nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why the censorship?

Streetwalker

How come this site is avoiding the main news issue of the week and indeed the year as in terms of the refugee crisis? I'm not interested in this thread being about the actual refugee crisis but I am very interested in where does censorship begin and end on boards.ie? This is a massive developing story and yet debate is being stifled and moved to a section of the site rarely visited (humanities).

Surely the mods on the site have a responsibility to encourage debate on the issue (I was brought up believing debate was healthy) and not hide it away so the contributions are negligible

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

KomradeBishop

The problem is, the go-to argument style for disrupting a debate - relentless, unashamed straw-men - is not mod actionable, and there are several posters who are just allowed complete free reign to disrupt debate in that fashion, no matter how much that style of argument is pointed out to mods (because it's inherently not actionable).

Out of all the posters I can think of, who engage in that regularly and knowingly in debate, most of them would probably be banned long long ago, if mods had an actionable way to deal with that.

Some posters are so persistent with it that they take it to the point of trolling/soapboxing, in my view - very easy way to censor minority views, if there are enough posters piling-on with a posting style like that.

If mods on the more serious forums (e.g. AH probably isn't a good target), found a good way to nail-down the worst of the worst straw-men arguments (which is hard, because it will be easy to have false-positives, that lead to unfair mod action), and found a good way to enforce them (e.g. first an on-thread warning - the poster would have to be able to challenge this on-thread, in case the straw-man label is mistaken - then thread-ban, and if it's a pattern for a poster in new threads, warning cards then infractions) - if that could be enforced, the quality of debate across the whole site would skyrocket really.

Particularly, you wouldn't have posters with a minority-view, catching the blame (and infractions/bans), for the drop in quality of debate, caused by the more troll-like uncivil/straw-men posters; in some cases that's led to mods ignoring the real problem in debates, and effectively censoring those minority views...

It's a really hard one to enforce though, and is a bit of a minefield, because there are a lot of arguments that look a lot like a straw-man, but are legitimate - and quite a lot of normal/reasonable posters seem to be completely oblivious to recognizing straw-men, because often spotting them is nuanced (and very tedious, in debates with a lot of back and forth); this is probably why mods sometimes 'take the easy way out'.

Dan_Solo

weisses wrote: »

Yeah and aren't there tools in place to deal with people who behave that way ?

Closing/moving threads does usually mean people can be let off without a ban. It's the old reset button isn't it, like ad infinitum mod warnings until one person get gets walloped.
Trying being on the unpopular side of the debate though and see if you get any chance of these beneficial mod procedures.

weisses

Cuban Pete wrote: »

Oh come off it, you know what One eyed Jack meant: the greatest offenders when it comes to being uncivil/causing disruption in those threads are the people against immigration.

Just look at this very thread with all the cries of censorship and suggestions that there's some secret mod agenda.

Yeah and aren't there tools in place to deal with people who behave that way ?

Dan_Solo

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Oddly enough, I haven't noticed any censorship at all.

Isn't that the way censors would prefer it though?

Cuban Pete

Oh come off it, you know what One eyed Jack meant: the greatest offenders when it comes to being uncivil/causing disruption in those threads are the people against immigration.

Just look at this very thread with all the cries of censorship and suggestions that there's some secret mod agenda.

weisses

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because handing out cards and bans to some people is pointless. Even moving the thread to another forum just gives them an opportunity to be uncivil in another forum a few mouse clicks away (you have to laugh at the irony, people fleeing across Europe from a country where they could be bombed and shot, and then we have people here complain because another forum is too many mouse clicks away to say those people aren't wanted here, must be people trying to silence them! :rolleyes: ).

The reason every thread, and even a well intentioned thread started last night is closed, is because it isn't long before the thread is invaded and infested by "we don't want them, we can't support them, minority in our own country, rabble rabble" nonsense.

That's not discussion, it's pointless.

Ohh so if you are in a "minority" you don't have a say in the discussion ?

You make it sound that only people who are in favor of this mass migration can post on these threads

How the hell can you even have a discussion when there is not an opposing side

If people are uncivil ban them
If people are racist site ban them

One eyed Jack

weisses wrote: »

Ohh now i get it ... Instead of handing out bans, cards etc the consensus now is to just close a thread when discussion flares up ?

Lets see how consistent that is applied

At least its consistent that every thread with the word refugee or Syria is closed in AH

Because handing out cards and bans to some people is pointless. Even moving the thread to another forum just gives them an opportunity to be uncivil in another forum a few mouse clicks away (you have to laugh at the irony, people fleeing across Europe from a country where they could be bombed and shot, and then we have people here complain because another forum is too many mouse clicks away to say those people aren't wanted here, must be people trying to silence them! :rolleyes: ).

The reason every thread, and even a well intentioned thread started last night is closed, is because it isn't long before the thread is invaded and infested by "we don't want them, we can't support them, minority in our own country, rabble rabble" nonsense.

That's not discussion, it's pointless.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Those refugee threads while they mayhap fall under multiple categories they were evidently a headache to police.

Ohh now i get it ... Instead of handing out bans, cards etc the consensus now is to just close a thread when discussion flares up ?

Lets see how consistent that is applied

At least its consistent that every thread with the word refugee or Syria is closed in AH

Overheal

From AH Charter,

"After hours is the place to come on boards where general discussion can be light-hearted. The aim here is to have a bit of a laugh, a bit of a chat and not to piss anybody off while doing so. [emphasis mine]

This forum has been variously described as a refuge for idiots, the dregs of boards.ie, the best forum on boards and the only forum on boards. As such you may find After Hours quite different to any other boards.ie forums. What's OK here may not fly elsewhere on boards. "

Mods appear to have decided that the threads in question that people are crying censorship over were antithetical to the forum.

Reporting ? I highly doubt mods in AH needs threads reported .. They can surely see for themselves it takes no more then10 seconds to check the first page and move threads accordingly

If they are not online to see that thread, it is easy to miss. Just looking back for a thread you posted in can be hit and miss, as dozens of threads are active any given day.

Of the front page,

A thread about UK Syria and Drones, falls under multiple probable headings (Politics, Military, etc)
Light court sentence (News (AH), Politics maybe)
Longford Resort (Regional, News)
Songs you hate (Music, Ranting and Raving)
Trivial Things (R&R All day, minus R&R's no-counterrant/helpful posts rules)
9/11 education (Secondary education, politics, general interest)
Random 80 games memory (PC Gaming, Gaming, All Things Retro, etc etc)
Best joke (humor, AH)

In all those cases, most importantly they aren't upsetting the ethos of the forum (the craic without pissing people off) and they fall under multiple potential categories so it is not like say, when someone posts in AH for a personal issue its clearly a PI thread, etc.

Those refugee threads while they mayhap fall under multiple categories they were evidently a headache to police.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Not reported, primarily. The mods can do so much.

Reporting ? I highly doubt mods in AH needs threads reported .. They can surely see for themselves it takes no more then10 seconds to check the first page and move threads accordingly

I can test it and report the vast majority of threads for being in the wrong place, but I think you and I know nothing will happen

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Which brings us right back to the inconsistent moderating ... The vast majority of threads don't belong in AH but yet remain there ... Reason ??

Not reported, primarily. The mods can do so much.

weisses

K-9 wrote: »

But it shouldn't be used just to reach a wider audience.

Really, unless all threads are moved to the appropriate forums it will never be a consistent policy, and I don't think that is what people really want.

I don't know if it was the intend of the OP to reach a wider audience

And who knows what the people really wanted for this thread to happen ..We all know what the mods wanted apparently .... But they are they only ones who know but somehow cannot find the feedback thread anymore

Eugene Norman

So what is After Hours for? The name sounds like it should only be a joky forum in which case all political and economic discussions should be moved.

K-9

But it shouldn't be used just to reach a wider audience.

Really, unless all threads are moved to the appropriate forums it will never be a consistent policy, and I don't think that is what people really want.

weisses

K-9 wrote: »

Which AH should not be used for.

Exposure comes with the forum

I agree that there are more suitable forums for that discussion but so is it for the vast majority of threads in AH which are left open

There is not much consistency or clarity regarding this

K-9

weisses wrote: »

Its about exposure

Which AH should not be used for.

weisses

K-9 wrote: »

Quantity does not necessarily mean quality.

Its about exposure

Menas

Overheal wrote: »

Exposure is not a valid reason to post in AH over another forum.

This is probably the key point of the charter for me.
Without it AH would be inundated with local/specialised thread that people put in AH 'just to get a better response'.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

From AH Charter:

Exposure is not a valid reason to post in AH over another forum.

Which brings us right back to the inconsistent moderating ... The vast majority of threads don't belong in AH but yet remain there ... Reason ??

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

exactly proves another point made here ... Exposure

that thread ... 90 posts in one day in AH

Moved to humanities ... 20 posts in over two weeks

From AH Charter:

If there is a more appropriate forum, post your thread there wrote:

There are a huge amount of forums on boards.ie. Often it can be difficult to locate the one you are looking for. If you need help please ask in newbies and FAQ.
If you post a thread in After Hours that is more suited to another forum it will either be locked or moved to the correct forum. If you are unsure if a topic is suitable for After Hours please send a private message to any of the moderators.

For example:
Dublin Forum for anything relating to Dublin.
Television Forum for TV related threads
Cool Vids & Pics & Links for all YouTube videos etc.
Ranting and raving for when you just need to vent and you don't want to argue. (PM Grand_Rajah, Fluorescence or Overheal for access)
Politics forum for all serious political discussion
Irish economy forum for all issues relating to the Irish economy.
Celebs and showbiz for general celebrity gossip.

Exposure is not a valid reason to post in AH over another forum.

K-9

weisses wrote: »

exactly proves another point made here ... Exposure

that thread ... 90 posts in one day in AH

Moved to humanities ... 20 posts in over two weeks

Quantity does not necessarily mean quality.

weisses

Cold War Kid wrote: »

There's the odd person trying to stir up a fight, which is the kind of thing that would get a thread closed - it's almost like they want to get the thread closed so that they can go on about censorship.

No its not .. the odd person would get a slap on the wrist ..Its almost if you make things up as you go along

Cold War Kid

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Looking at the Politics Cafe and Humanities is appears that the threads there are living long and fruitful lives. If the mods are trying to kill off discussion they have failed miserably.

Politics Cafe is a popular enough forum anyway, it could hardly be considered sweeping the topic under the rug there.

There's also a thread in European Union about the issue - and another thread in Politics Café about immigration into Britain.

Most people are discussing the issue very sensibly from whichever standpoint they hold (for, against or middle - mostly middle) and this is why those threads are staying open, and the lack of same is why the After Hours threads were closed.

There's the odd person trying to stir up a fight, which is the kind of thing that would get a thread closed - it's almost like they want to get the thread closed so that they can go on about censorship.

weisses

Pat Mustard wrote: »

As requested:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=96583895#post96583895

exactly proves another point made here ... Exposure

that thread ... 90 posts in one day in AH

Moved to humanities ... 20 posts in over two weeks

Pat Mustard

jank wrote: »

Perhaps but can anyone actually give me an example?

As requested:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=96583895#post96583895

The Randy Riverbeast

Looking at the Politics Cafe and Humanities is appears that the threads there are living long and fruitful lives. If the mods are trying to kill off discussion they have failed miserably.

Politics Cafe is a popular enough forum anyway, it could hardly be considered sweeping the topic under the rug there.

KomradeBishop

Overheal wrote: »

Report posts that are baiting/trolling, and above all do not react to them. If you know its bait, and you get hooked anyway, are you absolved of personal responsibility?

For posters that know how to toe-the-line between baiting and acceptable posting (or who mods can't be bothered with, perhaps), this does absolutely nothing.

The problem largely, is the borderline posters who can successfully bring down the tone of debate, and drag a thread to the gutter, but which mods can't really act upon.

Usually constant straw-men is the tactic used here, and mods can do bugger all about it.

So this is very much a case, of either 'take' the bait and respond in kind (to try and get your word in), or just be brow-beaten out of discussion, in anticipation of mods coming down hard on both sides of a debate (when one side may be a minority, being trolled/baited but trying to still get a word in, and thus receiving a disproportionate amount of mod action, which is doled out to both sides in a supposedly 'balanced' way) - as you can see, in cases where mods can't act on the 'baiting', that creates an effective means of controlling discussion on the forum.

Overheal

jackofalltrades wrote: »

What are you basing this on though?
I've seen threads on more controversial/emotive topics being kept open.
Even where the has been a lengthy and stern warning in the OP and further warnings throughout the thread.

That's not to say that threads where on-thread warnings have kept the peace, have been less of a headache to moderate than other threads. A lot depends on most users' ability to self-moderate the conversation (ie. talking politely, not sniping) for one; and other times its about what users are reporting. Moderators aren't on all the time and aren't committed to regular hours, so sometimes if nothing is reported then nothing is done.

jackofalltrades

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Threads of 1,400 posts and 4,200 posts is hardly = being locked sharpish. The other threads you list have had *plenty* of comments coming from the "against" side.

Too much of a mess (from, as you say, both sides) to be moderating for people who are volunteering though, so were locked - it happens with lots of very heated threads.

What are you basing this on though?
I've seen threads on more controversial/emotive topics being kept open.
Even where the has been a lengthy and stern warning in the OP and further warnings throughout the thread.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This is all very true, we all know there is posters that consistently bait just within the rules and have done without sanction for years, its the fault of other less experienced users that rise too it and get themselves banned but the fact the baiting is never actioned is noteworthy.

That's something I'd like to see addressed.
Posting within the letter of the law but completely against it's spirit.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's a very bad form of moderating, because it's easy for posters to just be deliberately inflammatory in large numbers, on topics where there is a minority view they want off the forum, to try and get mods to shut down discussion of that.

Completely agree with you there.

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

Report posts that are baiting/trolling, and above all do not react to them. If you know its bait, and you get hooked anyway, are you absolved of personal responsibility?

It was in response to somebody saying those who get hooked get acted on so that was kind of taken as granted.

Agree though, those that consistently take the bait are a problem too.