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

Biased & Inconsistent Moderation on the '8th Amendment' thread in AH

Options
  • 15-05-2018 3:08pm
    #1
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭


    I wish to complain about the biased moderation on the '8th Amendment' thread in AH. Three moderators in particular are clearly holding one side of that debate to a higher standard than the other.

    Just this week alone I have reported personal abuse aimed at users and an also an accusation of trolling, and all went unactioned.

    Meanwhile, Putinbot, Kimbot and DSVC are moderating users on the other side of the debate for comparatively petty reasons like not answering questions and 'looking for an argument'.

    With the latter the mod chastised a user for saying "It's not pro choice, it's pro abortion" but we would never see a user moderated for saying something like "It's not pro-life, it's anti-choice". Not in a million years and yet it's something which is said all the time. So why is one okay to say one and not the other?

    One prochoice user yesterday asked those with pro life views would they willing to take it in the ass:
    So are any of you Pro Life crowd willing to take it in the bum to reduce abortiosn and save lives!?

    Whats a few mins of ass discomfort if it saves a potential life?

    Is the potential life worth nine months of your discomfort and pain?

    #PROLIFEINYOURBUM

    Why is this kind of nonsense not actioned for not contributing to the debate or for being 'crass'?

    Here we have a user moderated for posting '#Savethe8th':
    Kimbot wrote: »
    MOD Anne, please add more to your post, failure to do so will result in a thread ban or worse going forward.

    Fair enough, but then why is this post not actioned for just saying 'Repeal the 8th'?

    Why is personal abuse and accusations of trolling largely ignored when it's aimed at one side and not the other?

    Is impartial, fair and consistent moderation really too much to ask for? It would appear so.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    AnneFrank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭AnneFrank


    Yes i have to agree with the above, totally biased moderation,
    I was also warned for saying #savethe8th
    yet two posts who simply said #repealthe8th had nothing said to them.
    I was called a c**t which i reported and nothing was done, along with many, many others.


  • Options
    #3
    Tom Mann Centuria
    Registered Users Posts: 10,923 ✭✭✭✭Tom Mann Centuria


    It's the worst, by a distance, long running thread I've seen since I've been on boards (the thread itself, not the moderation). It's not possible to moderate that perfectly, or close, but enforcing rules that have been on boards since day one would be a start, and for both sides.

    Soft touch moderation is fine, if that's the way you want to go, then make it the same for both sides.

    Oh well, give me an easy life and a peaceful death.



  • Options
    #4
    uptherebels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    I wish to complain about the biased moderation on the '8th Amendment' thread in AH. Three moderators in particular are clearly holding one side of that debate to a higher standard than the other.

    Just this week alone I have reported personal abuse aimed at users and an also an accusation of trolling, and all went unactioned.


    Why is personal abuse and accusations of trolling largely ignored when it's aimed at one side and not the other?

    Is impartial, fair and consistent moderation really too much to ask for? It would appear so.
    I've reported anti choicers for trolling that has also gone unactioned. So I guess your assumptions of moderator bias are a bit misplaced.
    From what I see most people who are banned ignore repeated warnings.


  • Options
    #5
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Prolife posters now being referred to as "nutters". No action taken. Course, they've been referred to as Evil and also Sociopaths on the thread previously and so why I should be surprised I don't know.

    Why is this level of abuse allowed by one side of the debate and only moderated on the other? There is a clear bias at play here and it's disgraceful. One of the most important referendums in our history and the main thread on the site reads like a Prochoice chat room.

    As Tom Mann Centuria said, if you want soft touch moderation, fine, but have it apply to both sides of the "discussion", not just one.


    Over the past few years Mods and Admin have taken part in discussions regarding the dropping of numbers and the view is always about how traffic is down because of FB and Twitter and message boards are just not as popular anymore, but that's not the full story. The numbers on this site are down also because of the inconsistent moderation. You can all keep sticking your heads in the sand on that, but one day soon when you finally do remove your heads from the sand, you're gonna find that what's currently left of the userbase has moved on too. Well, apart from those who are trying to cultivate echo chambers across the forum, they'll still be around, as for reasons only known only to themselves, that appears to satisfy them more than rigorous debate.

    My comments are not directed at any mod or admin that does their best to try and listen to the userbase, no matter the political leanings of the users they're engaging with, often spending hours, daily, trying to ensure that Boards facilitates healthy discussions (which are fairly and consistently moderated). No, my comments are directed at the mods and admin who go out of their way to do the opposite.

    EDIT: Two posts I have linked to here or referenced as evidence of abuse being ignored, or of biased moderation by mods, have gone on to be deleted.


  • Options
    #6
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,989 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    i could probably write a lot on my feelings but i think tbh it would be a waste of time. so i will just simply say that i agree with everything said in this thread, and that i have never witnessed anything like the moderation of the 8th thread and the behaviour within it, during my time on here. i'm genuinely shocked actually.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    uptherebels wrote: »
    I've reported anti choicers for trolling that has also gone unactioned. So I guess your assumptions of moderator bias are a bit misplaced.
    From what I see most people who are banned ignore repeated warnings.

    +1. A number of pro-choice posters have been thread-banned. More pro-life campaigners have been. I don't see how that fact alone shows bias. It's not necessarily going to be 50/50. Maybe pro-life posters are acting the maggot more? It could really be that simple.

    I highly doubt Outlaw Pete would be complaining if it was the other way round and more pro-choice users were being banned.


Advertisement