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

Options
1…2829313334…79

Comments

  • Options
    #902
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    Here’s some feedback regarding a prevailing issue: Mods and admins are far too defensive and struggle to admit it when they get things wrong.


  • Options
    #903
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users Posts: 17,498 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    KiKi III wrote: »
    Here’s some feedback regarding a prevailing issue: Mods and admins are far too defensive and struggle to admit it when they get things wrong.

    Wow.

    Here's some feedback: Actually listen to what mods and admins are telling you.


  • Options
    #904
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,405 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    KiKi III wrote: »
    Here’s some feedback regarding a prevailing issue: Mods and admins are far too defensive and struggle to admit it when they get things wrong.

    I'm struggling to see how they have got it wrong though, Mike has already said that the tools he needs to action any posts are being affected by the current buggy issue.

    Should he just close the thread or ban the user (if he is able) without reading the reports and then thread?


  • Options
    #905
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭Buford T. Justice XIX


    KiKi III wrote: »
    Here’s some feedback regarding a prevailing issue: Mods and admins are far too defensive and struggle to admit it when they get things wrong.

    In your opinion.

    You're stating that as if it is fact whereas it is in fact just your opinion.


  • Options
    #906
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,300 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    I spent about 3 and a half hours yesterday evening trying to do some modding. In one case I made 50+ attempts to issue a yellow card and eventually gave up. I managed to perform less than a handful of "mod actions". I gave up around 1am.

    I seriously resent some of the accusations being made by certain posters


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #907
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,478 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    KiKi III wrote: »
    A user is suggesting the indiscriminate killing of people arriving in dinghies to the UK. This clearly violates the forum charter which says you shouldn’t wish harm on an individual or group. I’m deeply disappointed that this hasn’t been actioned even though it’s been reported and a mod is discussing it with the user on the thread.

    https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058075749/45


    [edit]just saw I'd missed posts further back the thread - ignore[/edit]


  • Options
    #908
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I don't blame the mods for the chaos atm. It's difficult to post, let alone warn users. I also don't think that poster was provoked in any way to advocate drowning refugees, that's all on them.

    Like there's real issues imho with the forum but some stuff is simply that moderators have lives and technical bugs don't make it easier.


  • Options
    #909
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,478 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I don't blame the mods for the chaos atm. It's difficult to post, let alone warn users. I also don't think that poster was provoked in any way to advocate drowning refugees, that's all on them.

    Like there's real issues imho with the forum but some stuff is simply that moderators have lives and technical bugs don't make it easier.


    Actually - reading back the thread I can see he did actually suggest that without provocation. I'd just read the originally linked post by Kiki where he was answering a question from someone else - hadn't seen his earlier post about sinking dinghies.
    Apologies to Kiki for missing that part.


  • Options
    #910
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: »
    In your opinion.

    You're stating that as if it is fact whereas it is in fact just your opinion.

    Tbf they are v.defensive to any critism,

    Easy to see why this is,mods arent paid,so its obvious the admins are obviously gonna have to back them to the hilt in all circumstances



    Like i taught the critism was relatively constructive,hardly any point in looking for feedback and then taking any/all feedback as a personal attack and thus dismissing it out of hand


  • Options
    #911
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭Buford T. Justice XIX


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Tbf they are v.defensive to any critism,

    Easy to see why this is,mods arent paid,so its obvious the admins are obviously gonna have to back them to the hilt in all circumstances



    Like i taught the critism was relatively constructive,hardly any point in looking for feedback and then taking any/all feedback as a personal attack and then dismissing it out of hand
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Tbf they are v.defensive to any critism,

    Easy to see why this is,mods arent paid,so its obvious the admins are obviously gonna have to back them to the hilt in all circumstances



    Like i taught the critism was relatively constructive,hardly any point in looking for feedback and then taking any/all feedback as a personal attack and thus dismissing it out of hand

    Jeeze, I heard you the first time:D

    I think Mike has a very valid point, though. The insinuation made by Kiki was that a mod of the forum was validating the posters stance by engaging in the discussion rather than issuing an infraction.

    ACD isn't a mod in the forum. He's a Cmod and, like myself, does have the ability to issue an infraction on the forum. But it would only happen on rare occasions that a Cmod would issue an infraction before a mod of the forum. The forum mods are more in tune with the discussions and personalities in their forums and we would generally let them carry out their responsibilities and assist them when and if needed.

    We do carry out an oversight of the forums we are charged with and engage with the mods about decisions made and needing to be made.

    While Kiki may have a point about an infraction being needed, there were very very few reports made for that post, surprisingly few tbh. So the vast majority seeing that post and disagreeing with it didn't feel a report of that post was warranted. Now, it's not a vote-in-and-infract policy we have here, reports will be looked at and dealt with as appropriate, but that post generated much less disquiet for the vast majority of posters than those reporting it.

    So I do believe that the discussion here was slightly disingenuous in that few found it worthy of reporting never mind issuing feedback on it. An entirely different thread had pages of reports at the same time with much less serious implications. What that says about the moral compass of posters on the threads in question is entirely up you to decide.

    And, yes, it was almost impossible to mod the site last night. It was difficult to get on to read posts never mind do the background checks that dealing with reported posts entail.

    On not talking criticism well, criticism is par for the course when you mod. You're either too tough or not tough enough, all at the same time, depending on your perspective. Should it have been dealt with earlier? Possibly, yes, but as explained above, there are caveats to that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #912
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,642 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    To add to what Mike and Beasty already said about this, about the difficulty last night of issuing an infraction, it is relatively far simpler to lock a thread. With mod privileges in your forums you can do so with a single double-click of a button on the forum page and it takes effect as immediately as thanking a post. Issuing cards is a whole other mechanism, and involves a lot of things going right that shed loads of 503s would interrupt like loading of menu tools and sending the user a PM and adding a record to their account, etcetera. More than a couple ways to robustly ban a user, though, if anyone thinks seeing 503s is an invitation to run amok.


  • Options
    #913
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: »
    Jeeze, I heard you the first time:D

    I think Mike has a very valid point, though. The insinuation made by Kiki was that a mod of the forum was validating the posters stance by engaging in the discussion rather than issuing an infraction.

    ACD isn't a mod in the forum. He's a Cmod and, like myself, does have the ability to issue an infraction on the forum. But it would only happen on rare occasions that a Cmod would issue an infraction before a mod of the forum. The forum mods are more in tune with the discussions and personalities in their forums and we would generally let them carry out their responsibilities and assist them when and if needed.

    We do carry out an oversight of the forums we are charged with and engage with the mods about decisions made and needing to be made.

    While Kiki may have a point about an infraction being needed, there were very very few reports made for that post, surprisingly few tbh. So the vast majority seeing that post and disagreeing with it didn't feel a report of that post was warranted. Now, it's not a vote-in-and-infract policy we have here, reports will be looked at and dealt with as appropriate, but that post generated much less disquiet for the vast majority of posters than those reporting it.

    So I do believe that the discussion here was slightly disingenuous in that few found it worthy of reporting never mind issuing feedback on it. An entirely different thread had pages of reports at the same time with much less serious implications. What that says about the moral compass of posters on the threads in question is entirely up you to decide.

    And, yes, it was almost impossible to mod the site last night. It was difficult to get on to read posts never mind do the background checks that dealing with reported posts entail.

    On not talking criticism well, criticism is par for the course when you mod. You're either too tough or not tough enough, all at the same time, depending on your perspective. Should it have been dealt with earlier? Possibly, yes, but as explained above, there are caveats to that.

    Wheter that particular post is actioned or not,is of no signifigance to me....but i did feel it a valid observation,that if x can take time to read/check out/reply to a post,they can action it (or not)



    But to take the above as a personal critism and reply fairly saltily to it, is mind boggling over-sensitive imo.....theres no sense to it



    (I do take on your post as a reasonable responce,probably the 1st so far)


  • Options
    #914
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    In relation to reporting it. The site not actually working correctly would factor in as well I'm guessing. Plus to be honest, there does seem to be such a plethora of questionable posts at this stage. That it simply seems to be allowed to some degree. Eg the migrant threads are generally a load of dog whistling.


  • Options
    #915
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    KiKi III wrote: »
    A user is suggesting the indiscriminate killing of people arriving in dinghies to the UK. This clearly violates the forum charter which says you shouldn’t wish harm on an individual or group. I’m deeply disappointed that this hasn’t been actioned even though it’s been reported and a mod is discussing it with the user on the thread.

    https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058075749/45

    Jesus f*cking Christ.

    #alllivesmatter when it suits them, it seems.


  • Options
    #916
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭Buford T. Justice XIX


    Deleted User wrote: »
    In relation to reporting it. The site not actually working correctly would factor in as well I'm guessing.
    True, it's a double-edged sword.
    Plus to be honest, there does seem to be such a plethora of questionable posts at this stage. That it simply seems to be allowed to some degree. Eg the migrant threads are generally a load of dog whistling.

    While you might see some posts as not being moderated, sometimes the posts are compiled together to make a composite case against a poster who would be low level trolling. It's something that sometimes takes some time to do but those details are not unnoticed.

    We don't have unilateral powers here, thankfully. We have to justify our decisions, every action we take can be appealed so we have to be able to show just cause for issuing an infraction. And, yes, we do sometimes get it wrong and a card gets reversed. We might not agree with the reversal but we can see the reasons why it is reversed.

    Re the dog whistling. Yes, those threads are sometimes a mess but to ban those whom we disagree with is just going to give us a echo chamber. Personally, I would be very much in favour of them remaining as where else would they get to see a different opinion and have to justify, explain and defend their decisions.

    And I think that it's the responsibility of the posters in those threads to question and get their opponents to explain and justify their beliefs.

    The mods are there to keep the conversation on as much of an even keel as is possible and remove those intent on wrecking the thread.


  • Options
    #917
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users Posts: 10,527 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Wheter that particular post is actioned or not,is of no signifigance to me....but i did feel it a valid observation,that if x can take time to read/check out/reply to a post,they can action it (or not)

    From what I gather, mods/admins aren’t allowed “action” posts that have been pointed out, or highlighted, to them unofficially. These posts need to be reported.

    It’s an incredibly bureaucratic “system” but that’s the way it is. Without reporting the, highlighted, post the mods will look at it but unless it’s been reported no action will be taken.

    With all the errors, and issues, going on at present I think we can cut them some “slack”, it’s been hard enough to post, or send PMs, so it must be nearly impossible to moderate effectively.

    The tide is turning…



  • Options
    #918
    Tokyo
    Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    From what I gather, mods/admins aren’t allowed “action” posts that have been pointed out, or highlighted, to them unofficially. These posts need to be reported..

    I action posts on a regular basis that contravene the site rules, when I encounter them. Every mod does. The point that was always made about reported posts is that mods can't guarantee that they can read every post in every thread, therefore we depend on reported posts from site members to draw our attention to potential issues within respective forums. But that certainly doesn't mean we don't action issues we encounter on our day to day here on the site.

    One of the longstanding rules of the site though is that if you have an issue with a post, then report it and let the mods deal with it, rather than engaging in a back and forth with the poster in the thread. Perhaps this is where the confusion stems from.


  • Options
    #919
    2u2me
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭2u2me


    I reported this the other day and it wasn't actioned.

    Were this line read about other groups I have no doubt it would be actioned already. (e.g. travellers, immigrants, feminists, black people.. etc..) The fact that it's police just shows the bias IMO.
    Cops only have themselves to blame for any new negative light

    It's why I stopped reporting things. I only report the same crimes I've seen actioned before and when no action is taken it does get annoying seeing the same behaviour treated differently.


  • Options
    #920
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    2u2me wrote: »
    I reported this the other day and it wasn't actioned.

    Were this line read about other groups I have no doubt it would be actioned already. (e.g. travellers, immigrants, feminists, black people.. etc..) The fact that it's police just shows the bias IMO.



    It's why I stopped reporting things. I only report the same crimes I've seen actioned before and when no action is taken it does get annoying seeing the same behaviour treated differently.

    Police officers(and professions in general) aren't a protected category of any kind so I'm lost on what would be actionable in that. And I've seen plenty of outrageous things said about all the groups you've referenced. The statement you reported also relates to pretty well established events.


  • Options
    #921
    2u2me
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭2u2me


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Police officers(and professions in general) aren't a protected category of any kind so I'm lost on what would be actionable in that. And I've seen plenty of outrageous things said about all the groups you've referenced. The statement you reported also relates to pretty well established events.

    Stereotyping is ok if it's not against a protected class? Sorry I'm lost on the rules.

    So it's ok against men but not women?
    It's ok against white people but not non white people?
    It's ok against the police but not against teachers?

    Just it would be better if there was a list somewhere so we could all follow along.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #922
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    2u2me wrote: »
    Stereotyping is ok if it's not against a protected class? Sorry I'm lost on the rules.

    So it's ok against men but not women?
    It's ok against white people but not non white people?
    It's ok against the police but not against teachers?

    Just it would be better if there was a list somewhere so we could all follow along.
    If a comment like that was made against teachers, it would not get carded... And as I already said, plenty of genuinely questionable comments often don't get carded. So for you to be classifying this as something outrageous, it's more you searching for something to complain about.


  • Options
    #923
    2u2me
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭2u2me


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If a comment like that was made against teachers, it would not get carded... And as I already said, plenty of genuinely questionable comments often don't get carded. So for you to be classifying this as something outrageous, it's more you searching for something to complain about.

    I know you have different rules and generally deflect and say it's not happening but here's an mod note doing the exact thing you say is not happening.
    Mod: Cut out the teacher bashing please. It's getting tiresome.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114185910&postcount=9028

    I bet you wouldn't find a comment half as foul as "Have only themselves to blame for any new negative light" in that entire thread.


  • Options
    #924
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,405 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Any chance we could stop the "biden has dementia" posts?

    No poster has the medical experience or the access to Biden to make this claim. I would also say stop the "Trump has dementia" posts, something I have been guilty of myself.


  • Options
    #925
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,300 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Any chance we could stop the "biden has dementia" posts?

    No poster has the medical experience or the access to Biden to make this claim. I would also say stop the "Trump has dementia" posts, something I have been guilty of myself.

    I posted in the thread earlier today telling a poster to provide back-up or drop the point. It's equally relevant to any other posts/posters. Please report any posts that have since been made along the same lines

    I would add though that this is not the place for analysing any specific issues like this. Likewise the comments about "cops". Report any stuff you have an issue with and leave it to the mods to consider. And we are all human. We may not always agree with each other. We may not take identical approaches to what others may consider similar circumstances. We take into account context. We take into account what we may have seen previously from a particular poster. We exercise discretion. Typically that is in favour of posters. However it's not that long ago that we were getting feedback of overmodding. We were being asked to back off. We designed the CA to offer more leeway than a forum like Politics (or indeed the Politics Cafe)

    And lastly we sometimes get things wrong. Not deliberately and equally it's sometimes a balancing act. Sometimes we may skim through reported posts and not pick everything up. Sometimes the site is playing up in such a way that makes moderation very difficult. Sometimes we may be having a bad day. And yes I'll repeat it - we are human and we all have human traits which means we may not be 100% consistent, but that reflects life in general


  • Options
    #926
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Beasty wrote: »
    I posted in the thread earlier today telling a poster to provide back-up or drop the point. It's equally relevant to any other posts/posters. Please report any posts that have since been made along the same lines

    I would add though that this is not the place for analysing any specific issues like this. Likewise the comments about "cops". Report any stuff you have an issue with and leave it to the mods to consider. And we are all human. We may not always agree with each other. We may not take identical approaches to what others may consider similar circumstances. We take into account context. We take into account what we may have seen previously from a particular poster. We exercise discretion. Typically that is in favour of posters. However it's not that long ago that we were getting feedback of overmodding. We were being asked to back off. We designed the CA to offer more leeway than a forum like Politics (or indeed the Politics Cafe)

    And lastly we sometimes get things wrong. Not deliberately and equally it's sometimes a balancing act. Sometimes we may skim through reported posts and not pick everything up. Sometimes the site is playing up in such a way that makes moderation very difficult. Sometimes we may be having a bad day. And yes I'll repeat it - we are human and we all have human traits which means we may not be 100% consistent, but that reflects life in general

    I absolutely get all of that, but the warnings of ‘don’t do it again’ only to see a different poster do it is tiresome and it’s pages upon pages of the same things being said which add nothing to the conversation.

    It’s discussing in bad faith. If Biden makes a balls of something, whatever, but it’s not proof of dementia no more than anything baffling Trump says.


  • Options
    #927
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,822 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    KiKi III wrote: »
    A user is suggesting the indiscriminate killing of people arriving in dinghies to the UK. This clearly violates the forum charter which says you shouldn’t wish harm on an individual or group. I’m deeply disappointed that this hasn’t been actioned even though it’s been reported and a mod is discussing it with the user on the thread.

    https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058075749/45

    Any Mod should have the power to immediately ban any user posting something that unacceptable - the decision can then be reviewed at a later date.


  • Options
    #928
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,822 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: »
    True, it's a double-edged sword.


    While you might see some posts as not being moderated, sometimes the posts are compiled together to make a composite case against a poster who would be low level trolling. It's something that sometimes takes some time to do but those details are not unnoticed.

    We don't have unilateral powers here, thankfully. We have to justify our decisions, every action we take can be appealed so we have to be able to show just cause for issuing an infraction. And, yes, we do sometimes get it wrong and a card gets reversed. We might not agree with the reversal but we can see the reasons why it is reversed.

    Re the dog whistling. Yes, those threads are sometimes a mess but to ban those whom we disagree with is just going to give us a echo chamber. Personally, I would be very much in favour of them remaining as where else would they get to see a different opinion and have to justify, explain and defend their decisions.

    And I think that it's the responsibility of the posters in those threads to question and get their opponents to explain and justify their beliefs.

    The mods are there to keep the conversation on as much of an even keel as is possible and remove those intent on wrecking the thread.

    I agree, in principle but these threads can become so full of bile that reasonable posters will walk away rather than trying to argue an opposing view. It's only worth the effort of replying to a post if you think that your argument might be considered. This can cause an echo chamber as those with an opposite opinion don't post.


  • Options
    #929
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,642 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    2u2me wrote: »
    So it's ok against men but not women?

    Neither, both are a protected class (Sex)
    It's ok against white people but not non white people?

    Neither, both are a protected class (Race)
    It's ok against the police but not against teachers?

    Yes to both, neither are a protected class.


  • Options
    #930
    2u2me
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭2u2me


    Overheal wrote: »
    Neither, both are a protected class (Sex)

    Could you explain this?
    klaaaz wrote: »
    Why do some men get upset, angry and offended at gay people existing, they could have just minded their own business on what other's people's sexuality is but they rather intervene in strangers lives and beat them up for being gay.

    In that thread you were free to disparage men but not Muslims.
    Were I to say
    • why are some women mean and nasty; I would rightly be sanctioned.
    • Why are some mexicans criminals?
    • Why are some muslims Jihadists?
    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    What? This has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The menimmigrants wanted the women to put on a show for them. When they refused they beat them. So not just a homophobic attack, a misogynistic one too from menimmigrants who think that women exist for their titillation, and who don't like to be told no


    Stereotyping is bad, I thought we understood this as a society.

    It seems the most radical among us are changing this to mean stereotyping is bad when it applies to groups we like, but you're free to do it to groups we don't like. They'll seek any justification to do so.

    They'll mass report when it's done to groups they're "defending", but will fall silent when it's groups they're happy to disparage(Men). A bit of consistency wouldn't go astray.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #931
    TheValeyard
    Registered Users Posts: 12,212 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    Discodog wrote: »
    Any Mod should have the power to immediately ban any user posting something that unacceptable - the decision can then be reviewed at a later date.

    yeah-im-gonna-have-to-say-no.jpg



    Card process works. Over reaction is not a great idea and would create extra work in dispute resolution. Anyway pretty sure mods do ban if rules were nuked by a user.

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement