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
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
Forum feedback
Comments
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »I did no such thing.
I clearly said I, personally, found the life is a precious gift from God argument against the vaccine to be ironic given how many lives have been taken by religious people in the name of God.
And no juncture did I claim anyone commenting in the thread or in the Christianity forum was in favour of such atrocities. I merely said they happened.
I also clearly said all religions (with the caveat that sects such as the Quakers are blameless) have at times indulges in 'cleansing heresies' - all religions, not just Christianity.
I did give an example relevant to when Christians killed fellow Christians as I felt Muslims killing Muslims wouldn't be pertinent.
I am entitled to voice my opinion without being called a troll simply because you do not like what I have to say.
That thread was not marked as for Christians only, so it is open to non-Christians to voice their opinion.
You have ignored the opening, and main point, I made which is that I can understand how someone genuinely anti-abortion would have serious moral concerns with taking a vaccine that apparently used cells gained during an abortion - and I respect those concerns.
Furthermore, I also stated that I could see vegans having ethical issues with a vaccine tested on animals.
The thread was dragged off topic when you and a few others attempted a pile on to shut up the person commenting on a historical irony.
And now the pile on has moved here where I am being accused of all sort of things.
And used as a weapon against the forum mod.
I did not breach the charter.
I did not insult any religion.
I did not accuse anyone of anything.
I stated that I , personally, found something ironic and explained why.
May I ask? Did even one of you hit the report button if I was 'obviously trolling' or would that have not suited the obvious agenda at play here?
I will raise a thread in the Feedback forum on this tomorrow. Your post was intended to inflame and we got carded for pointing it out. It was completely off the topic of vaccinations and what is used to produce them.
That's actually an interesting question from a Christian perspective, yet you chose to troll instead of engaging with it.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22058
CountNjord wrote: »The A+A forum was always a total mess, now the Christianity forum is getting that way too.
It's not hard to see that Smacl is bias in all this.
But dealing with a moderator who's on both forums and running with the fox and running with the hound's isn't fair moderation.
Christians should be running the show here, it's a Christian forum.
If it's not hard see the bias, can you please present it? We are not in a position to work on perception here. Smacl's actions that I've seen are very much focused on the viewpoint of the forum they are moderating within.theological wrote: »I will raise a thread in the Feedback forum on this tomorrow. Your post was intended to inflame and we got carded for pointing it out. It was completely off the topic of vaccinations and what is used to produce them.
That's actually an interesting question from a Christian perspective, yet you chose to troll instead of engaging with it.
The feedback forum is for sitewide issues/improvements identified by members of boards. It is not to take up grievances one member has with another.
One does not have to respond to a post one does not like. The ignore feature allows one to skip posts from members one does not wish to read. The report feature is a means to notify moderators of contentious issues one sees within a thread.
You weren't carded for responding to them, you were carded because you assumed a position of authority within that thread. This is referred to as back seat moderation.0 -
Dravokivich wrote: »If it's not hard see the bias, can you please present it? We are not in a position to work on perception here. Smacl's actions that I've seen are very much focused on the viewpoint of the forum they are moderating within.
The feedback forum is for sitewide issues/improvements identified by members of boards. It is not to take up grievances one member has with another.
One does not have to respond to a post one does not like. The ignore feature allows one to skip posts from members one does not wish to read. The report feature is a means to notify moderators of contentious issues one sees within a thread.
You weren't carded for responding to them, you were carded because you assumed a position of authority within that thread. This is referred to as back seat moderation.
Nonsense. The post was off topic and intended to provoke. The fact we were carded for pointing that out shows that this forum is quite frankly a mess. The fact that we can't discuss a simple topic without atheists primarily derailing threads by changing the topic or insinuating that Christians agree with the crusades or the inquisition just shows that amongst the other nonsense in that thread.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22058
theological wrote: »Nonsense. The post was off topic and intended to provoke. The fact we were carded for pointing that out shows that this forum is quite frankly a mess. The fact that we can't discuss a simple topic without atheists primarily derailing threads by changing the topic or insinuating that Christians agree with the crusades or the inquisition just shows that amongst the other nonsense in that thread.
Theological,
If you feel a post is off topic, report it.
If you feel a post is contrary to the forum for the sake of it, report it.
If you find you are consistently in disagreement with a poster or a group of posters, ignore them.
Whatever you do, don't engage them and try to control the flow of the discussion. This is back seat moderation and frowned upon on the entire site.
You won't get anything different from the feedback forum.0 -
theological wrote: »I will raise a thread in the Feedback forum on this tomorrow. Your post was intended to inflame and we got carded for pointing it out. It was completely off the topic of vaccinations and what is used to produce them.
That's actually an interesting question from a Christian perspective, yet you chose to troll instead of engaging with it.
I absolutely engaged with it.
And then I gave a personal opinion, which you don't agree with.
That does not make me a troll.
Did you report me or did you decide to engage in back seat moderating?
Or perhaps you reported and when you didn't get the result you wished for decided to take matters into your own hands - despite this being against the forum charter.
Now, that raises an interesting question about your agenda.
You are complaining I breached the Charter while simultaneously breaching the Charter yourself. Do you believe it doesn't apply to you personally or does it only apply to non-Christians?
This is the Christianity Feedback thread, I am within my rights to defend myself against your baseless accusations. I will do likewise in any thread you open elsewhere.
The only one trying to inflame is you - stomping around calling people trolls.
I answered every enquiry put to me. I explained in polite terms, was in no way disrespectful, why I found the 'life is a gift of God' comment ironic. I am also not the only one to find it so.
If you don't like me pointing out ironies you are really going to hate it when I point out that the Christianity forum is not for Christians only - it is open to all to comment, as, for example A&A is open to all, including religious people such as yourself.
You don't get to decide what people can comment on, if you have an issue hit the report button. This is an across Boards.ie rule, not just here.
You might like to have a echo chamber, where dissenting voices are censored, but you won't get one here. I have as much right to comment as you. I have as much right to express my opinion as you, and as long as I abide by the charter you will have to accept that.
And if I do not abide by the forum charter it is up to the Mods to decide that and what sanctions I face. Not YOU.0 -
Dravokivich wrote: »Theological,
If you feel a post is off topic, report it.
If you feel a post is contrary to the forum for the sake of it, report it.
If you find you are consistently in disagreement with a poster or a group of posters, ignore them.
Whatever you do, don't engage them and try to control the flow of the discussion. This is back seat moderation and frowned upon on the entire site.
You won't get anything different from the feedback forum.
Given the dead duck moderation on this forum it more than certainly wouldn't have been dealt with. I personally as I said already would have tolerated it provided that we weren't carded for pointing it out for what it was.0 -
theological wrote: »Nonsense. The post was off topic and intended to provoke. The fact we were carded for pointing that out shows that this forum is quite frankly a mess. The fact that we can't discuss a simple topic without atheists primarily derailing threads by changing the topic or insinuating that Christians agree with the crusades or the inquisition just shows that amongst the other nonsense in that thread.
You're not the only one who can see that, I've seen it on other forums and people on YouTube mentioning the Atheism and Agnoticism forum on board's being a mess it's well known.
You can go into their feedback and see the manipulative treatment and moderator's winding people up until they never post there again.
Ye don't need this kind of infiltration in the Christian forum, I think the reason Beannasidhe threw the spanner in the works is because she knew Smacl wouldn't infract her, because they're both moderators on the Atheism and Agnoticism forum.
If I went and threw a post or attempted to derail it in the A+A thread she wouldn't be long telling me I'm a new poster and stick to the charter.
She's a terror in there, I was on board's year's ago and I left because of that forum.
No longer a thiest because I struggled with my sexuality I'm a gay man.
But I wouldn't disrespect Christians either by trolling their post's.
It's quite easy to look at her post's giving out about the church and religion, they're all at it.
Posting skits about crucifixion and funny cartoons about Jesus suffering on the cross, and Smacl wouldn't think she's trolling the post about vaccinations...
Give me a break, she was down right trolling and is all for slagging off religion and getting outraged with the church.
She's definitely not here to engage in a genuine discussion
She came in to point out the hypocrisy of organized religion and that's against the charter.0 -
It's also convenient there's nowhere to appeal to on moderation. I think I'm done on Boards in respect to discussing Christianity. This forum is just A&A 2.0.0
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22058
theological wrote: »It's also convenient there's nowhere to appeal to on moderation. I think I'm done on Boards in respect to discussing Christianity. This forum is just A&A 2.0.
While I acknowledge you closed your account. I was reviewing every thread posted on here within the last few weeks. There's only really 2 topics that had issues that were dismissive towards Christianity. It doesn't feel to me like it's as prevalent as suggested, but we wouldn't want it to be either.
We need members to be confident and comfortable with reporting such issues.0 -
theological wrote: »It's also convenient there's nowhere to appeal to on moderation. I think I'm done on Boards in respect to discussing Christianity. This forum is just A&A 2.0.
I wish you luck, part of the reason I left before was the way I was being treated in the Atheism and Agnoticism.
forum, never had any problems in the Christianity forum.
But I don't feel comfortable discussing in the feedback of the Atheism and Agnoticism forum they're not the most friendly and approachable people
All one has to do is check out how antisceptic was being treated, the mods and all were winding him or her up.
I find they're either share holders in there, members of the board of boards.ie or just downright strident and awkward.
I'm aware that I'm posting about another forum here, but something has to be done about them.
A total clean out and start from scratch.
There should be an Agnoticism forum seperate from the Atheism forum, because agnostics are not Atheists.
They tend to be less argumentive and more curious and interested in theology and religion.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think smacl is biased. In fact he went out of his way to be nice to me and to encourage my engagement and tried to make the forum a better place for Christians to post. Of course, one may make an error or a misjudgment without being biased. If there is an error in this case I cant judge as I have only read what is in this thread, but tbe thought occured to me, wouldn't using the Christian tag when making the thread have avoided this?0
-
John Hutton wrote: »I don't think smacl is biased. In fact he went out of his way to be nice to me and to encourage my engagement and tried to make the forum a better place for Christians to post. Of course, one may make an error or a misjudgment without being biased. If there is an error in this case I cant judge as I have only read what is in this thread, but tbe thought occured to me, wouldn't using the Christian tag when making the thread have avoided this?
Well I think Smacl was caught between a rock and a hard place when Beannasidhe posted about the wrong doings of Christianity.
That was no place to go pointing out to Christians what a lot of them get told frequently and is spouted out on forums and social media all over the world.
She's a moderator and should know better, she's been dishing out bans, warnings and infractions for far less herself.
She's quite the detective too, and is openly no fan of organised religion especially Christianity.
I wouldn't post in that forum she's moderating ever again, because it's just a few regulars putting sticky plaster on the foundations trying to keep it going...
It's like a run down town falling apart from lack of maintenance and good will.
Smacl in general seems fair, but he shouldn't be allowing people in to troll and have free reign to dish out what they like.
I remember a time when there was a moderator there and frequently he'd tell people including A+A moderator's that maybe they should stick to their own forum if they want to post whatever...
Zero tolerance.
I think the only reason myself and the other guy got carded is because Beannasidhe didn't like our feedback, felt she wasn't getting her own way.
Reported us and Smacl had no other choice but to please her.
She's always involved in people getting warnings, infractions and bans.
Especially men for some odd reason.0 -
CountNjord wrote: »Well I think Smacl was caught between a rock and a hard place when Beannasidhe posted about the wrong doings of Christianity.
That was no place to go pointing out to Christians what a lot of them get told frequently and is spouted out on forums and social media all over the world.
She's a moderator and should know better, she's been dishing out bans, warnings and infractions for far less herself.
She's quite the detective too, and is openly no fan of organised religion especially Christianity.
I wouldn't post in that forum she's moderating ever again, because it's just a few regulars putting sticky plaster on the foundations trying to keep it going...
It's like a run down town falling apart from lack of maintenance and good will.
Smacl in general seems fair, but he shouldn't be allowing people in to troll and have free reign to dish out what they like.
I remember a time when there was a moderator there and frequently he'd tell people including A+A moderator's that maybe they should stick to their own forum if they want to post whatever...
Zero tolerance.
I think the only reason myself and the other guy got carded is because Beannasidhe didn't like our feedback, felt she wasn't getting her own way.
Reported us and Smacl had no other choice but to please her.
She's always involved in people getting warnings, infractions and bans.
Especially men for some odd reason.
Mod warning: As has been posted previously, this is not the place to discuss your grievances with the A&A forum nor with other individual posters outside of content that they have posted here.
Given your account is only a couple of months old you might do us all the courtesy of where you came by the above notion?0 -
CMod note: I'm going to step in at this point as users are attempting to drag the moderation of others forums into this thread, along with attacking other posters. CountNjord was infracted for post #111 due to discussing the moderation of another forum in here, and has been given a 1 day forum ban for post #113 for personal attacks against another user.
Feedback is welcome, attacking other users and dragging in grievances from other forums is not.0 -
@smacl.
Carded for a post in vaccine thread. Presumably for using the term 'vax-suckers'
Clearly a perjorative term. But so is anti-vaxxer to describe anyone who doesn't slobber over the 'vaccination has been the most wonderful advancement ever so that answers all questions'.
Tinfoil hat wearers, conspiracy theorists and all the rest.
I take it your pro vaccine, but ought not a moderator be neutral and balanced?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »@smacl.
Carded for a post in vaccine thread. Presumably for using the term 'vax-suckers'
Clearly a perjorative term. But so is anti-vaxxer to describe anyone who doesn't slobber over the 'vaccination has been the most wonderful advancement ever so that answers all questions'.
Tinfoil hat wearers, conspiracy theorists and all the rest.
I take it your pro vaccine, but ought not a moderator be neutral and balanced?
You've received two cards in the vaccine thread, neither for using the term 'vax suckers' or pejorative terms. First was for foul language, specifically
"Upstairs, her boss is having a new arsehole ripped in him by his boss."
which is in serious breach of the charter here;
"10. No swearing or facsimile thereof (includes textspeak such as "wtf"). Such words will be edited and warnings issued. Banning will occur if it continues."
Second was for ignoring explicit mod instruction where you received a card and your post was deleted.
"11. Do not discuss moderation decisions in a thread. If you have an issue with the actions of a mod, please contact them via PM. If the dispute has not been resolved after this correspondence, the correct procedure is to then PM the C-mods. If the issue remains unresolved, a thread should be started on the Dispute Resolution Forum."
With respect to your first offending post, you also made negative references to another poster who is not even part of the discussion. Whatever about personal attacks on someone who is part of the discussion, attacking someone in their absense, however obliquely, will not be tolerated.
If you have issues with any other posters or moderators, your have an array of tools including feedback threads, reporting posts and dispute resolution at your disposal. I would suggest that you re-read and understand the charter if you intend to continue posting on this forum.0 -
I think you should make the entire forum Christian-only.
As it stands, every second thread is filled with atheist yobs throwing around stupid digs.
How can there be any decent discussion in such an atmosphere?
Even when not in breach of charter, there is lots of deniable trolling like insisting Christians aren't allowed to eat shellfish by people who don't understand the relation of the Mosaic Law to Christianity.
Very little of worth would be lost and much would be gained by doing this. Please seriously consider it.0 -
growleaves wrote: »I think you should make the entire forum Christian-only.
As it stands, every second thread is filled with atheist yobs throwing around stupid digs.
How can there be any decent discussion in such an atmosphere?
Even when not in breach of charter, there is lots of deniable trolling like insisting Christians aren't allowed to eat shellfish by people who don't understand the relation of the Mosaic Law to Christianity.
Very little of worth would be lost and much would be gained by doing this. Please seriously consider it.
I don't agree. The option to limit threads to Christians only is already there but has very rarely been used. This suggests to me that the Christians on this forum aren't largely concerned about non-Christians posting. Moderation on this forum is already quite a bit stricter than most other forums on boards and I reckon any further restrictions would have the effect of killing the forum off altogether.
More importantly perhaps, the implication is that Christians and non-Christians cannot have a civil conversation on a bulletin board such as this, which in my experience is not the case. Personally I am of the opinion that social media already encourages far too much polarization forcing people to take one side or another of any argument. This can make forums such as this unpleasant spaces to hold conversations which is the exact opposite of what the community is hoping to achieve.
I take on board the comments about low level trolling and am actively working to discourage it. To get more decent discussion you need to start creating your own threads and by all means mark them as [Christians only] if those are the only other posters you'd like involved. Similarly, if you see a post that is essentially trolling, report it rather than replying to it. Trolling only works if people respond to the trolls.0 -
A great deal of the "non christians" are not interested passersby, but rather militant atheists.I don't agree. The option to limit threads to Christians only is already there but has very rarely been used. This suggests to me that the Christians on this forum aren't largely concerned about non-Christians posting. Moderation on this forum is already quite a bit stricter than most other forums on boards and I reckon any further restrictions would have the effect of killing the forum off altogether.
More importantly perhaps, the implication is that Christians and non-Christians cannot have a civil conversation on a bulletin board such as this, which in my experience is not the case. Personally I am of the opinion that social media already encourages far too much polarization forcing people to take one side or another of any argument. This can make forums such as this unpleasant spaces to hold conversations which is the exact opposite of what the community is hoping to achieve.
I take on board the comments about low level trolling and am actively working to discourage it. To get more decent discussion you need to start creating your own threads and by all means mark them as [Christians only] if those are the only other posters you'd like involved. Similarly, if you see a post that is essentially trolling, report it rather than replying to it. Trolling only works if people respond to the trolls.
I do not like the idea of banning non christians. But I think that it is fair to have threads, and indeed a forum, where the christian perspective is the dominant one, and posts that go directly counter to it should be expunged, or confined to specific threads. Take my latest thread, the first response calls the bible absurd, blatantly misrepresents it (Mary was not impregnated against her will). Other posts include people saying that they love satan, if satan was in control things would be more fun, God is not all powerful, others basically calling God a pedophile, another calling him a rapist, a fundamental Biblical and christian teaching called "the most bizarre thing ever on boards", the 'problem of evil' raised again, the usual "priests are pedos" stuff, "you're only angry cause you're not in charge". All the same rubbish that clogs up all the threads, some of the posters are the usual offenders. The examples I gave here are all ones which were not carded. Others were and fair enough.
Rule 1 from the charter: 1. The purpose of this forum is to discuss Christian belief in general, and specific elements of it, between Christians and non-Christians alike. This forum has the additional purpose of being a point on Boards.ie where Christians may ask other Christians questions about their shared faith. In this regard, Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack.
If I rocked up into the farming forum and just attacked and belittled farming as a concept at every turn I would not last long, and nor should I. If I rocked up into the soccer forum and just slagged off soccer as a sport etc. I wouldn't last long. If I etc. etc. You get the idea.
The superthreads need to be used:
1. Creationism and Evolution - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056402682
2. Protestant -v- Catholic Debates - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2057593813
3. Atheist -v- Theist / Existence of God Debates - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...php?p=93795311
4. Clerical Child Abuse - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2055855692
5. Homosexuality - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056713191
6. Announcements and events - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...p?t=2057083946
7. Want to find a Church near you? - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=93462
If anyone raises these issues on other threads their post should be deleted and they should be pointed in the direction of the relevant thread or, where applicable, a more relevant forum. If they persist they should be carded and banned. The forum should be for a "christian perspective" on things - you don't have to be a christian. Posters need to have a fundamental respect for christian beliefs. You are not having "respect" if you constantly contradict, deny, denigrate and challenge the fundamental beliefs of someone all the time in almost every context. There is space for these discussions sure, the super threads.
If you don't want the forum as a whole to be like this, then change the prefix to "Christian Perspective", although I think it should be applied to the whole forum. I don't like the idea of excluding non christians, rather there should be a "respect" (In the manner I previously discussed) expected from everyone who posts here, with superthreads to tackle the fundamental issues if they really want.
I'm not having a go at the moderator I think he has a tough job, particularly when he is not a christian but rather an atheist/agnostic himself.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22058
I don't expect Smacl to proof read every post John. I don't recall seeing examples of what you referenced being reported.
If you feel a post doesn't meet the standards, nor is contributory to the focus of this forum, please use the report function. Otherwise you are just going to see the same posts again and again when you read those threads.0 -
I would have no issue reporting them if they would be dealt with in the manner I described. As things stand I do not think they would be if I reported them, or if smacl or any moderator happened to see them when reading the thread (because of policy, not because of any moderator failings !)Dravokivich wrote: »I don't expect Smacl to proof read every post John. I don't recall seeing examples of what you referenced being reported.
If you feel a post doesn't meet the standards, nor is contributory to the focus of this forum, please use the report function. Otherwise you are just going to see the same posts again and again when you read those threads.
The issue here is not me not reporting posts...0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22058
John, I don't mean to suggest the issues you raised don't exist. But if we can't have your confidence, or the confidence of others here, we'll just be going around in circles.0 -
John Hutton wrote: »A great deal of the "non christians" are not interested passersby, but rather militant atheists.
I do not like the idea of banning non christians. But I think that it is fair to have threads, and indeed a forum, where the christian perspective is the dominant one, and posts that go directly counter to it should be expunged, or confined to specific threads. Take my latest thread, the first response calls the bible absurd, blatantly misrepresents it (Mary was not impregnated against her will). Other posts include people saying that they love satan, if satan was in control things would be more fun, God is not all powerful, others basically calling God a pedophile, another calling him a rapist, a fundamental Biblical and christian teaching called "the most bizarre thing ever on boards", the 'problem of evil' raised again, the usual "priests are pedos" stuff, "you're only angry cause you're not in charge". All the same rubbish that clogs up all the threads, some of the posters are the usual offenders. The examples I gave here are all ones which were not carded. Others were and fair enough.
Rule 1 from the charter: 1. The purpose of this forum is to discuss Christian belief in general, and specific elements of it, between Christians and non-Christians alike. This forum has the additional purpose of being a point on Boards.ie where Christians may ask other Christians questions about their shared faith. In this regard, Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack.
If I rocked up into the farming forum and just attacked and belittled farming as a concept at every turn I would not last long, and nor should I. If I rocked up into the soccer forum and just slagged off soccer as a sport etc. I wouldn't last long. If I etc. etc. You get the idea.
The superthreads need to be used:
1. Creationism and Evolution - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056402682
2. Protestant -v- Catholic Debates - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2057593813
3. Atheist -v- Theist / Existence of God Debates - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...php?p=93795311
4. Clerical Child Abuse - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2055855692
5. Homosexuality - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056713191
6. Announcements and events - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...p?t=2057083946
7. Want to find a Church near you? - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=93462
If anyone raises these issues on other threads their post should be deleted and they should be pointed in the direction of the relevant thread or, where applicable, a more relevant forum. If they persist they should be carded and banned. The forum should be for a "christian perspective" on things - you don't have to be a christian. Posters need to have a fundamental respect for christian beliefs. You are not having "respect" if you constantly contradict, deny, denigrate and challenge the fundamental beliefs of someone all the time in almost every context. There is space for these discussions sure, the super threads.
If you don't want the forum as a whole to be like this, then change the prefix to "Christian Perspective", although I think it should be applied to the whole forum. I don't like the idea of excluding non christians, rather there should be a "respect" (In the manner I previously discussed) expected from everyone who posts here, with superthreads to tackle the fundamental issues if they really want.
I'm not having a go at the moderator I think he has a tough job, particularly when he is not a christian but rather an atheist/agnostic himself.
I agree with most of the above, notably for the reasons given in the highlighted section. It is important that Christian posters here can start and engage in the type of conversations this forum is intended for without being constantly harangued by inane one liners that have been repeated ad nauseum for many years. As with the previous poster, I'd ask that you report rather than respond here. The charter as it stands is already being applied rather more strictly than in most other forums but this can be increased if needed.
Again, one concern here is the polarizing effect that this can have, with posters effectively siloed into either the Christianity or A&A forum based on their own personal position. While I accept and understand your frustration in your recent thread, the sad truth is that if you were to limit such a discussion to Christians only you might not get any discussion at all. This is probably something worth experimenting with a bit on future threads. Yourself excepted, there are also few enough Christians on here regularly starting new threads.0 -
John Hutton wrote: »I would have no issue reporting them if they would be dealt with in the manner I described. As things stand I do not think they would be if I reported them, or if smacl or any moderator happened to see them when reading the thread (because of policy, not because of any moderator failings !)
The issue here is not me not reporting posts...
With respect, I dished out a total of six cards in your recent thread. There was just one post reported and that by an atheist. There are without a doubt those popping into this forum with the intent of having a dig against Christianity. Where this is in any way blatant, I'd recommend against engaging as that is precisely what they are looking for. Better to report the post and allow us to deal with it, including both carding deleting it where it adds nothing to the conversation.0 -
I think I may have worded my comments incorrectly giving rise to conclusions other than I intended:
1. I have confidence in smacl
2. I didn't report because I was not sure it would actually be considered to be against the rules (because of the rules/policy not any failing on anyone's part)
3. I didn't want to be wasting people's time or coming across as reporting stuff just because I disagreed with it if it was not actually against the rules
4. If the approach that I outlined in my first post here today is the one which smacl and co agree with and intend to proceed (or maybe where all along and I didn't realise) with then yes I will report posts that go against the thrust of what I outlined.
Can I make a couple of suggestions that may be helpful:
1. I think a superthread on the 'problem of evil' should be started, that one has come up loads
2. Where possible offending posts should be deleted. I think they should be because often the forum can be hit by a poster doing a "drive by" and they wouldn't care about a yellow card cause they get their "thanks". So for example, if a few people posts variations of "god doesnt exist/you're cultists" etc, then delete those and put a comment in saying you deleted some posts saying x, go to y thread or forum for that. This is done on a few forums on the site and seems to work well, keeps threads on track. Some discretion would obviously be needed, if someone posted a big long post and the offending section is egregious but the rest fine, then perhaps that bit should be snipped. I think this would be rare enough, more common would be long good posts with a small bit being against the rules but not egregious, here the normal card/warning would suffice.0 -
Advertisement
-
Should I start reporting posts on the thread or should we just pull the plug on it and close it at this stage?0
-
John Hutton wrote: »1. I think a superthread on the 'problem of evil' should be started, that one has come up loads
Go for it. If you start it up and outline what you see as the main arguments, we'll divert all posts on the matter there. I agree there should be more redirection of the more tired and repeated soapbox arguments to their respective mega-threads.2. Where possible offending posts should be deleted. I think they should be because often the forum can be hit by a poster doing a "drive by" and they wouldn't care about a yellow card cause they get their "thanks". So for example, if a few people posts variations of "god doesnt exist/you're cultists" etc, then delete those and put a comment in saying you deleted some posts saying x, go to y thread or forum for that. This is done on a few forums on the site and seems to work well, keeps threads on track. Some discretion would obviously be needed, if someone posted a big long post and the offending section is egregious but the rest fine, then perhaps that bit should be snipped. I think this would be rare enough, more common would be long good posts with a small bit being against the rules but not egregious, here the normal card/warning would suffice.
I agree for one liners and repeated soap-boxing that are primarily trolling and looking to elicit thanks from like minded types. More generally, I tend to avoid censorship so where a post makes a reasonable stab at contributing to the debate I'd let it stand and card it where it is in clear breach of the charter.
From the perspective of transparent moderation, probably makes more sense to snip the offensive content and leave the post with any infractions present and visible. The reason here is that repeated infractions will lead to bans and it becomes clear to all why a given poster has been banned.0 -
SMACL, I think you are doing a great job. Every so often a thread comes up that throws the forum into overdrive. Sometimes you need the wisdom of Solomon to get the moderation right and you seem to get the balance right, much appreciated. Its an easy task to report a post if it infringes on the charter and more often than not, its acted on. Thank you.0
-
As you can see his or her post wasn't offensive, the comment was about Unitarians... they like to question thing's, and if you look into Unitarianism you'll see what they meant...
Their comment was just an observation of Unitarians, as far as I can see you jumped to conclusions.
I didn't take offense to their post, because I commented underneath that I got what they said.
So can you lift the warnings, I wouldn't like to see someone get a warning because a mod didn't understand the depth of their post.
Thanks0 -
As you can see his or her post wasn't offensive, the comment was about Unitarians... they like to question thing's, and if you look into Unitarianism you'll see what they meant...
Their comment was just an observation of Unitarians, as far as I can see you jumped to conclusions.
I didn't take offense to their post, because I commented underneath that I got what they said.
So can you lift the warnings, I wouldn't like to see someone get a warning because a mod didn't understand the depth of their post.
Thanks
Welcome to the Christianity forum. As you are very new here can I recommend you read both the charter and this feedback thread. The moderation on this forum is stricter than on many other fora in an attempt to reduce an ongoing problem with low level trolling. Both warnings stand for their stated reasons.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think it is bad form to edit someones post, deleting a portion of it, without saying anything to the person who posted it. Even worse is leaving a cryptic note, leaving it to the imagination of the reader to speculate about what horrendous thing the poster had said.
My comments about the north were accurate. If it was felt (wrongly I would say) that my pointing out of the irony of the south banning mass when the north, founded explicitly as a sectarian state, has defended and protected the right to worship, was too robust, a sentence summarizing what I said could have been inserted in place.
Or if my post warranted moderator action, why not card and leave the offending text?
Anything would have been better than what Smacl did - an unfortunate lack of basic courtesy.0 -
Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »I think it is bad form to edit someones post, deleting a portion of it, without saying anything to the person who posted it. Even worse is leaving a cryptic note, leaving it to the imagination of the reader to speculate about what horrendous thing the poster had said.
My comments about the north were accurate. If it was felt (wrongly I would say) that my pointing out of the irony of the south banning mass when the north, founded explicitly as a sectarian state, has defended and protected the right to worship, was too robust, a sentence summarizing what I said could have been inserted in place.
Or if my post warranted moderator action, why not card and leave the offending text?
Anything would have been better than what Smacl did - an unfortunate lack of basic courtesy.
There was a delay between your post being edited and a follow up explanatory post as I had something else going on. Explanation is now in place. I considered the snipped portion of your post to be both sectarian and objectionable, falling foul of a number of points on the charter.0 -
Calling what I said sectarian, rather than just inflammatory, is a serious escalation, a serious charge. Please explain how what I said was sectarian.
EDIT: I will also add that it is most unfair to make such a charge when the offending text has been censored - again leaving it to the imagination of the reader.0 -
Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »Calling what I said sectarian, rather than just inflammatory, is a serious escalation, a serious charge. Please explain how what I said was sectarian.
I had censored out the section I considered offensive as I was concerned it would become troll bait. I'll discuss this with the other forum moderators and CMods to get their take on it and should they consider the content acceptable, restore it.0 -
To be honest, I am more concerned now that you have leveled the charge of sectarianism at me.I had censored out the section I considered offensive as I was concerned it would become troll bait. I'll discuss this with the other forum moderators and CMods to get their take on it and should they consider the content acceptable, restore it.
Inflammatory, troll bait etc, while I would disagree with that opinion, is much different than something which is deemed "sectarian" - essentially a hate crime, and something which could be prosecutable in Northern Ireland.
It is possible (I am hopeful this is the case) that you may not be familiar with some of the things I referred to and thought I made them up or something, which would make your charge of sectarianism a result of an understandable misunderstanding, bringing us back to the lower level of "inflammable or objectionable" which can be looked at separately.
To that end, here is the basis for the references (that I can remember):
1. I made a reference to "priestcraft". This was a pejorative term used extensively by the more vocal and fundamental loyalists/unionists, especially the late Dr Paisley.
2. "Not having a catholic about the place" - this is a reference to a famous comment by Sir Basil Brooke (third Prime Minister of NI) about the fact he didn't employ Catholics.
3. Reference to categorization of the Pope as "anti-christ" - this was a claim commonly made by some powerful people in the North, most famously by the late Dr Paisley at the EU parliament as a "protest" against Pope Saint John Paul II who was speaking there in 1988.
4. Reference to Catholics being viewed as "the enemy within" this is a reference to (aside from the fact that this was the case and the phrase was something commonly repeated) commentary by the respected academic Professor John D Brewer, in his landmark study of anti-Catholicism in Northern Ireland "The Mote and the Beam". (I do not have the book at hand for a page reference, I will ask you to trust me on this).
4. Reference to denial of vote, housing and jobs - there is ample evidence for this, this is a widely accepted fact. As well as the previously referenced book, Michael Farrell's "The Orange State" covers this in great detail, if further citations are required let me know.
5. Reference to beating and murder of Catholics by agents of the state on the basis of their religion - there is ample evidence of this, from the batoning of NICRA marches to the murder of civilians by state agents in collusion/direction of loyalist murder gangs. I can give more citations here if required, although I think the fact of this is broadly accepted.
6. Reference to NI being set up as a sectarian state: it is a fair argument to make that NI was set up as the smallest, yet still economically viable, entity it could be, while ensuring that Catholics remained a minority - with a protestant majority in a position of ascendancy - a sectarian headcount. Or as Lord Craigavon put it, (first Prime Minister of NI) "A protestant parliament and a protestant state".
That is all of the references I can recall at the moment, if there is anything else let me know and I can provide the basis for what I said. If anything the thrust of my point is complimentary of how much the North has changed where it protects the rights of its citizens to exercise their religion more than the south this IS very ironic.
If you think that what I said was irrelevant, or likely to derail the thread or cause an argument, that is entirely different from the far more serious charge of sectarianism that you have levied at me here - although to be fair if you are not familiar with Irish history you may not have "got" the references I made, and, hence, picked them up as made up slurs or accusations. (at least that is the only way I can think a charge of sectarian comments - a hate crime - could be arrived at.). Now that I have elaborated (as much for the benefit of onlookers who now no doubt had all kinds of imaginings going through their heads as to what horrendous sectarian comments I may have made), I hope you will withdraw your accusation that I made sectarian comments, and we can return to the altogether less serious ground of your original accusation that they were irrelevant/provocative etc.0 -
Just to add,
It is fair enough and reasonable that you were busy and forgot or didn't get a chance to put an explanation in.
If you withdraw the accusation of sectarianism and you are content for me to put this line in my post:
"Given the history of Northern Ireland, it is most ironic that public Mass is not banned there - rather, public worship is protected as a human right in NI to a greater degree than it is in the south where it is banned".
I think we can draw a line under it and move on - I think this is a fair enough compromise without taking up an inordinate amount of time?0 -
I'm waiting for some further feedback from the moderator team and will post back here following that discussion.0
-
In the meantime then perhaps you should remove reference/accusation of sectarian commentary given the seriousness of it, and reinstate it when/if you and the other powers that be decide you are happy to stand over such a serious charge?I'm waiting for some further feedback from the moderator team and will post back here following that discussion.0 -
Mod: Following concerns raised here, the section of text below has been restored. On the basis that there are likely Northern Irish Protestants also visiting this forum, I'd consider the text to be inflammatory. I personally would also consider it sectarian and divisive.In the north worship will be allowed. How ironic! In the six counties, the orange state, founded on a basis of bigotry, the loather of "priest-craft" with the Pope being the DUP's "anti-christ", where the powers that be would not have a Catholic "about the place", where Catholics were denied the vote, housing, jobs, literally "the enemy within", beaten and even murdered by agents of the state because of their religious beliefs - it is this state, one hundred years or so since its foundation that respects and upholds the right to practice ones religion, and it is the 'free state' which seeks to make it illegal, outlawing the Mass and other sacraments to a degree not seen since the penal days.0
-
If you are going to double down on accusing me of hate speech you should explain why. I can accept (and respectfully disagree) with it being called inflammatory or divisive, but sectarian? Come on. Even if you said it was "nasty" or something that would be different, but as I have explained to you, you are accusing me of sectarian hate speech. You should back up such a serious accusation, or withdraw it, or at the least replace it with some other "opinion" that is not accusing me of a crime.
EDIT: And thanks for restoring the text.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »If you are going to double down on accusing me of hate speech you should explain why. I can accept (and respectfully disagree) with it being called inflammatory or divisive, but sectarian? Come on. Even if you said it was "nasty" or something that would be different, but as I have explained to you, you are accusing me of sectarian hate speech. You should back up such a serious accusation, or withdraw it, or at the least replace it with some other "opinion" that is not accusing me of a crime.
EDIT: And thanks for restoring the text.
Ok, so lets have a look at what sectarian means, when used as an adjective. Merriam-Webster is a bit brief here;Definition of sectarian (Entry 1 of 2)
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect or sectarian
2: limited in character or scope : PAROCHIAL
Cambridge is probably better in this context;sectarian
adjective disapproving
UK /sekˈteə.ri.ən/ US /sekˈter.i.ən/
caused by or feeling very strong support for the religious or political group that you are a member of, in a way that can cause problems with other groups:
I would say that your post illustrated a very strong support for a religious group (Catholicism) in a way to cause problems for another group (the DUP) on the basis of your referring to 'the orange state, founded on a basis of bigotry, the loather of "priest-craft" with the Pope being the DUP's "anti-christ"'. While you might well be able to defend the points raised, the combination is, in my opinion, quite clearly sectarian.0 -
We are talking in the context of Ireland, specifically Northern Ireland, where sectarianism is a rampant issue, a word used analogous with 'racism' and hate speech.Ok, so lets have a look at what sectarian means, when used as an adjective. Merriam-Webster is a bit brief here;
Cambridge is probably better in this context;
I would say that your post illustrated a very strong support for a religious group (Catholicism) in a way to cause problems for another group (the DUP and/or NI Protestants) on the basis of your referring to 'the orange state, founded on a basis of bigotry, the loather of "priest-craft" with the Pope being the DUP's "anti-christ"'. While you might well be able to defend the points raised, the combination is, in my opinion, quite clearly sectarian.
This is the definition the PSNI use, who record several thousand "sectarian" crimes and incidents each year:
So you are maintaining that while what I said may be true, the fact that I said them together is sectarian, but not sectarian by the meaning which the clear context of Ireland dictates it must mean, but rather another way. Fascinating.Hate crime is defined as any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic. PSNI also use the principles of this definition to record non-crime hate incidents. The term ‘sectarian’, whilst not clearly defined, is a term almost exclusively used in Northern Ireland to describe incidents of bigoted dislike or hatred of members of a different religious or political group. It is broadly accepted that within the Northern Ireland context an individual or group must be perceived to be Catholic or Protestant, Nationalist or Unionist, or Loyalist or Republican. However sectarianism can also relate to other religious denominations, for example, Sunni and Shi’ite in Islam.
So lets be clear then, you are not accusing me of hate speech or anything that could constitute a crime in NI? If you are not, can you not think of another word to use then, could you not say something like you view it as "biased, irrelevant to the thread and inflammatory to a degree likely to provoke", especially as I have raised concerns both on this thread and by PM about the seriousness of the accusation of sectarian commentary? Why are you persisting? The person who read what you wrote, and did not take it as meaning something akin to racism or the way in which "sectarian" is taken to mean in the context of Northern Ireland, would be very few in number.
I could have made the statement I did with equal validity where I of any Christian denomination or none.
Let me state for the record, I do not hate anyone, especially not fellow Christians. I do think northern Ireland was an anti-catholic state (I would be interested in seeing any argument saying that it was not), hence the irony of Mass not being banned in that state, with the DUP doing the most to defend it.
Can you not just withdraw the word sectarian and let us move on?0 -
Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »So lets be clear then, you are not accusing me of hate speech or anything that could constitute a crime in NI?
I'm not accusing you of anything, I am pointing out that I consider one paragraph of your post to be offensive, most particularly to any Northern Ireland Protestants who may be reading here, which leads me to the conclusion it is sectarian. From the PSNI definition you provided, I would also note that sectarianism is not necessarily analogous to hate crime, i.e. "PSNI also use the principles of this definition to record non-crime hate incidents" That said, I would imagine if you were to read your paragraph in question to a selection of PSNI officers, it would not go down well.
Given the potential to cause offense, I initially deleted the text in question. Your follow up here left me few options other than re-instate the offensive material. I would strongly suggest if you are that concerned about being called out on such posts, you choose your language with more care in future.0 -
This is obscene, and defamatory. I would like an admin to look at this please.I'm not accusing you of anything, I am pointing out that I consider one paragraph of your post to be offensive, most particularly to any Northern Ireland Protestants who may be reading here, which leads me to the conclusion it is sectarian. From the PSNI definition you provided, I would also note that sectarianism is not necessarily analogous to hate crime, i.e. "PSNI also use the principles of this definition to record non-crime hate incidents" That said, I would imagine if you were to read your paragraph in question to a selection of PSNI officers, it would not go down well.
Given the potential to cause offense, I initially deleted the text in question. Your follow up here left me few options other than re-instate the offensive material. I would strongly suggest if you are that concerned about being called out on such posts, you choose your language with more care in future.0 -
Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »This is obscene, and defamatory. I would like an admin to look at this please.
Dispute resolution forum is probably what you're after, https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=13970 -
I have not been carded, or banned, I do not think that is a suitable venue to complain about a "personal opinion" of a moderator about a post, rather it seems a place to appeal moderator decisions. The issue here is with, what you have made perfectly clear, your "personal opinion" and content of several posts.
Should I just report your post in that context?0 -
Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »I have not been carded, or banned, I do not think that is a suitable venue to complain about a "personal opinion" of a moderator about a post, rather it seems a place to appeal moderator decisions. The issue here is with, what you have made perfectly clear, your "personal opinion" and content of several posts.
Should I just report your post in that context?
Better to directly contact a cmod or admin. Reporting a post in this forum is looking for action from the local mods only.0 -
I've done that Smacl, I don't see why you can't just say you think I was being a jerk or something like that instead, and leave it there rather than accusing me of making sectarian comments which is a very serious accusation.Better to directly contact a cmod or admin. Reporting a post in this forum is looking for action from the local mods only.0 -
Is describing the belief system held by some people as "defunct mythology" appropriate and in accordance with the charter? The charter refers to all beliefs not just Christian beliefs.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116606619&postcount=31The Charter wrote:3. Bigotry, crude generalisations and unreasonable antagonism will not be tolerated. This rule encompasses all intolerance towards creeds, beliefs, lifestyles or opinions that differ from one's own.Scrap the cap!
0 -
Advertisement
-
I think if you're happy to discuss what you mean by "defunct", and the ways in which you consider the beliefs concerned to be mythic, and why that matterse, it's all fair game. On the other hand if you're just looking to dismiss a belief system by pejorative characterisations rather than engage with it, that's probably not in the spirit of the charter.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Is describing the belief system held by some people as "defunct mythology" appropriate and in accordance with the charter? The charter refers to all beliefs not just Christian beliefs.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116606619&postcount=31
Tl;dr: I don't think you can pick a two-word phrase out of a post, and then adopt a one-size-fits-all characterisation of all posts that employ that phrase. Whether a post, or a poster, complies with the charter or not calls for a more holistic judgment.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement