Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Hotblack Desiato · 05-07-2020 8:47am

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

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

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

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

Because he's gay.

Duh.

ExMachina1000 · 05-07-2020 8:50am

<snip>

end of the road · 06-07-2020 12:28am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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

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

Because he's gay.

Duh.

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

Quantum Erasure · 06-07-2020 1:11am

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

KyussB · 06-07-2020 7:33am

2u2me wrote: »

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

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

Everything and anything can be a dog-whistle.
'International banks' is apparently a dog-whistle for anti-semitism.

'family values' is apparently now 'christian values'

'all lives matter' is apparently 'black lives don't matter'

'black lives matter' is apparently 'all lives matter'

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

When you put forward a theory in science it must be falsifiable, this is an important concept in proving things. Claims of dog-whistling are not falsifiable.

I agree with the problems with claims of dogwhistling and establishing intent. Simple solution for it though: Let the poster know that a certain phrase has this bad alternate meaning - then ask them if that's what they meant, and see (once they can't say they didn't know anymore) if they use it again.

06-07-2020 9:45am

no

confirm what they meant

that's it

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

Overheal · 06-07-2020 8:19pm

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

This is it · 06-07-2020 8:23pm

Overheal wrote: »

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

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

ExMachina1000 · 06-07-2020 8:43pm

Overheal wrote: »

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

<snip>

Muahahaha · 06-07-2020 8:55pm

Overheal wrote: »

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

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

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

Rodney Bathgate · 06-07-2020 8:56pm

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

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

Who is Martin Lanigan?

Beasty · 06-07-2020 9:17pm

This thread is to discuss the forum, not usernames

Beasty · 06-07-2020 9:19pm

Overheal wrote: »

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

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

Beasty · 06-07-2020 10:45pm

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

<snip>

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

Muahahaha · 06-07-2020 10:57pm

Beasty wrote: »

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

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

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

Overheal · 06-07-2020 11:11pm

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

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

Beasty · 06-07-2020 11:19pm

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

Muahahaha · 06-07-2020 11:39pm

Beasty wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Arghus · 07-07-2020 12:30am

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

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

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

Hodors Appletart · 07-07-2020 8:22am

start it from now.

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

KyussB · 07-07-2020 10:08am

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

This is it · 07-07-2020 10:18am

KyussB wrote: »

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

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

KyussB · 07-07-2020 10:22am

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

Tokyo · 07-07-2020 10:32am

This is it wrote: »

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

This.

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

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

Beasty · 07-07-2020 10:40am

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

Baggly · 07-07-2020 11:17am

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

end of the road · 07-07-2020 2:01pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Hotblack Desiato · 07-07-2020 3:28pm

2u2me wrote: »

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

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

From the man himself:

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

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

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

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

end of the road · 07-07-2020 3:46pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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

From the man himself:

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

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

Muahahaha · 07-07-2020 3:47pm

Beasty wrote: »

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

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

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

Muahahaha · 07-07-2020 3:52pm

end of the road wrote: »

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

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

Id imagine the soccer forum couldnt operate properly at all without the access system. Youd have supporters of one team signing up and going straight into the Superthread of another team to wind them up. Even with the system access this still happens but nowhere near on the level of what it would be like with free access. Thankfully mike_ie did a clean up of that forum a few weeks back and it seems to be working pretty well so far. Its a great forum but it can suffer from schoolyard arguments by a small minority at times.

Tokyo · 07-07-2020 3:55pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

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

Unless someone is being a straight up dick, my modding style tends towards giving people rope, and seeing how good they are at noose-tying.

Despite the claims of some posters, we do not sit around hoping to ban people. Sometimes a poster has trouble figuring our how to fit in. Sometimes a poster goes through a spell of contrary attitude and works his or her way out of it.

If the only reason he or she posts is to troll, then they should be banned. If they can work their way out of it and become decent posters, I am not eager to shut them off before that can happen. This is where threadbans are useful. The poster doesn't have access to the thread that was getting him/her into trouble. But they don't have anything on their record yet and still have access to the rest of the forum. So they are faced with two choices - they can either take a step back and realize they went too far and readjust for next time, or they can jump into another thread and do the same thing all over again.

But it's an escalating degree of sanctions and we keep a record of threadbans just for that purpose. If I see a poster simply got too invested in an argument, then I'm more likely to give them a threadban. If however, I see that they have been given multiple chances and haven't copped on, then they've escalated themselves into card territory.

Muahahaha · 07-07-2020 4:23pm

mike_ie wrote: »

But it's an escalating degree of sanctions and we keep a record of threadbans just for that purpose.

yeah thats what I was wondering about. You have a record so fair enough because it would be difficult to keep track otherwise

markodaly · 15-07-2020 12:12pm

What are the current rules, if any on describing or calling public figures names based on their appearances?
It is a trend I have noticed emerging.

Allowed or not?

Tokyo · 15-07-2020 6:05pm

markodaly wrote: »

What are the current rules, if any on describing or calling public figures names based on their appearances?
It is a trend I have noticed emerging.

Allowed or not?

Official rule? No.

Likely to end up on my list of stupid and irrelevant posts that are too dumb to action and it's easier to just delete? Yes.

Muahahaha · 15-07-2020 6:07pm

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Good question. Donald Trump is slated and abused around the clock by dozens of posters .

Thats because Donald Trump is an idiot and fair game for being called out as one.

Timberrrrrrrr · 15-07-2020 6:09pm

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Good question. Donald Trump is slated and abused around the clock by dozens of posters .

Donald Trump

The man who came up with

Pocahontas

Sleepy Joe

Crazy Bernie

Crooked Hillary

Alfred E. Neuman

Crazy Maxine Waters

Crazy Jim Acosta

Crazy Bernie

SleepyCreepy Joe

Nervous Nancy

And many many more.

Beasty · 15-07-2020 11:26pm

A reminder - 3 months on the site and a minimum 100 posts before you can post in Feedback

16-07-2020 12:58am

strikingly clean example there of exactly what the vocal side of the "ban things we disagree with" are often countered with and deny doing-

"this is wrong and terrible. except when we do it because we are right."

Rodney Bathgate · 16-07-2020 1:09am

I can’t understand how a thread like this is not considered trolling?

“To the Anti-Immigration Protect the Irish crowd- Why so Silent on American Tourists?”

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058096482/1

I don't hear our basement dwelling far righters making noise about this, why?

Tokyo · 16-07-2020 2:24am

Deleted User wrote: »

strikingly clean example there of exactly what the vocal side of the "ban things we disagree with" are often countered with and deny doing-

"this is wrong and terrible. except when we do it because we are right."

I'm not sure if you are referring to my response there, or to the posters who support/decry name calling but If my response is a "strikingly clean example?" I would say, not particularly.

"Mehole.... hurrrrr"

- adds nothing to the overall conversation and yes, I'd likely remove it.

"I'm not a fan of Mehole's politics but I agree with his point of view in this particular instance."

I'd leave it alone, as if you ignore the silly name calling, there is a point in the post. Repeat offenders may get called out on it in the thread and told to cop on.

With respect to name calling like this overall, honestly, it falls into the category of "too dumb to action" in my view. Any time I read it on the forum, the only thing I feel is that it undermines the posters point, however valid, and makes them look petty, because they felt they need they had to lower themselves to the level of an 8 year old in a school playground in order to get that point across.

Tokyo · 16-07-2020 3:59am

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

I can’t understand how a thread like this is not considered trolling?

“To the Anti-Immigration Protect the Irish crowd- Why so Silent on American Tourists?”

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058096482/1

I took a look at the Reported Posts forum just now, and the one and only reported post for that thread came in at 22:35 yesterday evening. At 01:09, already you are in feedback, outraged that this particular thread hasn't been stomped upon by the mod team. That's a 2h 34m window you've given to mods, coming on bedtime for anyone in Ireland, and 5am for me here.

It's now 09:08 here as I reply to your post.

Ask yourself this - is your outrage at "mod inaction" warranted in this case? And which one of us has unreasonable expectations here?

The world hasn't imploded bcause the thread you highlighted wasn't looked over in the small hours of the morning. The mods on the site are not here to provide your expected level of customer service, 'or else'. They are here to keep conversation on the site flowing smoothly, and to clean up messes where necessary.

Rodney Bathgate · 16-07-2020 8:02am

mike_ie wrote: »

I took a look at the Reported Posts forum just now, and the one and only reported post for that thread came in at 22:35 yesterday evening. At 01:09, already you are in feedback, outraged that this particular thread hasn't been stomped upon by the mod team. That's a 2h 34m window you've given to mods, coming on bedtime for anyone in Ireland, and 5am for me here.

It's now 09:08 here as I reply to your post.

Ask yourself this - is your outrage at "mod inaction" warranted in this case? And which one of us has unreasonable expectations here?

The world hasn't imploded bcause the thread you highlighted wasn't looked over in the small hours of the morning. The mods on the site are not here to provide your expected level of customer service, 'or else'. They are here to keep conversation on the site flowing smoothly, and to clean up messes where necessary.

Who is ‘outraged’?

The thread is still open so I assume it wasn’t deemed trolling.

Tokyo · 16-07-2020 8:55am

Rodney, it's 8am.

I have a job - every now and again I am expected to do it. I gave the thread a once over earlier and I didn't see an issue - certainly nothing that was going to cause CA to be overrun between 04:00 - 08:00 Irish time.

Looking at the thread in more detail though, other than the slightly loaded final sentence, I'm not seeing how you consider this to be trolling. The question itself is a very legitimate one - the focus on certain cultures and countries being perceived as a greater risk over western countries, where the numbers may not agree with that. It's asked in good faith from what I can see, and the responses are measured opinions.

16-07-2020 10:38am

mike_ie wrote: »

I'm not sure if you are referring to my response there, or to the posters who support/decry name calling but If my response is a "strikingly clean example?" I would say, not particularly.

- adds nothing to the overall conversation and yes, I'd likely remove it.

I'd leave it alone, as if you ignore the silly name calling, there is a point in the post. Repeat offenders may get called out on it in the thread and told to cop on.

With respect to name calling like this overall, honestly, it falls into the category of "too dumb to action" in my view. Any time I read it on the forum, the only thing I feel is that it undermines the posters point, however valid, and makes them look petty, because they felt they need they had to lower themselves to the level of an 8 year old in a school playground in order to get that point across.

not your responses mike, no. the calls that prompted it and the reactions after it!

agreed re namecalling. unless its particularly offensive or unaligned with a point i feel its a petty enough thing to be calling to be actioned

Rodney Bathgate · 16-07-2020 10:44am

mike_ie wrote: »

Rodney, it's 8am.

I have a job - every now and again I am expected to do it. I gave the thread a once over earlier and I didn't see an issue - certainly nothing that was going to cause CA to be overrun between 04:00 - 08:00 Irish time.

Looking at the thread in more detail though, other than the slightly loaded final sentence, I'm not seeing how you consider this to be trolling. The question itself is a very legitimate one - the focus on certain cultures and countries being perceived as a greater risk over western countries, where the numbers may not agree with that. It's asked in good faith from what I can see, and the responses are measured opinions.

I don’t see how a post like that is considered asking in ‘good faith’.

“A troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

I would consider it ‘inflammatory’ and it’s primary intent was ‘provoking other users into an emotional response’. The subject and body reference ‘anti-immigration’ and ‘basement dwelling far righters’ respectively.

Aside from obvious different between tourism and immigration which the poster is intentionally ignoring, in my opinion it was posted to get a rise out of other posters.

Fair enough if that isn’t considered trolling.

Tokyo · 16-07-2020 10:54am

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

I don’t see how a post like that is considered asking in ‘good faith’.

I would consider it ‘inflammatory’ and it’s primary intent was ‘provoking other users into an emotional response’. The subject and body reference ‘anti-immigration’ and ‘basement dwelling far righters’ respectively.

I see you've found Emmet's secret stash of quotation marks :P

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Aside from obvious different between tourism and immigration which the poster is intentionally ignoring, in my opinion it was posted to get a rise out of other posters.

On a more serious note, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. The fundamental point the thread is addressing is the possibility of people bringing a potentially fatal pathogen into the country, and the distinction between tourism and immigration doesn't really apply in that scenario.

I don't believe it was a bad faith argument, or at least I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that it's not, but even if it were true, the thread itself explores some very interesting points, and you yourself stated in the thread that:

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Thread hasn’t gone the way the OP expected...

...which would lead me to believe that you agree with me on that point. So now your argument boils down to whether an opening post posted in bad faith outweighs an entire thread that explores the issue in good faith.

circadian · 16-07-2020 10:58am

I demand a 99.99% SLA on a forum that I use for free that is moderated by unpaid members of the community!!

Rodney Bathgate · 16-07-2020 11:19am

circadian wrote: »

I demand a 99.99% SLA on a forum that I use for free that is moderated by unpaid members of the community!!

Who demanded that?

Overheal · 16-07-2020 3:46pm

I mean as a Yank who has never been shy about pointing out bigotry or reporting objectionable/questionable content on-site I didn't see anything to wrong with the thread. The OP has a contemporary for 2020 way of phrasing his argument sure but a valid question on why Irish xenophobia gives a pass to Americans especially under Covid, and seemed pretty reasonable for what CA/IMHO is as explained better in this feedback thread (something of a tolerating conflux for heated exchanges). Kind of a case of actually agreeing with the point the OP made though not quite the way they made it, (particularly "I don't hear our basement dwelling far righters making noise about this, why?"). I might have had half a thought to suspect it might turn into a trainwreck but frankly within a couple posts it turned out to be a fairly constructive thread.

Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Comments