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

Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

1232426282979

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 33,648 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    the only reason I know his name is because of that user on Boards, don't think ive heard him named in any media reports, or if he was i wouldn't have taken much notice of it, like I wouldn't know Enda Kenny's wifes name or Micheál Martin's either

    Nobody would think of registering on Boards with Kenny's or Martin's wife's name.

    So why do so with Varadkar's partner's name?

    Because he's gay.

    Duh.

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    <snip>


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,928 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Nobody would think of registering on Boards with Kenny's or Martin's wife's name.

    So why do so with Varadkar's partner's name?

    Because he's gay.

    Duh.




    not the case, that user did not pick that username because the individual is gay, it was just a username, picked as a wordplay given the poster is of the opposite view of fg supporters, there was in no way any mallice behind it, of that i have absolutely no doubt what so ever.

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,112 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    there was a Martin Lanigan registered earlier this year. banned now...


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    2u2me wrote: »
    The problem is when the poster meant no alterior intent and the actual words used were innocuous; you're just gaslighting. What if you're wrong?

    Or are you saying it's dogwhistling regardless of intent of the poster? That the words themselves are a dogwhistle and it doesn't matter who speaks them or in what context.

    Everything and anything can be a dog-whistle.
    • 'International banks' is apparently a dog-whistle for anti-semitism.
    • 'family values' is apparently now 'christian values'
    • 'all lives matter' is apparently 'black lives don't matter'
    • 'black lives matter' is apparently 'all lives matter'

    How come only one group of similar thinking people get to to define what things mean? I call bull****. We all interpret what words mean by how people use them. Definitions can change in the dictionary to reflect the zeitgeist.

    When you put forward a theory in science it must be falsifiable, this is an important concept in proving things. Claims of dog-whistling are not falsifiable.
    I agree with the problems with claims of dogwhistling and establishing intent. Simple solution for it though: Let the poster know that a certain phrase has this bad alternate meaning - then ask them if that's what they meant, and see (once they can't say they didn't know anymore) if they use it again.


  • Advertisement


  • no

    confirm what they meant

    that's it

    not for you or anyone else to impose an alternative meaning nor demand compliance with an ever-growing list of verboten terms


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,114 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    How about a minimum post count to be in CA/IMHO? Always seems to be amok with what are surely on the main just re reg accounts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭This is it


    Overheal wrote: »
    How about a minimum post count to be in CA/IMHO? Always seems to be amok with what are surely on the main just re reg accounts.

    They usually just post shyte elsewhere to get their count up which is worse again for the rest of the site


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    Overheal wrote: »
    How about a minimum post count to be in CA/IMHO? Always seems to be amok with what are surely on the main just re reg accounts.

    <snip>


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,587 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Overheal wrote: »
    How about a minimum post count to be in CA/IMHO? Always seems to be amok with what are surely on the main just re reg accounts.

    yeah would agree with something like a 100 post minimum/3 months on site to post in CA. The soccer forum has a minimum to get in and that is for good reason. Even feedback here is 3 months on site before you can post.

    Invariably much of the sh1te posting in CA comes from posters with low post counts so by putting up a barrier it would hopefully discourage a good few of them.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    there was a Martin Lanigan registered earlier this year. banned now...

    Who is Martin Lanigan?


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 74,773 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    This thread is to discuss the forum, not usernames


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 74,773 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Overheal wrote: »
    How about a minimum post count to be in CA/IMHO? Always seems to be amok with what are surely on the main just re reg accounts.
    Been suggested and discounted numerous times. It only works with an access system and that was considered one of the main drawbacks with the final iteration of Politics Cafe


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 74,773 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    <snip>

    Please note you need 100 posts and to have been on the site a minimum 3 months before posting in Feedback


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,587 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Beasty wrote: »
    Been suggested and discounted numerous times. It only works with an access system and that was considered one of the main drawbacks with the final iteration of Politics Cafe

    iirc that was because Politics Cafe 1.0 closed down and the later 2.0 was set up with an access system and everyone had to apply. From memory just a handful of posters applied and consequently the forum became a dead zone while simultaneously After Hours became more and more political until the eventual set up of CA we have now.

    The access system was what made 2.0 fail because when posters went in and saw little to no activity they didnt bother signing up. Thats not the case with CA today, its a vibrant forum. I think an access system should be re-visited and would ultimately discourage re-reggers causing trouble and then flipping accounts every few months. It works well on the soccer forum and indeed without it the place would be a mess.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,114 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Or, do what is done with Feedback, and just exemplified right there: snip posts that fail criteria.

    I know, I know, volume. But it could gain traction.


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 74,773 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    So what happens then? You end up pushing it all back into AH, which CA was setup to prevent


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,587 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Beasty wrote: »
    So what happens then? You end up pushing it all back into AH, which CA was setup to prevent

    I think what would happen is that those who only sign up to cause havoc in CA would have nowhere to do so until they had at least 3 months/100 posts. It wont discourage all of them but even if it was only half of them it would be progress. AH is a politics free zone and politics is what these posters are here for, not AH. It would only get pushed back into AH if the mods there allowed it, which they dont from what I can see, anything politics related gets moved to CA pretty quick in fairness.

    If a new posters main motivation is to cause trouble and engage in bad faith posting then a 3 month/100 barrier is a pretty good deterrent. It also has the added advantage that it would help clear out constant re-regs who rack up cards, threadbans etc and then re register to clean their record. They could still re reg but they would have to wait a further 3 months for access to CA, that alone is a disincentive in itself.

    Again I would say that the soccer forum has shown that having system access prevents trolls signing up and immediately causing chaos like they can in CA. The soccer forum used to be the most contentious forum on all of Boards but that is no longer the case, CA easily has that title and then some.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,243 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    I think it's something that is definitely worth considering. Trollish re-regs are one of the biggest scourges on the site.

    The forum is well established now, I couldn't see a move like this doing any real harm and it could potentially improve the place immeasurably.

    Works perfectly in the soccer forum - one of the busiest forums on the site.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,990 ✭✭✭Hodors Appletart


    start it from now.

    allow anyone who has a pre july 2020 reg date to maintain access but close it off to new regs until they reach 3 Months slash 100 Posts whichever takes longer prevents signing up dummy accounts slash spamming for a week


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    Don't apply a blanket-ban on new regs to a whole forum, apply it per-thread - for the threads that are getting hit by reregs - and enforce it the way Feedback does here (with maybe a mod warning in first post, and then snip posts as they are reported - don't need to action posters unless they repeat offend).


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭This is it


    KyussB wrote: »
    Don't apply a blanket-ban on new regs to a whole forum, apply it per-thread - for the threads that are getting hit by reregs - and enforce it the way Feedback does here (with maybe a mod warning in first post, and then snip posts as they are reported - don't need to action posters unless they repeat offend).

    I realise that I'm only posting problems and not solutions but anyway... The issue with this is Feedback gets a few posts a day, CA gets thousands. You'd need multiple mods on constantly checking the threads, and reported posts, to ensure posters meet the criteria. I don't think it's workable


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    Boards really needs automated bot accounts for doing that kind of thing - it's silly that such simple stuff has to be done manually still, and it leads to unnecessary/aggravating mixups for mods/users...ya though, it may not end up workable, but could nip some rereg trolls in the bud all the same, as it wouldn't have to be applied consistently (reregs is the one area, where mod inconsistency is probably fine).


  • Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    This is it wrote: »
    I realise that I'm only posting problems and not solutions but anyway... The issue with this is Feedback gets a few posts a day, CA gets thousands. You'd need multiple mods on constantly checking the threads, and reported posts, to ensure posters meet the criteria. I don't think it's workable

    This.

    It also operates on the rather inaccurate premise that the majority of issues in CA are down to rereg trolls popping up, shítting everywhere, and the mods playing whack-a-mole when they do. I did a quick search on the reported posts forum just now for RPs in Current Affairs and COVID19 in the past seven days (187 and 78 respectfully) to confirm my suspicions and a cursory glance shows me that they are from recognizable usernames, indicating that more than a reasonable percentage of posts being reported are not from shiny new rereg accounts, but from people who are reasonably well established on the site. Now of course not all of those reported posts were actionable, but the ratio would remain about the same.

    The ideal solution of course, would be that posters educate themselves in how to post within the confines of the forum rules and common sense, treat other posters with respect and not lash out at disagreements or other oppositional debates. And no post count or registration date cutoff is going to address that.


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 74,773 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    TBH I don't see many low postcount/new users as being the problems within the forum. It tends to be posters who have spent months or years skirting rules and just staying sufficiently below the radar that end up stirring things most. The re-reg trolls tend to get nuked very quickly. With me and Mike effectively covering the timezones we don't find them creating that much grief to the userbase within CA (or the Coronavirus forum). Indeed they seem to still migrate more to AH than CA (Possibly because they know that Admins moderate there and are more likely to spot them quickly in the CA forum).


  • Registered Users Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Beasty!!!! Dont tip them off!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,928 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    iirc that was because Politics Cafe 1.0 closed down and the later 2.0 was set up with an access system and everyone had to apply. From memory just a handful of posters applied and consequently the forum became a dead zone while simultaneously After Hours became more and more political until the eventual set up of CA we have now.

    The access system was what made 2.0 fail because when posters went in and saw little to no activity they didnt bother signing up. Thats not the case with CA today, its a vibrant forum. I think an access system should be re-visited and would ultimately discourage re-reggers causing trouble and then flipping accounts every few months. It works well on the soccer forum and indeed without it the place would be a mess.




    reregs would likely just post inoffensively until they reach the quota and then get in and do their thing.
    i believe the soccerforum has always had that system but it is a specialised forum, so would attract the usage dispite it.

    whether it would be a mess without that system or not i couldn't say either way.

    CA on the other hand has competition from other all be it smaller forums elsewhere so there would be no incentive for people to sign up i would expect.
    if people really don't want rereg trolls then the best way to deal with them really is to give them no oxygen, don't engage with them.

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,648 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    2u2me wrote: »
    The problem is when the poster meant no alterior intent and the actual words used were innocuous; you're just gaslighting. What if you're wrong?

    I think to regard what was posted in that thread as innocuous is naive in the extreme.

    From the man himself:

    Minister for Children condemns ‘homophobic’ attacks from ‘far-right’
    Minister for Children Roderic O’Gorman says he has become the victim of a “far-right social media pile-on” by groups using misinformation to play on concerns about child protection issues.

    The Minister said there was a definite homophobic element to the abuse he was receiving and that his predecessor Katherine Zappone had been subjected to similar attacks for being gay and because she didn’t have children. The Green Party Lord Mayor of Dublin, Hazel Chu has also been subjected to online attacks around race, said Mr O’Gorman.

    “It’s an attempt by the far right to silence people from minorities and to suppress difference. They’ll use whatever they can to undermine those who seek to stand up to their agenda. But it certainly isn’t going to work with me.”

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,928 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    I think to regard what was posted in that thread as innocuous is naive in the extreme.

    From the man himself:

    Minister for Children condemns ‘homophobic’ attacks from ‘far-right’


    it's not naive though, unless the poster has come out with views in that thread that can actually be proven to be homophobic, and beyond reasonable doubt, then the poster is just stating a simple opinion.
    simply stating that a minister for children should have children themselves, while an impractical view and impractical to deliver, is not necessarily of itself homophobic.
    yes, coupled with other homophobic views it certainly can and will be used by homophobes to attack gay people and that is condemnable, unjustifiable and should be challenged, but simply expressing the view of itself isn't automatically homophobic and there would need to be evidence against the poster to show their intention is to engage in homophobia.

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,587 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Beasty wrote: »
    TBH I don't see many low postcount/new users as being the problems within the forum. It tends to be posters who have spent months or years skirting rules and just staying sufficiently below the radar that end up stirring things most. The re-reg trolls tend to get nuked very quickly. With me and Mike effectively covering the timezones we don't find them creating that much grief to the userbase within CA (or the Coronavirus forum). Indeed they seem to still migrate more to AH than CA (Possibly because they know that Admins moderate there and are more likely to spot them quickly in the CA forum).

    Fair enough if thats the case. Ive just felt recently that anytime Ive seen anything trollish posted it tends to come from a poster with an account set up in April/May/June.

    As for those staying underneath the radar what happens in terms of threadbans, like can a poster get threadbanned numerous times but still have access to the forum? Or is there a totting up process like the Soccer forum.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement