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 General Feedback thread

Options
1…5791011

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #183
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #184
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    No I simply explained why something will definitely look like trolling to you and not look like trolling to a mod. It has nothing to do with libertarianism and everything to do with ideological posters having trouble seeing the wood from the trees for understandable reasons.


  • Options
    #185
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Okay, a modicum of context here. There are a number of self "appraised" libertarians posting on this forum who view ZH as being a definitive resource. they clearly have no access to Bloomberg, don't read the better bloggs like FTAlphaville or Kid Dynamite's world or perhaps just don't get finance. Do you not agree that we should view such posts as trolling? From the liberal point of view if we allow such posts we have every right to criticize libertarianism on the back of them

    It strikes me that if Libertarians want the moral high ground then they need to weed out the lowest common denominator. So long as they allow the LCD to exists they cannot claim that high ground. While I couldn't class PB or BW as the LCD neither of you has rejected the concept of delawarization.


  • Options
    #186
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #188
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #189
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Oh quit being so peevish. I'm explaining a fact of life, if you hold an ideology dear it tends to make you very sensitive to people criticising it and tends to make you far more likely to see trolls and the real life equivalents when all there is is people who disagree strongly with you. We see this all the time in reported posts in ideological threads.


  • Options
    #190
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    This, as I explained earlier, is a problem with any ideology. If someone tried to seriously discuss communism here they would get nowhere because a lot of our more right wing posters would be jumping down their throat ranting about the inevitable evils of any such kind of system. Would these people be trolling? No, they're just expressing their view in a thread.

    We've an identical problem with Republican threads, they turn into fist fights between the pro and anti Republicans. Over and over. To the point where there is a private forum for Republicans so they can discuss their worldview in peace. And it's always the same posters taking pot shots at Republicans in these threads. They're not trolls, they just have a serious problem with Republicanism.

    Libertarian threads, the same as Communism or Republican ones will always attract those vehemently opposed to them. You just have to deal with it.

    Please do report posts, but do not be surprised if we don't agree someone is trolling. Trolling does happen in these threads but far less in the eyes of unbiased observers than of the thread participants themselves.


  • Options
    #191
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Ah, but you see since it annoys me I would tend to view is as being done to disrupt the discussion (they never acknowledge that they are wrong and are not open to being convinced of it, they find more and more rubbish sources which agree with their PoV) which is where I think you are coming from in relation to the anti-Libertarian posters.

    They annoy the hell out of you and misrepresent your facts therefore they must be trying to derail the conversation.

    So I agree, it is not how we actually define a troll, it is just how we define a poor thread but you have to acknowledge that as a poster there is a subjective element to what you would view as trolling. Someone who seems immune to fact, logic or reason who keeps posting a contrarian PoV may seem like a troll if they are posting about something which you feel strongly about. Yet they need not actually be a troll if reviewed objectively.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    gandalf wrote: »
    More active moderators. 3 active moderators are not enough. Moderators disappearing for six months are not the type needed in high volume forums like Politics. I know when I couldn't commit to the work load I stood down as mod here and as the cmod of Society. I'd expect the same from any others who couldn't commit to being available on a semi-regular basis. Politics is too high profile a forum to have fair weather moderators.

    Wow. You have a huge issue with this. As stated before you posted this.
    1. I didn't disappear. my whereabouts was stated and known.
    2. My being away in no way contributed to the running of the forum. I didn't get any PMs that went unanswered, I wasn't taking a space from someone else.
    3. I don't know why I wasn't demodded. Maybe my co-mods felt I had or have something to contribute, maybe they're lazy. I'll work that out with them.


    Really those, you're making a straw man based on your very very obvious (and unknown to me) dislike for me.

    Lets try stick to the forum issues and discuss the problems that you feel exist now, differ from those you expressed, say, 6-7 months ago?


  • Options
    #193
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    sorry for the double post.

    As a more general comment.

    I'm not sure why the moderators should be expected to moderate opinions.

    Look, I read many, many posts and opinions here that I just dislike, on a molcular level. They aren't breaking any politics forum rules, but, imho, probably break rules that should exist to allow you to be a functioning member of society.

    As a (current) politics mod, with the power to do something about it, I'm left feeling conflicted. At the end of the day, I realise, that the forum is about multiple opinions and I'm there to facilitate discussion, not hamper it.

    NOW, occasionally, politics gets "trends" (I'm going to discount the "you haven't been here in 6 months" posse because it's always been this way, and hasn't changed in the past 6 months, and won't change in the next 6 months". Much like twitter gets trends. It becomes fashionable to come and post on boards.ie politics forum concerning a politics subject. Often this is just a case of current climate galvanizing an opinon that many people express. Sometimes it's an organized effort. We know this, because we see posts on politics.ie and p45 and in extreme cases, places like stormfront where they tell people to come visit us.

    There really isn't anything 1 or a million politics mods could do about this. They're generally sporadic and transient and we could add a few mods but come a lull, politics then becomes "overmodded" (we get that complaint frequently enough to). OK, I'll concede, NI and Israel are probably ongoing "problem" topics, but again, the feedback receive there are generally less to do with how much we mod so much as "how" we mod.. depending on the complaining posters point of view.

    And that is often what politics complaints are down to. Point of view. If we went super strict with 15 mods eliminating certain types of posters, next week we would have as many posters complaining that politics is elitist, biased and rife with censorship.

    I don't really want to see a forum like that (even if I have been absent, I still care). I would rather see the poorest and the greates contributers pool to result in a forum where strong argument and discussion wins over censure or uninformed opinion. Most observers of politics are smart. They can see an idiot a mile away. Rather than engage and have them drag you down, simply show them up with on topic debate and discussion. They will go away or maybe, if you're lucky, rethink their views. How great would that be.

    Or we can just ban everyone that a select few feels isn't up to their level.


  • Options
    #194
    Soldie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    I appreciate that threads on libertarianism can become extremely divided. I also appreciate that those participating in such threads may have a different take on trolling to those not participating in them. I don't accept (or appreciate) the explanation that this discrepancy automatically exists for ideological reasons. I take an interest in libertarianism and I'm drawn to threads where it's discussed here, so as a by-product I'm familiar with the posting habits of others who frequent such threads. I think most people who frequent the forum can make such a claim for the topics they're interested in. It is because of my familiarity with the posting habits of the person who created this thread that I deliberately avoided the thread. As it happens, I reported the thread before anyone had taken the bait, and before it developed into trench warfare (and on that note, I think some of those arguing for libertarianism in that thread should be disciplined, too). The original poster did touch on (and I use that term in the most generous possible way) some valid criticisms that I would have been happy to discuss, had I of known that the thread was started in good faith. But it patently wasn't, as the poster in question has a lengthy history of making glib and goading comments to people who have espoused libertarianism. I'm convinced that the only way anyone could possibly think it's not trolling is due to a lack of familiarity with the poster which, I think, brings me back full-circle to my criticism that there are simply not enough mods.


  • Options
    #195
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Soldie wrote: »
    I appreciate that threads on libertarianism can become extremely divided. I also appreciate that those participating in such threads may have a different take on trolling to those not participating in them. I don't accept (or appreciate) the explanation that this discrepancy exists for ideological reasons. I take an interest in libertarianism and I'm drawn to threads where it's discussed here, so as a by-product I'm familiar with the posting habits of others who frequent such threads. It is because of my familiarity with the posting habits of the person who created this thread that I deliberately avoided the thread. As it happens, I reported the thread before anyone had taken the bait, and before it developed into trench warfare (and on that note, I think some of those arguing for libertarianism in that thread should be disciplined, too). The original poster did touch on (and I use that term in the most generous possible way) some valid criticisms that I would have been happy to discuss, had I of known that the thread was started in good faith. But it patently wasn't, as the poster in question has a lengthy history of making glib and goading comments to people who have espoused libertarianism. I'm convinced that the only way anyone could possibly think it's not trolling is due to a lack of familiarity with the poster which, I think, brings me back full-circle to my criticism that there are simply not enough mods.

    Should we be banning people who make glib or goading comments about Republicans or Communists too? Because it'd be a pretty bloody long list (you could probably include me on it too). Or FFers for that matter.

    A certain amount of rough and tumble is to be expected on a Politics forum. My general advice would be to grow a thicker skin and just ignore certain poster that you know have a serious problem with your ideology because you're really just wasting your time arguing with them.


  • Options
    #196
    Soldie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    nesf wrote: »
    Should we be banning people who make glib or goading comments about Republicans or Communists too? Because it'd be a pretty bloody long list (you could probably include me on it too). Or FFers for that matter.

    I think it's clear that that's not what I'm saying. I'm merely pointing out that those familiar with the poster in question would undoubtedly be aware of his endless baiting and trolling. Low-level trolling is still trolling.
    A certain amount of rough and tumble is to be expected on a Politics forum. My general advice would be to grow a thicker skin and just ignore certain poster that you know have a serious problem with your ideology because you're really just wasting your time arguing with them.

    But I have ignored the thread. I'm explaining why I ignored it. Many other genuine and articulate posters who usually take an interest in libertarianism ignored it, too, undoubtedly for similar reasons. The troll was successful. Curiously, this doesn't seem to concern you.


  • Options
    #197
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Suggestion: posters perma-banned from AH should automatically be banned from politics. Just do some cross referencing. It's like expecting people to walk when they couldn't demonstrate their ability to even crawl and then wondering why they are in politics thrashing about on the ground.


  • Options
    #198
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #199
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    ...if you think I'm picking those toys up for you, you've another thing coming.


  • Options
    #200
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Oh please, we're listening to people and adding more mods in response. What we won't do is capitulate to every request where we disagree.


  • Options
    #201
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Soldie wrote: »
    I think it's clear that that's not what I'm saying. I'm merely pointing out that those familiar with the poster in question would undoubtedly be aware of his endless baiting and trolling. Low-level trolling is still trolling.

    And my point is that I could ban an awful lot of people for such "trolling" simply because they have a serious problem with some political position and don't keep quiet about it when given the opportunity to attack. For instance if I ban people for being glib and goading on a libertarian thread, I'm going to have to turn around and ban a whole heap of libertarians for the same behaviour on socialism threads.

    I really don't want to have to do this. I'd hate to have to ban someone for just being passionately opposed to some position.


    Soldie wrote: »
    But I have ignored the thread. I'm explaining why I ignored it. Many other genuine and articulate posters who usually take an interest in libertarianism ignored it, too, undoubtedly for similar reasons. The troll was successful. Curiously, this doesn't seem to concern you.

    The "troll" wants to pick a fight with libertarians because they have a serious problem with the ideology. This just happens. If he starts derailing threads by turning them into fights about libertarianism then yes we'll step in but setting up a thread which begins with an attack on the ideology leaves no one in any doubt as to what the thread is going to be like so as far as I'm concerned anyone choosing to post in it implicitly accepts that their ideology is going to be attacked in a whole array of ways and that posts in it will probably be goading and annoying for them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #203
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote: »
    Suggestion: posters perma-banned from AH should automatically be banned from politics. Just do some cross referencing. It's like expecting people to walk when they couldn't demonstrate their ability to even crawl and then wondering why they are in politics thrashing about on the ground.

    Unfortunately, there's no easy way to make that happen. I will say that when a poster comes to our attention in Politics, we do take account of other bans, and an AH ban would be particularly noticeable.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #204
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    So we should ban every FFer in the place because they don't go into threads ready to admit that FF has any merits whatsoever?

    Your definition of trolling is far too broad, it would catch far too many people in its net if applied across the forum, which it would have to be.


  • Options
    #205
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #206
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,498 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    In terms of weeding out low quality threads if the thread title or the bulk of the OP is a question then it should be locked. Theyre almost always low quality threads or trolling: "I didnt say you beat your wife, I asked you if you beat your wife" type stuff.

    Currently on the front page I see 5 topics where the title/op is framed as a question.

    The first thread is locked with the OP banned for trolling.

    The second is another poorly disguised troll where the discussion has already diverted onto the inflamatory nature of the thread title itself, rather than the alleged topic.

    The third is the same old "I'm going to start a political party" stuff which comes up every few weeks before vanishing without a trace.

    The fourth is a constitutional query that google could have resolved.

    The fifth has actually generated some serious activity but its no thanks to the OPs two lines, which offered no opinion. The thread itself is discussing the same issue that was already being discussed in another large thread.


  • Options
    #207
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    How do you separate your definition from someone who simply wants to attack a political position (be that party or ideology) because they neither share it nor respect it?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #208
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Proving the intent is the problem. It's easy to assign intent but it's very difficult to be sure about it.


  • Options
    #209
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #210
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I can't answer for nesf, but personally I'd largely agree with your definition of trolling.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


Advertisement