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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

The unfairness of 'catch-all' threads like the "Gender Identity" thread

  • 12-05-2021 2:02pm
    #1
    Shield
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 9,631 CMod ✭✭✭✭


    I've given a lot of thought into whether raising this issue 'in the open' is the right thing to do. I believe it is. Boards users need to see that moderators disagree with each other, especially when it comes to issues of fairness and site policy.

    This thread is, in part, because a thread I started on Caitlyn Jenner's comments was closed by a CA mod, and affirmed in 'Thanks' by other CA mods as well as a current site admin. This is not an appeal to have that decision reviewed. Even if the thread is reopened, it is no longer a CA.

    For the record: I did not, and still do not believe that the "Gender Identity in Modern Ireland" thread was the correct place to direct users who wished to discuss Caitlyn's comments because 1) It was a comment on biological males in female sports, not gender and 2) It was made by an American, not an Irish person. Either of those made it worthy of it being a stand alone topic because gender identity and biological sex are not the same thing.

    When the thread was closed, users were directed to discuss it in the Gender Identity thread, where there are over 6,000 disjointed posts on an issue that has many complex dimensions.

    Yet nobody saw the unfairness of directing users to that thread... except the users who had been, in effect, pre-banned because they are already on the Gender Identity thread-banned list.

    So what we have now is, not a thread-ban, but a topic ban. If a CA mod decides that a new thread is about gender, it is liable to be closed, users directed to the Gender Identity thread... except for those who are on the thread-ban list.

    This is a wholesale unfair precedent to set. I do not know any of the 22 people who are thread-banned. I do not know if their bans are deserved or not. It's not about that. It's about highlighting how unfair it is that users can now be forever banned on speaking about a huge topic in one of our busiest forums because it has been choked into one giant thread for ease of moderation.

    To the CA mods, you all know I respect the hard work you do in there. I've said it in our private forum and I'm happy to say it in public. But you've got to be open to, and you've got to be open to criticism.

    Pre-banning users forever from speaking on certain topics by using 'catch-all' threads is unfair and the practice should be reviewed.

    -Shield.
    Post edited by Shield on


Comments

  • #2
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,547 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Some overlap: https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058179717/1/#post116975538


  • #3
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Overheal wrote: »
    Some overlap: https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058179717/1/#post116975538

    Id like to point out that, having started that thread and heard the good arguments made against the idea, and with the type of thing the OP raises in mind, I'd be wary enough now of raising the idea again.

    I'd also contrast the recent request that something be done about the proliferation of eg US shooting threads as if they were all each an important daily issue in CA with this request. I think that if this approach is going to differ based on the topic it ought to be clear why.


  • #4
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,542 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    I can see where you are coming from OP, but on the other side of it, even though your thread was aimed at focusing the discussion on participation in sports, it ended up being no different to the 'catch-all' thread, which means that posters who have been thread-banned from that thread are then free to continue to make the same kind of posts that got them banned on the new yet very similar thread.

    I think it is an issue in CA that a thread like yours, and indeed almost any thread that is started with a focus on a specific aspect of a topic (transgender, the catholic church, feminism, muslims, and so on) inevitably, and quite quickly, moves away from the specific and towards the general, and becomes the same old thread we've seen many many times before.


  • #5
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,647 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    I'd have to agree with a lot of the OP's post and I'll widen the point if I may. There do seem to be a lot of topics that are moderated on based on expediency rather than fairness or indeed common sense sometimes.

    On top of that, it seems there is a definite bias on some of these "controversial" topics, or indeed any topic that goes against the "common wisdom" that determines mod actions based on their personal feelings of the topic rather than any sense of consistency or impartiality.

    Yes, mods are volunteers. Yes they do it on their own time. No they're not perfect and don't always get it right (and no-one expects them to), but I would also remind them that the users that generate the content on this site and are keeping it alive in the face of increasing competition from more popular sites and apps also deserve to have their points heard and "not interfered with" as much as possible.

    Absolutely sanction where it's obvious users are trolling or baiting (and I do think that a lot of this is overlooked deliberately - perhaps to generate conversation like the talk radio shows do with planted callers?), but this obsession with trying to control the flow of a conversation and limit or pigeon-hole responses because "reasons" has to end.

    Also conscious of the recent post by the new owner(s) of the site wherein they are looking at ways to make the site sustainable - a key part of that MUST be the valid and reasonable feedback from users, mods and other users of this site. One thing that doesn't sit well with me (and never has) is the completely user-unfriendly feedback and appeals mechanism that has been instituted in the last few years. This is not a multinational and we don't need a HR-style process to engage with the company - again I think this was done for moderation convenience rather than user experience. It also very quickly becomes a pile-on with a slew of the same posters with lots of forums under their names circling wagons and thanking each other.

    These topics will become even more important if/when attempts are made to further commercialise the site.


  • #6
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Admin: Please read the charter, users here less than three months are not permitted to post in feedback


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Baggly
    Registered Users Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    osarusan wrote: »
    I can see where you are coming from OP, but on the other side of it, even though your thread was aimed at focusing the discussion on participation in sports, it ended up being no different to the 'catch-all' thread, which means that posters who have been thread-banned from that thread are then free to continue to make the same kind of posts that got them banned on the new yet very similar thread.

    I think it is an issue in CA that a thread like yours, and indeed almost any thread that is started with a focus on a specific aspect of a topic (transgender, the catholic church, feminism, muslims, and so on) inevitably, and quite quickly, moves away from the specific and towards the general, and becomes the same old thread we've seen many many times before.

    To confirm, this is literally what happened. Nothing more, nothing less. Same people arguing the same points; with those threadbanned in the other thread given a second chance to make the same points that got them threadbanned in the first place. We gave it a chance to run, and thats what it turned into.

    And OP, for what its worth, im very open to feedback. Im even open to constructive criticism. But i dont have to accept criticism if i dont believe its correct or relevant. The suggestion that i or anyone has to accept criticism is very odd.


  • #8
    Shield
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 9,631 CMod ✭✭✭✭Shield


    Baggly wrote: »
    And OP, for what its worth, im very open to feedback. Im even open to constructive criticism. But i dont have to accept criticism if i dont believe its correct or relevant. The suggestion that i or anyone has to accept criticism is very odd.
    I take your point. I have changed “accept” to “be open to” and I agree that I should have used this from the outset. Apologies.


  • #9
    Baggly
    Registered Users Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    No probs i accept the amended version


  • #10
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    The 124 retired generals and Admirals question Biden's mental health thread.

    Moved to the Biden thread, with the mod node note.

    "There will be no references to Sleepy Joe, or any "failing mental health"

    Seems a bit impossible.


  • #11
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,127 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Closing this now.

    Baggly's explanation is more than adequate.
    Same people arguing the same points; with those threadbanned in the other thread given a second chance to make the same points that got them threadbanned in the first place. We gave it a chance to run, and thats what it turned into.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement