Can we talk about AH?

Skylinehead · 31-01-2019 2:19pm

Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »

Fair enough but people can go only by what is in front of them and it is definitely the case that people get banned for less than others. A person who is barely known got banned for using the word "pavee" ffs.

But what's in front of you is a complete and utter lack of context. The concept of a "criminal record" exists, we don't ban people for a first offence.

31-01-2019 2:22pm

Nixonbot wrote: »

But what's in front of you is a complete and utter lack of context. The concept of a "criminal record" exists, we don't ban people for a first offence.

Out of interest, how would you rate my AH record?

Zorya · 31-01-2019 2:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Out of interest, how would you rate my AH record?

Now, now, if we are going to start rating people in any way at all we need pics.

Muckka · 31-01-2019 2:33pm

Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »

Exactly. The far right crowd can be nasty as hell but they'll usually get banned. The far left crowd can be every bit as nasty - sometimes worse because they seem to feel they have more of a licence to be.

It's usually only those in the middle who get annoyed by assholery from both "sides".

It seems that it's the far left who reports people more than anyone.
I never would want anyone getting carded or any infractions, they can say what they like, call me what they want.
They can be absolutely outraged with my comments but I would not stoop to getting anyone banned or a warning.

A bruised pear falling down a staircase is less sensitive than some people on board's.

I'm new to board's and if society was as sensitive as some people here, we'd be all killing each other.

Skylinehead · 31-01-2019 2:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Out of interest, how would you rate my AH record?

*checks*

...lets not go there :pac:

professore · 31-01-2019 2:57pm

Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »

Welcome to our world when we get accused of man hating just for criticising hostility towards women!

No seriously, I know you don't. What i do see from you though is a tendency to generalise about women negatively on threads started by others to have a go at women. You don't say horrifically nasty things but you do appear to be biased in the "women are worse for xyz" direction.

Men and women are different but when it comes to bad behaviour, neither has the monopoly.

I agree with you but there are behaviours that are predominantly male or predominantly female. People who deny this and call someone a misogynist for pointing that out annoy the hell out of me.

Boom_Bap · 31-01-2019 2:59pm

Nixonbot wrote: »

*checks*

...lets not go there :pac:

200_d.gif?cid=3640f6095c4e931243704d306b4b0246

prinzeugen · 01-02-2019 2:25am

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It seemed highly unlikely that one mod would be permitted to pursue some sort of vendetta against you without anyone noticing, so I took a look into this and it turns out it's untrue.

You've been sanctioned by not one, but three different mods in the Politics forum. One one occasion you appealed to the DRP, alleging mod bias. A CMod and Admin reviewed and upheld the sanction.

So three different mods, a CMod and an Admin have reviewed your conduct in the Politics forum and found it to be wanting.

The vast majority of posters there, whatever their viewpoint, are capable of contributing without so much as a yellow card. When people do get sanctioned, it's for breaching the charter, not for their views.

Look at the dispute resolution forum. Wall to wall complaints about this one mod over the years. There are plenty.

Either someone has noticed and has chosen to ignore it or someone is unaware of what is going on here.

The politics charter is a joke. The majority of posters there are chanting the same thing but using different words. I get called delusional - nothing done. I call a poster delusional - carded.

Trolling - posting something that will upset others. In other words a different opinion.

The charter does not apply to those that say the right thing. It is mod bias. I am sure you know which mod I am referring to. Look at his history not mine.

Twenty Grand · 01-02-2019 2:31am

professore wrote: »

Many people today, instead of destroying racist or sexist posts with logic and reason, instead want them banned when they don't "win" the argument. When you resort to censorship you lose automatically. If you can't convince people say that the Holocaust really happened, and instead censor anyone who talks about it, you are feeding into the conspiracy theory. .

There's no winning arguments with many people in AH. You can deploy all the logic and reason and evidence, but some people are quite happy to believe the world is flat and will gleefully ignore any evidence to the contrary.

Its a curse.

KyussB · 01-02-2019 8:24am

prinzeugen wrote: »

Look at the dispute resolution forum. Wall to wall complaints about this one mod over the years. There are plenty.

Either someone has noticed and has chosen to ignore it or someone is unaware of what is going on here.

The politics charter is a joke. The majority of posters there are chanting the same thing but using different words. I get called delusional - nothing done. I call a poster delusional - carded.

Trolling - posting something that will upset others. In other words a different opinion.

The charter does not apply to those that say the right thing. It is mod bias. I am sure you know which mod I am referring to. Look at his history not mine.

Just to back this up - I don't know this posters personal views, so I don't back them - but I can absolutely first-hand back up that people are targeted on Politics for their views, and the moderation system is designed to be so easy to run into, that mods can pretty much make up any reason for targeting you, other than your views - despite your views being the 100% most consistent reason for you being targeted.

I can also attest to the double standards this poster describes - if you have past run-ins with mods, they justify applying different standards, in a way that leads to them ignoring the ways in which other posters reply to you, yet sanctions you for replying in-kind - this is most especially pronounced, if you're getting brow-beaten by a large number of posters holding a shared ideological-view/disposition, and if you hold the minority view - it is carte blanche for a larger group to abuse a poster, yet receive no sanction for it, and being able to trigger sanction for that poster if they respond in-kind.

It's a pain in the arse, and it's why I don't post here anymore. This is not a site for political discussion, as the moderation system directly leads to the warping of political discussion, in a way that severely curtails/limits the free range of discussion, the more it ideologically offends a large/forceful-enough group of posters. You point out the problems here in Feedback, and you get the mod/admin version of 'fuck off' while waving a mod stick/baton at you.

The entire site management/admin/mod team has been told by its userbase for years, blue in the face, that the moderation on the site is a problem - and the site has a reputation (going back well over a decade+) of heavy handed moderation and general moderation being a pain in the hole - but the people running things actively don't want to hear it or do anything about it (evidenced by how such criticism is often reacted to in a heavily managerial way "we hear and appreciate your concerns, but are not going to do anything meaningful about them" on this subforum).

Diceicle · 01-02-2019 9:13am

Can we just censor stuff I don't like though?

beauf · 01-02-2019 9:48am

I think if users could filter AH so that it didn't appear in latest posts on the home page it would be far easier to ignore it.

ArchXStanton · 01-02-2019 1:06pm

Diceicle wrote: »

Can we just censor stuff I don't like though?

I've had a few posts over the years go poof, totally innocuous stuff, it chips away at the respect you have for the site

01-02-2019 1:27pm

There is nothing wrong with AH, at least in my eyes and there lies the crux of the matter.
There are so many different personalities and dare I say it the odd personality disorder as well

that it isn't going to suit everyone.

The current discussions are a reflection of the society we live in. Its a polarised society indicative of fear, frustration, anger, hatred, and hurt. I can't open a news app without seeing something #metoo, far right, snowflake, liberal, misogyny related. It makes sense to me this would seep in to After Hours.

When it comes to moving and closing threads the mods need to have a good sense of the forum, understand its tone. For example a thread looking for advice on accommodation in Kerry is best in the accommodation forum, a thread posting movie quotes is grand to be left in AH. There is no one size fits all.

Moderation is and always will be contentious. Why? Because people. Sure how many times now have there need threads about that topic and the forum as a whole? Some think its too heavy others think its too light. Are more mods needed, or different mods or no mods.

I would encourage lighthearted threads and cull ones that are intended to bait and incite hatred. The big topics currently such as nurses pay and the children's hospital are very relevant and should remain. A look in to them now and then to makesure people aren't being dìcks is all thats needed.

Apart from that leave it be. The next societal shift will come along and with it a whole new bunch of topics to torment ourselves with. Some posters will leave, others will return, new ones will appear. The forum will evolve.

Chips Lovell · 01-02-2019 1:31pm

KyussB wrote: »

Just to back this up - I don't know this posters personal views, so I don't back them - but I can absolutely first-hand back up that people are targeted on Politics for their views, and the moderation system is designed to be so easy to run into, that mods can pretty much make up any reason for targeting you, other than your views - despite your views being the 100% most consistent reason for you being targeted.

I can also attest to the double standards this poster describes - if you have past run-ins with mods, they justify applying different standards, in a way that leads to them ignoring the ways in which other posters reply to you, yet sanctions you for replying in-kind - this is most especially pronounced, if you're getting brow-beaten by a large number of posters holding a shared ideological-view/disposition, and if you hold the minority view - it is carte blanche for a larger group to abuse a poster, yet receive no sanction for it, and being able to trigger sanction for that poster if they respond in-kind.

It's a pain in the arse, and it's why I don't post here anymore. This is not a site for political discussion, as the moderation system directly leads to the warping of political discussion, in a way that severely curtails/limits the free range of discussion, the more it ideologically offends a large/forceful-enough group of posters. You point out the problems here in Feedback, and you get the mod/admin version of 'fuck off' while waving a mod stick/baton at you.

The entire site management/admin/mod team has been told by its userbase for years, blue in the face, that the moderation on the site is a problem - and the site has a reputation (going back well over a decade+) of heavy handed moderation and general moderation being a pain in the hole - but the people running things actively don't want to hear it or do anything about it (evidenced by how such criticism is often reacted to in a heavily managerial way "we hear and appreciate your concerns, but are not going to do anything meaningful about them" on this subforum).

The charter is there to facilitate a decent standard of debate. It is not there to target users of any political stripe. I think that should be evident just on reading it.

Over the years, both as a mod in the Cafe and then Politics, I and my co-mods have been accused of being biased against every conceivable political position. In some instances, where I've sanctioned two posters for flaming each other, I've had them both PMing me at the same time, alleging I was biased towards the other.

At the risk of repeating myself, the vast majority of posters in Politics, who account for a whole host of views, contribute regularly without so much as a yellow card. Unfortunately, we can't please all of the people all of the time.

In your own case, if I recall correctly, an entirely new forum was set up, at your suggestion, to cater for discussions you felt couldn't be had in the Politics and Economics forums. Does that sound like "the people running things actively don't want to hear it or do anything about it" or does it sound like Boards doing its best to appease a minority of users who are looking for something different?

KyussB · 01-02-2019 6:16pm

It's not the intentions of the system of rules and moderation that are in question, it's the end-result/net-effect of that system in practice. You don't need to target any specific views, or have any kind of conspiring, to end up with a chilling effect.

Yes the subforum I lobbied for was intended to fill a gap, that I felt was created by arbitrary restrictions on those two forums - it didn't last long, and (retrospectively) was the wrong solution to those perceived problems.

ancapailldorcha · 01-02-2019 11:43pm

KyussB wrote: »

Yes the subforum I lobbied for was intended to fill a gap, that I felt was created by arbitrary restrictions on those two forums - it didn't last long, and (retrospectively) was the wrong solution to those perceived problems.

Well, nobody posted in it. Hard to justify keeping it open on that basis which was a shame given how much enthusiasm there was for it in the Forum Requests thread.

Omackeral · 04-02-2019 4:01pm

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

There's enough rules, the moderation is grand.

Mostly it's grand. Mostly. However I got banned from the entirety of After Hours for mimicking something that's said on Traveller call-out videos on a thread about Travellers disgracing themselves in Belfast Airport with sustained public violence.

Straight up ban from the whole forum for a tongue in cheek commentary. Light-hearted enough. The charter said things should be light hearted. Nah. Don't think so. No yellow, no warning. Didn't advocate ethnic cleansing or some of that mad sh*t you see. Never said anything about sterilisation. Just said verbatim what is said on one of the videos, simialar to ''sh*te in a bucket''. Banned, not just from the thread but the forum. Daft carry on.

robarmstrong · 04-02-2019 5:41pm

Omackeral wrote: »

Mostly it's grand. Mostly. However I got banned from the entirety of After Hours for mimicking something that's said on Traveller call-out videos on a thread about Travellers disgracing themselves in Belfast Airport with sustained public violence.

Straight up ban from the whole forum for a tongue in cheek commentary. Light-hearted enough. The charter said things should be light hearted. Nah. Don't think so. No yellow, no warning. Didn't advocate ethnic cleansing or some of that mad sh*t you see. Never said anything about sterilisation. Just said verbatim what is said on one of the videos, simialar to ''sh*te in a bucket''. Banned, not just from the thread but the forum. Daft carry on.

Mad how you got banned over that... A threadban would have been alright, but a full on forum ban? Far too harsh... AH is meant to be light-hearted and until either a Current Affairs Forum or [Serious] tag are added to threads it'll keep on happening.

I think adherence to the site-wide and forum-wide charter is far too inconsistent, personally. Soap-boxing is site-wide against the rules yet there are a few individuals who seem to do nothing but soap-box and continuously get away with it. Posts rarely have any substance, meaning, or argument, just pure and utter sh*te.

Hope your ban gets lifted.

04-02-2019 9:12pm

Admin snip.

You joined at the end of last month and have 37 posts how did you hear of this reputation?

OldMrBrennan83 · 04-02-2019 9:16pm

DubInMeath wrote: »

You joined at the end of last month and have 37 posts how did you hear of this reputation?

Seen this so much across the site lately. There's definitely an argument to be made for post counts to be hidden.

04-02-2019 9:20pm

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Seen this so much across the site lately. There's definitely an argument to be made for post counts to be hidden.

Post count aside, just wondering where the poster head of this reputation.

Zorya · 04-02-2019 9:26pm

DubInMeath wrote: »

Post count aside, just wondering where the poster head of this reputation.

Reincarnation with memory of past lives intact?

Omackeral · 04-02-2019 9:32pm

Admin snip.

Got a PM after appealing to the mod and they said they didn't get the reference and thought it was a dig. Lifted the ban. Thought the forum wide ban was OTT but they lifted it so fair enough.

I'm here a while now and I actually don't know what's grounds for an on-thread warning, a yellow card infraction, a thread ban and a forum-wide ban or if it's just made up as it goes along.

04-02-2019 9:33pm

Zorya wrote: »

Reincarnation with memory of past lives intact?

Sounds like the fifth circle.

hullaballoo · 04-02-2019 10:07pm

Admin: There have been enough warnings.

Minimum postcount of 100 posts and a minimum of 3 months membership (on an account basis) are required.

Beasty · 04-02-2019 10:30pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

Admin: There have been enough warnings.

Minimum postcount of 100 posts and a minimum of 3 months membership (on an account basis) are required.

Just to add - this is one of the issues posters will have to come to terms with if they choose to start afresh with a new account. They do though still have the facility to raise specific issues in Help Desk

1800_Ladladlad · 05-02-2019 3:44am

Omackeral wrote: »

Got a PM after appealing to the mod and they said they didn't get the reference and thought it was a dig. Lifted the ban. Thought the forum wide ban was OTT but they lifted it so fair enough.

I'm here a while now and I actually don't know what's grounds for an on-thread warning, a yellow card infraction, a thread ban and a forum-wide ban or if it's just made up as it goes along.

This is what I have a major issue with. There is no consistency across the board for all the mods to adhere too and their reason for any actions, whether it be a yellow card, thread ban or forum wide ban - is subjective and made up on the spot.
I personally think some mods are past it and ignorant to the fact that times and opinions have changed and they wont adapt nor adjust to these changes.

pleas advice · 05-02-2019 4:48am

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

There is no consistency across the board for all the mods to adhere too and their reason for any actions

Its inconsistency within a forum, rather than some forums being stricter than others, which is annoying.

Omackeral · 05-02-2019 10:33am

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

This is what I have a major issue with. There is no consistency across the board for all the mods to adhere to and their reason for any actions, whether it be a yellow card, thread ban or forum wide ban - is subjective and made up on the spot.

Literally that's the case. See here

<snip>

Now, not only is there a really snarky attitude on display (IMO anyway) but they openly admit that the mods can realistically just dole out any punishment they want ''depending''. Depending on what? Depending on what side of the bed the mod got out of? Depending on if he/she has a vested interest in a topic? If they like or dislike the poster they're sanctioning? How can you be thrown out of an entire forum for something one day that would simply get you a yellow card from a given thread on a different day.

Can we talk about AH?

Comments