personal), so can't address it that way, meaning it is left undeterred.

    What is the mod policy for dealing with stuff like this lower-level/subtle stuff which, when looked at carefully, is a veiled way of dismissing peoples arguments, sometimes with a subtle personal attack?

    It is this kind of stuff which keeps turning the Libertarian threads into ideological "Us vs Them" discussions, but it doesn't seem to get any mod reaction.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement