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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

1…3132343637…48

Comments

  • #1652
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Necro wrote: »
    Why would you think calling another user a commie or a pinko would not be sanctionable?

    Same as if you started calling users fascist or racist, it's personal abuse plain and simple.

    But that wasn't snoopsheep's point and you know that, you changed the argument to users when they were clearly referring to points made about non-users ie Trump


    Tbh I'm confused about the users / non-users thing. I know posters cant use the phrase 'sleepy [fill in name of person] where it implies Alzheimer's etc. And you certainly can't say that of a user. But if I said that (for example) republicans / democrats were all 'criminals' or 'paedophiles' and by doing so infer that the poster was the same - for supporting them - would that be sanctionable?

    :confused:


  • #1653
    KyussB
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    Baggly wrote: »
    Please PM or report some examples for me. Thanks.
    I think it was the prior thing I mentioned on this thread a month or more ago - and reported relevant backseat modding examples around then.


  • #1654
    Necro
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,184 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    gozunda wrote:
    Tbh I'm confused about the users / non-users thing. I know posters cant use the phrase 'sleepy [fill in name of person] where it implies Alzheimer's etc. And you certainly can't say that of a user. But if I said that (for example) republicans / democrats were all 'criminals' or 'paedophiles' and by doing so infer that the poster was the same - for supporting them - would that be sanctionable?

    I think it depends. Are you using it to gain a rise out of other users ie trolling or are you trying to have a general discussion with such posts. I think you're running into hassle inferring a poster is the same in any case, the rules are pretty clear on attacking the posts not the poster.

    As always, context is key. And such generalisations rarely add to any discussion in my experience. From what I gather the whole sleepy stuff was banned as users were simply doing it to get a rise out of the other side, so in other words they were trolling with those posts.


  • #1655
    KyussB
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    Necro wrote: »
    Why would you think calling another user a commie or a pinko would not be sanctionable?
    As the person on Boards who likely has had this label applied to them more than any other poster (to the point that my last username KomradeBishop took the piss out of this fact), despite endless statements that it doesn't represent me or my views, I find that kind of laughable. I even brought that up here on Feedback at some stage.

    I don't think it on its own should be sanctionable either, mind; but when combined with bad faith argument, particularly borderline trolling - that's when it'd make sense (and even then, doesn't need permanent recorded sanction - just modding with "cop-on" type posts is enough).


  • #1656
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    KyussB wrote:
    I think it was the prior thing I mentioned on this thread a month or more ago - and reported relevant backseat modding examples around then.


    I'll take a look for you.


  • Advertisement
  • #1657
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,371 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Necro wrote: »
    I think it depends. Are you using it to gain a rise out of other users ie trolling or are you trying to have a general discussion with such posts. I think you're running into hassle inferring a poster is the same in any case, the rules are pretty clear on attacking the posts not the poster.

    As always, context is key. And such generalisations rarely add to any discussion in my experience. From what I gather the whole sleepy stuff was banned as users were simply doing it to get a rise out of the other side, so in other words they were trolling with those posts.

    Unfortunately, the moderation isn't consistent when it comes to such generalised terms.

    For example, there are some nationalist posters who use the term "partitionist" to refer to anyone who disagrees with them purely as a ruse to get a rise out of the other side. As you say, it adds zero to the discussion, and is only used to troll.

    Yet, despite complaints in the past, it hasn't been actioned.


  • #1658
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Necro wrote: »
    I think it depends. Are you using it to gain a rise out of other users ie trolling or are you trying to have a general discussion with such posts. I think you're running into hassle inferring a poster is the same in any case, the rules are pretty clear on attacking the posts not the poster.

    As always, context is key. And such generalisations rarely add to any discussion in my experience. From what I gather the whole sleepy stuff was banned as users were simply doing it to get a rise out of the other side, so in other words they were trolling with those posts.

    No not advocating for the use of such terms :pac: . I agree that use of same would rarely (if ever) add to any discussion in my experience.

    Moreso anyone inferring that all republican/ democrats (for example) or any posters in supporting them were paedophiles or whatever would certainly amount to trolling.

    That said it happens quite frequently. And no not always sanctioned.


  • #1659
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Baggly wrote: »
    I'll take a look for you.

    Ive found reports that claim backseat modding going back 6 weeks and reviewed each of them.

    Where action was appropriate it was taken, where it wasnt; it wasnt taken. I will say that not all of the actions taken may be apparent to you, but they were taken nonetheless.

    By that i mean if a user has their post deleted you may not see an action against that post. Or if the post was just deleted (which i sometimes do if there are a chain of off topic posts) then you also may not see this and thus not see it as 'active' moderation.

    If you continue to see posts as backseat modding, please keep reporting them. They will all be reviewed and actioned where appropriate.

    Im sorry but i cant provide you with further detail than the above, for reasons mentioned by others within the last page of this thread, but hopefully this might reassure you that we are not ignoring anyones reports; we just have a different interpretation of them.


  • #1660
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Unfortunately, the moderation isn't consistent when it comes to such generalised terms.

    For example, there are some nationalist posters who use the term "partitionist" to refer to anyone who disagrees with them purely as a ruse to get a rise out of the other side. As you say, it adds zero to the discussion, and is only used to troll.

    Yet, despite complaints in the past, it hasn't been actioned.



    the general approach from our SF contingent- the three or four accounts that everyone knows, im not sure what detail its appropriate to get into here- on irish politics threads would appear to be enough to see them banned very quickly indeed under the rules on US politics threads.

    is that not a strange division of approaches?


  • #1661
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    markodaly wrote: »
    Yes, and the other one, of course, is saying someone is a 'shill'

    Now, afaik, calling someone a Shinnerbot or a bot is an actionable offence, yet one can call someone a shill or a FF/FG/Green shill with impunity.

    There is NO consistency at all here.
    Either permit both or action both.


    to be fair- id imply all the time that the three or four of them are pretty much just that and i rarely get actioned for it

    that may be because no reporting or maybe its fair comment, i dunno


  • Advertisement
  • #1662
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,026 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    the general approach from our SF contingent- the three or four accounts that everyone knows, im not sure what detail its appropriate to get into here- on irish politics threads would appear to be enough to see them banned very quickly indeed under the rules on US politics threads.

    is that not a strange division of approaches?

    I think we’re comparing apples with oranges if we start likening the US politics, or identity politics, threads with Irish politics.

    Sure there is a bit of “mud slinging” amid the, heated, cut and thrust of robust debate but the Irish politics threads aren’t populated with crackpots and loons. Well, not to the same degree.

    Those threads are always, and should always, be moderated differently. If the denizens of the US politics, and identity politics, threads were to pick up “forum bans” then they’d be scuttling off and making a mess of other, more normal, forums.

    Anyway, I, personally, don’t believe that the posters in the Irish politics threads are as “sensitive” as the types that post in the others. They don’t seem get as “butthurt” over the little things, maybe I’m wrong but might be interesting to compare the rates of “reported” posts in each.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • #1663
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    I think we’re comparing apples with oranges if we start likening the US politics, or identity politics, threads with Irish politics.

    Sure there is a bit of “mud slinging” amid the, heated, cut and thrust of robust debate but the Irish politics threads aren’t populated with crackpots and loons. Well, not to the same degree.

    Those threads are always, and should always, be moderated differently. If the denizens of the US politics, and identity politics, threads were to pick up “forum bans” then they’d be scuttling off and making a mess of other, more normal, forums.

    Anyway, I, personally, don’t believe that the posters in the Irish politics threads are as “sensitive” as the types that post in the others. They don’t seem get as “butthurt” over the little things, maybe I’m wrong but might be interesting to compare the rates of “reported” posts in each.

    sorry emmet, not a single solid point scored there for me

    i. nothing to do with id politics or sensitivities. irish political threads are unusable due to the rotating-shift partisan hack attacks

    ii. "all these threads are good containers so that the threads i like are kept clear" isnt actually any defence at all, and i wish you'd stop saying it as if it were an excuse for not moderating these behaviours

    iii. moderation of current affairs discussion should be consistent across current affairs, politics forum and the approach taken there has been done to death but seems largely irrelevant to the point here imo

    iv. the irish politics threads arent really populated by anyone BUT crackpots and loons, or those who i sincerely hope actually are getting paid to be there. pop in sometime, its three shins and a little lady and everyone else has just bailed because of the tiresome rote nature of how every issue is discussed.

    its a real issue but *shrug*


  • #1664
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,597 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    gozunda wrote: »
    Tbh I'm confused about the users / non-users thing. I know posters cant use the phrase 'sleepy [fill in name of person] where it implies Alzheimer's etc. And you certainly can't say that of a user. But if I said that (for example) republicans / democrats were all 'criminals' or 'paedophiles' and by doing so infer that the poster was the same - for supporting them - would that be sanctionable?

    :confused:

    There is a site rule against personal abuse. That is any abuse directed towards another user

    When it comes down to abuse directed towards 3rd parties it's up to local mods/charters

    So, for example, the Soccer Forum has a specific rule against abusing players/managers/officials or pretty much anyone

    In the case of CA we do not have such a rule, but we do have the "Don't be a Dick" rule

    In the election discussions dementia and "sleepy Joe" became weapons in the discussion. Posters found it offensive (and indeed trolling) and we clamped down. In doing so we have recognised similar "protection" had to be afforded Trump. Those "rules" applied to the election threads. We only started handing out sanctions after making it very clear that such names/descriptions were not permitted

    There remains no such specific rule elsewhere in the forum. "Don't be a dick" remains the overriding principle, and if posters use "name-calling" or abusive terms to troll others they can expect sanction

    Of course it's very easy for anyone to avoid getting into a situation where their intent needs questioning


  • #1665
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,597 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    markodaly - you are currently disputing a card in the DRP - do not use Feedback threads to try and gain support for your position

    I've deleted 2 of your posts for doing so

    Any questions PM me - do not respond to this post in-thread (and that also applies to everyone else)


  • #1666
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,597 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Please use this thread to provide forum feedback, not highlight specific issues you can very easily report (and yes a post has been deleted)


  • #1667
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,026 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    sorry emmet, not a single solid point scored there for me

    i. nothing to do with id politics or sensitivities. irish political threads are unusable due to the rotating-shift partisan hack attacks

    ii. "all these threads are good containers so that the threads i like are kept clear" isnt actually any defence at all, and i wish you'd stop saying it as if it were an excuse for not moderating these behaviours

    iii. moderation of current affairs discussion should be consistent across current affairs, politics forum and the approach taken there has been done to death but seems largely irrelevant to the point here imo

    iv. the irish politics threads arent really populated by anyone BUT crackpots and loons, or those who i sincerely hope actually are getting paid to be there. pop in sometime, its three shins and a little lady and everyone else has just bailed because of the tiresome rote nature of how every issue is discussed.

    its a real issue but *shrug*

    Not trying to “score points”, pal, but if you take a look in ‘Helpdesk’ or ‘Dispute Resolution’ you’ll see users from “the other side” complaining, almost daily, about the moderation, just as you are.

    Granted, it does appear to have gotten much stricter in there the last while. This may be down to new faces moderating that haven’t quite grasped the “tone” of the place or maybe there’s been a conscious decision to force a change.

    I completely disagree with you when you say it should be moderated the same as the ‘Politics Forum’. It shouldn’t. If you want to discuss serious politics then head over to that forum, if you want some lighthearted, or informative, discussion go to ‘After Hours’ but if you want more contentious “debate” then that’s where ‘Current Affairs’ fits in.

    Yes, threads do get “taken over” by a group of posters from time to time but they tend to die off unless someone posts in them. The TERF one is a prime example of that, the anti-trans crowd turn it into an “echo chamber” until some brave soul decides to post something compassionate and that sets them off again.

    You can’t censor their opinion, as long as it’s delivered within the site “rules”, just because you don’t like or you think they’re working in shifts.

    Stricter moderation of the forum just makes it redundant when ‘Politics’ and ‘After Hours’ are there. I’m on record as saying that I, personally, think the “report button” should be removed from ‘Current Affairs’, or at least reported posts should be ignored as I’d imagine it would require too much effort to remove the button.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • #1668
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    The TERF one is a prime example of that, the anti-trans crowd turn it into an “echo chamber”

    You mean the thread where one person attacks and labels anyone who doesn't agree with their ideology as a terf and cis despite people asking not to be called by either , pretty much an one person echo chamber
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #1669
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    you seem to have honestly misinterpreted what i said about current affairs/politics- which may have been unclear in my post. im saying that modding has to be consistent across current affairs.

    the rest of your post either misrepresents my points or doesnt really address anything i said

    apart from your characterisation of the rowling thread, which tbh is laughable- as anyone who had read that thread would see.

    no talk from me of censorship but clearly you have yr own items where opinions are verböten eh


  • #1670
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,026 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    you seem to have honestly misinterpreted what i said about current affairs/politics- which may have been unclear in my post. im saying that modding has to be consistent across current affairs.
    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    iii. moderation of current affairs discussion should be consistent across current affairs, politics forum and the approach taken there...

    Apologies, I took the point above to mean you were looking for consistency with the ‘Politics Forum’.
    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    no talk from me of censorship but clearly you have yr own items where opinions are verböten eh

    Nonsense, I think all “topics” should be up for discussion with minimal mod intervention. The forum, as it is, must be a nightmare to moderate with a constant flow of whinging and reported posts.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • #1671
    Rothko
    Registered Users Posts: 12,908 ✭✭✭✭Rothko


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    Yes, threads do get “taken over” by a group of posters from time to time but they tend to die off unless someone posts in them. The TERF one is a prime example of that, the anti-trans crowd turn it into an “echo chamber” until some brave soul decides to post something compassionate and that sets them off again.

    Anti-trans crowd? I haven't seen a single anti-trans poster on that thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #1672
    TomTomTim
    Registered Users Posts: 2,841 ✭✭✭TomTomTim


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    Not trying to “score points”, pal, but if you take a look in ‘Helpdesk’ or ‘Dispute Resolution’ you’ll see users from “the other side” complaining, almost daily, about the moderation, just as you are.

    Granted, it does appear to have gotten much stricter in there the last while. This may be down to new faces moderating that haven’t quite grasped the “tone” of the place or maybe there’s been a conscious decision to force a change.

    I completely disagree with you when you say it should be moderated the same as the ‘Politics Forum’. It shouldn’t. If you want to discuss serious politics then head over to that forum, if you want some lighthearted, or informative, discussion go to ‘After Hours’ but if you want more contentious “debate” then that’s where ‘Current Affairs’ fits in.

    Yes, threads do get “taken over” by a group of posters from time to time but they tend to die off unless someone posts in them. The TERF one is a prime example of that, the anti-trans crowd turn it into an “echo chamber” until some brave soul decides to post something compassionate and that sets them off again.

    You can’t censor their opinion, as long as it’s delivered within the site “rules”, just because you don’t like or you think they’re working in shifts.

    Stricter moderation of the forum just makes it redundant when ‘Politics’ and ‘After Hours’ are there. I’m on record as saying that I, personally, think the “report button” should be removed from ‘Current Affairs’, or at least reported posts should be ignored as I’d imagine it would require too much effort to remove the button.

    You know you can just not view CA, seeing as you hate it so much? I've never seen a poster on here before with such an obsession with a sub forum as you. No matter how much you try and frame it as being against hate or whatever, the reality is you want no dissent. The politics subs is far worse when it comes to being an echo chamber, yet you never mention it because it's an echo chamber you agree with. Not everyone agrees with your views, and they never will, so you better get used to it.

    “The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”- ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov




  • #1673
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    I know its not the point and i dont mean to derail the feedback being provided, but this came up last week as well in another thread....

    Current Affairs isn't a subforum of After Hours or vice versa. There is overlap on the mod team for the two fora, but they are separate fora with separate remits and different charters.

    There is a link to CA at the top of AH, which is there from when CA was created and took the majority of AH's current affair topics; but the two fora arent linked beyond that.


  • #1674
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    Any update on the temporary closing of the JK Rowling thread in CA?


  • #1675
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Not yet. The mods are discussing next steps.


  • #1676
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    A new thread has been opened on the topic of gender identity in modern ireland. Id suggest if anyone wishes to discuss the topic, they do so there rather than in the JK Rowling thread, which was in no way near to the topic of the original OP, nor was it a current issue (and so will be remaining closed).

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=115310653#post115310653


  • #1677
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Total cop out .

    Let's ignore and start a thread steered in one direction
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #1678
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,026 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    TomTomTim wrote: »
    You know you can just not view CA, seeing as you hate it so much? I've never seen a poster on here before with such an obsession with a sub forum as you. No matter how much you try and frame it as being against hate or whatever, the reality is you want no dissent. The politics subs is far worse when it comes to being an echo chamber, yet you never mention it because it's an echo chamber you agree with. Not everyone agrees with your views, and they never will, so you better get used to it.

    Think you have me confused with someone else there, chief. I’ve been a big “fan” of the forum since its inception.

    My only “gripe” is that I’d like the moderation to be more relaxed but I understand that this isn’t an option for the mods. I should point out that I’ve also said on a number of occasions that the mods do a great job in there.

    I never mention the ‘Politics Forum’ as I don’t post in there so I don’t know how much of an “echo chamber” it is.

    I’m not sure how you got anything about me not “accepting” other views, I literally said I’d like all topics to be discussed. Anything that keeps all that dross out of ‘After Hours’.

    It would be terrible for the site if ‘Current Affairs’ was shutdown. Disastrous.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • #1679
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    Gatling wrote: »
    Total cop out .

    Let's ignore and start a thread steered in one direction

    I don't know if that is the intent by boards.ie but Ireland and the UK and the rest of the Western World are inextricably linked by this subject and theory (ie Irish youth are referred to England for assessments/services) and what happens here may affect there and vice versa (ie puberty blockers being reclassified in UK, self-id legislation here) so the thread shouldnt IMO be seen as limiting it to to events only occurring in Ireland.
    I do find it sort of copping out that the bullet pointed list of rules don't include a warning on finger pointing by anyone posting - this should be applied across all threads IMO as it devalues the accusation of -ist and -phobia to the point of uselessness (and therefore makes it harder to recognise and call out actual -ist's and -phobia's) and stokes up nothing 'circular' posts which appears to be the main reason in closing the long running thread in the first place.


  • #1680
    Gervais08
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    Can I assume that rules will be fairly applied and if a word is felt to be offensive and a poster gleefully denies polite requests to stop - they will be warned ?


  • Advertisement
  • #1681
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Felt to be offensive by whom?

    If the mods deem action is needed and warranted it will be taken. This does not vary from thread to thread in the forum.


  • #1682
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Sir Oxman wrote: »
    I don't know if that is the intent by boards.ie but Ireland and the UK and the rest of the Western World are inextricably linked by this subject and theory (ie Irish youth are referred to England for assessments/services) and what happens here may affect there and vice versa (ie puberty blockers being reclassified in UK, self-id legislation here) so the thread shouldnt IMO be seen as limiting it to to events only occurring in Ireland.
    I do find it sort of copping out that the bullet pointed list of rules don't include a warning on finger pointing by anyone posting - this should be applied across all threads IMO as it devalues the accusation of -ist and -phobia to the point of uselessness (and therefore makes it harder to recognise and call out actual -ist's and -phobia's) and stokes up nothing 'circular' posts which appears to be the main reason in closing the long running thread in the first place.

    The forum rules and the rules outlined in the OP cover this. I would be all day listing out specific issues by name - what is there will cover all the issues the mods saw in previous threads around this topic.

    Also worth noting that this is an Irish website - so asking about the opinions of the topic in Ireland does not preclude us from looking at other countries to shape our opinions. Indeed, someone has done just that in the first few posts. If the wording is a bit clunky then apologies for that.


  • #1683
    excludedbin
    Registered Users Posts: 241 ✭✭excludedbin


    Gervais08 wrote: »
    Can I assume that rules will be fairly applied and if a word is felt to be offensive and a poster gleefully denies polite requests to stop - they will be warned ?
    And will you be happy for that to apply to both sides of the debate?


  • #1684
    Gervais08
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    excludedbin wrote: »
    And will you be happy for that to apply to both sides of the debate?

    Absolutely - I have never used a transgender slur and have zero intention of doing so.

    The same cannot be said of the other side.


  • #1685
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Gervais08 wrote: »
    You actually just answered my question - I vehemently object to the word “cis” as it demeans women in the sense one posters uses it, they have been asked to stop and refuse.

    I think it's time to accept that nobody is going to fall for this debating trick of claiming an inoffensive word is offensive and just move on.


  • #1686
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Gervais08 wrote: »
    You actually just answered my question - I vehemently object to the word “cis” as it demeans women in the sense one posters uses it, they have been asked to stop and refuse.

    Repeatedly calling people terfs as well ,

    Guarantee called the person a slur and there would be bans handed out,let's all be afraid of the twitter dwellers or is it Mumsnet or both
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Advertisement
  • #1687
    excludedbin
    Registered Users Posts: 241 ✭✭excludedbin


    Gatling wrote: »
    Repeatedly calling people terfs as well ,

    Guarantee called the person a slur and there would be bans handed out,let's all be afraid of the twitter dwellers or is it Mumsnet or both
    Setting aside that the term "terf" was coined by a self described "trans exclusionary radical feminist", I find your objections just a little hollow when there's multiple instances of "grooming" accusations by transphobes and no action taken against them so spare us the crocodile tears.

    I'll say again that if you said that, for example, about gay men, it'd be rightly carded. But it seems that trans people are fair game for that sort of abuse under the guise of "discussion" and "opinions". Lots of opinions on the site would have you banned, I don't see why trans people should be treated as a special case.


  • #1688
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    excludedbin wrote: »
    Setting aside that the term "terf" was coined by a self described "trans exclusionary radical feminist", I find your objections just a little hollow when there's multiple instances of "grooming" accusations by transphobes and no action taken against them.

    Bull****
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #1689
    excludedbin
    Registered Users Posts: 241 ✭✭excludedbin


    Well I must hold my hands up, I must've misheard someone. It was coined by a radical feminist, to distinguish those that're 'trans exclusionary'.

    However, as to my other claim: "grooming", "groomed", "groomed", "grooming", "grooming"

    Now as far as I can see, there's been no mod action about any of that. And now they've been given another thread to continue that kind of vile abuse against trans people. Face facts: abuse of trans people and anyone who isn't sufficiently critical of them is absolutely fine on CA/IMHO. It's nothing short of astounding, in the most shameful way, that this is having to be discussed at all. What other minority group would you be allowed, on Boards, to make such accusations about? Why is it that threads are made to single out trans people for that kind of vituperation?

    I don't want the mods to hide behind the cowardly excuses of "discussion" or "opinions" because that **** wouldn't fly with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. so why should this be any different? You already accept that some "discussion" and some "opinions" shouldn't be allowed because they're abusive towards those groups. That's a line you've decided to draw and most people would say it's a reasonable one. All I'm saying is that it should be applied fairly and equally.
    You are free to express your views in a forceful manner provided you remain civil. Hate speech, insults, and purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling) will not be tolerated.

    That's from the charter. Now I don't know about any of you (the mods, not the users here who definitely do think it's okay) but I'd say accusing a minority group of "grooming" children is pretty damn hateful, especially given the absolute and utter lack of evidence for it. There's being "forceful" and then there's being downright abusive and hateful. If you can't see how that crosses the line then frankly you shouldn't bother having it in the charter because it's nothing more than a sop.

    And that's not to get into the rest of the crap that flew around on that thread and will no doubt continue into the new one. You can either have a thread where abuse of trans people is allowed or a charter that forbids it, not both.


  • #1690
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    excludedbin wrote: »
    Well I must hold my hands up,

    Lol
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #1691
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,104 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    excludedbin wrote: »
    Well I must hold my hands up, I must've misheard someone. It was coined by a radical feminist, to distinguish those that're 'trans exclusionary'.

    However, as to my other claim: "grooming", "groomed", "groomed", "grooming", "grooming"

    Now as far as I can see, there's been no mod action about any of that. And now they've been given another thread to continue that kind of vile abuse against trans people. Face facts: abuse of trans people and anyone who isn't sufficiently critical of them is absolutely fine on CA/IMHO. It's nothing short of astounding, in the most shameful way, that this is having to be discussed at all. What other minority group would you be allowed, on Boards, to make such accusations about? Why is it that threads are made to single out trans people for that kind of vituperation?

    I don't want the mods to hide behind the cowardly excuses of "discussion" or "opinions" because that **** wouldn't fly with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. so why should this be any different? You already accept that some "discussion" and some "opinions" shouldn't be allowed because they're abusive towards those groups. That's a line you've decided to draw and most people would say it's a reasonable one. All I'm saying is that it should be applied fairly and equally.



    That's from the charter. Now I don't know about any of you (the mods, not the users here who definitely do think it's okay) but I'd say accusing a minority group of "grooming" children is pretty damn hateful, especially given the absolute and utter lack of evidence for it. There's being "forceful" and then there's being downright abusive and hateful. If you can't see how that crosses the line then frankly you shouldn't bother having it in the charter because it's nothing more than a sop.

    And that's not to get into the rest of the crap that flew around on that thread and will no doubt continue into the new one. You can either have a thread where abuse of trans people is allowed or a charter that forbids it, not both.

    Its also says an awful lot that pretty much no openly out trans people post on this site anymore.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • #1692
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Its also says an awful lot that pretty much no openly out trans people post on this site anymore.

    Plenty of people don't post here anymore ,it's got nothing to do with lifestyle choices ,

    Some of the greatest and down right funniest people don't post any more , life goes on and you can only speak for yourself nobody else
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #1693
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Actually can mods be stripped of their title ,
    Is there rules or a code of conduct all mods must follow,
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #1694
    This is it
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,699 ✭✭✭This is it


    Gatling wrote: »
    Actually can mods be stripped of their title ,
    Is there rules or a code of conduct all mods must follow,

    I dont think there's a code bar follow the general site rules, what's in the mod forum is private and should not be shared, etc. There are a few threads with guidelines, etc. but they are/were quite outdated but the general gist of them would still stand I suppose.

    Mods have been stripped of their title though I can only think of two, and they caused a lot of hassle. Nothing serious but creating a lot of work for mods of other forums. Lots of cards, etc. I'm not going to name them before anyone asks.


  • #1695
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    This is it wrote: »
    Mods have been stripped of their title though I can only think of two, and they caused a lot of hassle. Nothing serious but creating a lot of work for mods of other forums. Lots of cards, etc. I'm not going to name them before anyone asks.

    Definitely not looking for names just something propped up ,I know they have their private forum ,I don't think I've actually ive heard anything about a mod been stripped ,I remember calls for various people calling for mods to be appointed based off liking something more than someone else.
    Boards wouldn't post about it ? Like if say I was a mod and was removed there wouldn't be a Gatling removed as a mod of insert forum here because
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #1696
    This is it
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,699 ✭✭✭This is it


    Nope it wouldn't be made public, I don't remember it being announced to other mods at the time either, just happened. Presume between cmods and admin.

    Calls to appoint specific posters to mods wouldn't really lend much weight but if they're a good poster they'll stand out, mods will refer them to cmods if they need a new mod, cmods refer to admin if they approve and if admin approve it's offered to the poster.


  • #1697
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    i checked, out of interest, the first few links to the grooming complaints and one referred to what looked at first glance a textbook use of the word, the next referred to grown adults

    i didn't see much point in clicking in to all the rest, given that start, if thats the kind of evidence thrown up to get threads locked.


  • #1698
    chopperbyrne
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,041 ✭✭✭✭chopperbyrne


    I was threadbanned for saying the thread might as well be immediately locked, as it would be exactly the same.

    Eleven hours to be proved right.


  • #1699
    TomTomTim
    Registered Users Posts: 2,841 ✭✭✭TomTomTim


    Gatling wrote: »
    Definitely not looking for names just something propped up ,I know they have their private forum ,I don't think I've actually ive heard anything about a mod been stripped ,I remember calls for various people calling for mods to be appointed based off liking something more than someone else.
    Boards wouldn't post about it ? Like if say I was a mod and was removed there wouldn't be a Gatling removed as a mod of insert forum here because

    The lad that went mad in Political Cafe carding everyone was removed eventually.

    “The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”- ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov




  • #1700
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,400 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Just to reiterate from the charter users on the site less than 3 months or with less than 100 posts are not permitted to post in feedback:
    To post in Feedback, you must have 100 posts on the site and have been a registered member for at least 3 months. Anyone closing their account will be subject to this restriction on any new account opened. The Help Desk will still be available to anyone wishing to raise an issue but who does not satisfy these conditions.

    If your posts have just been deleted this is why.

    Thanks.


  • #1701
    excludedbin
    Registered Users Posts: 241 ✭✭excludedbin


    Gatling wrote: »
    Lol

    Yeah, that's about what I expected. More fool I for wasting my time, I suppose. Nothing to say to the examples of "grooming" (or variations) being used and nothing done about it?
    Gatling wrote: »
    Plenty of people don't post here anymore ,it's got nothing to do with lifestyle choices ,

    Some of the greatest and down right funniest people don't post any more , life goes on and you can only speak for yourself nobody else
    Or maybe, just maybe, they've seen how on one of the site's largest, busiest forums, abuse against them is allowed go by with the apparent sanction of the mods. It's just a little bit convenient to be written off as mere coincidence.

    Quite telling, though, that you've brought out the old "lifestyle choices" canard. Being gay I've heard more than my fair share of that throughout my life and I can't say I find it any more compelling when turned against trans people.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement