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
Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum
Comments
-
So my issue with that set of theories is that you are again quoting ancient history. You are then skipping forward 3 years and saying things are linked.
Things from two different fora.
With a different mod team.
With different users.
You then suggest one side of the argument was trying to shut down the discussion. You haven't actually shown this. In fact I'm getting the feeling you are assuming the people you disagree with are doing this, and are assuming this based on no evidence.
I'll be honest I feel like you have a theory and are finding posts and facts that might seem to support it and ignoring other information.
It's a little hard to take your feedback on board because of this. If I'm wrong I'd be happy for you to correct me however. On review of the recent thread I don't think I am though.
Its a long thread and bans and cards which were used as a deterrant (some of which you might not be aware of) are not having the desired effect for some individuals, so closing the discussion is an acceptable course at that stage.
To suggest mods are closing threads on the topic from 'one side' based on the evidence you provided is very narrow and plainly wrong to be honest.0 -
So my issue with that set of theories is that you are again quoting ancient history. You are then skipping forward 3 years and saying things are linked.
Things from two different fora.
With a different mod team.
With different users.
You then suggest one side of the argument was trying to shut down the discussion. You haven't actually shown this. In fact I'm getting the feeling you are assuming the people you disagree with are doing this, and are assuming this based on no evidence.
I'll be honest I feel like you have a theory and are finding posts and facts that might seem to support it and ignoring other information.
It's a little hard to take your feedback on board because of this. If I'm wrong I'd be happy for you to correct me however. On review of the recent thread I don't think I am though.
Its a long thread and bans and cards which were used as a deterrant (some of which you might not be aware of) are not having the desired effect for some individuals, so closing the discussion is an acceptable course at that stage.
To suggest mods are closing threads on the topic from 'one side' based on the evidence you provided is very narrow and plainly wrong to be honest.
<snip> You have been told numerous times you have not been on the site long enough to post in Feedback. I'll enforce it with a ban if you do so again
Beasty0 -
So my issue with that set of theories is that you are again quoting ancient history. You are then skipping forward 3 years and saying things are linked.
Things from two different fora.
With a different mod team.
With different users
And same outcome, fancy that. I suspect you have many of the same users actually and the same mods.You then suggest one side of the argument was trying to shut down the discussion. You haven't actually shown this. In fact I'm getting the feeling you are assuming the people you disagree with are doing this, and are assuming this based on no evidence.
No, I haven't shown it; but am I right or not? You mods should know this easily as you can see which posts are reported and which people are reporting them. So either tell me I'm wrong or I'm right, but don't leave it up to me to 'prove', which can only be done by reading the whole thread. I was already checking for examples, but if I start quoting it will go on for pages and pages and pages, I'm happy to do so I have a few hours tomorrow if you like me to do that.
It's easier to see in the Trump thread which contains many of the same suspects from the Antifa thread. They are often happy to see posters banned and actioned upon, the way they 'thank' posts from moderators banning people.
I'll be honest I feel like you have a theory and are finding posts and facts that might seem to support it and ignoring other information.
It's a little hard to take your feedback on board because of this. If I'm wrong I'd be happy for you to correct me however. On review of the recent thread I don't think I am though.
You could just tell me I'm wrong, as you are the ones with all the information, not me, but no-one has told me that so far. Just tell me I'm wrong and that it's not the same people reporting posts over and over again, I could even PM you the names of the posters I think are doing it, I bet they correlate.0 -
What happened to the Autumn thread, dont understand why it was nukesd?
All eyes on Kursk. Slava Ukraini.
0 -
2u2me wrote:normal, decent people dont' believe in silencing others.You mods should know this easily as you can see which posts are reported and which people are reporting them.
Is the implication here you do not report posts? If you are reporting, and aren't happy with the results, or an apparent lack of action, I'd suggest PM'ing the mods and asking about their justifications for not taking actions.
I never understand why people pretend not reporting things is some badge of honor, yet then complain that mods, in effect, don't read their minds or exhibit other psychic powers.You were one of the main culprits in the most recent Antifa thread. You were warned not to engage in bickering with another user and yet you received no infraction/ban/warning when you did exactly that same thing again.
And neither apparently did the other party. My only sin was being addressed directly, and so replying to users directly addressing me, who then pretend they were being bullied by the sheer outrage of my replying to people speaking directly to me. The same person has been violating the rules even here in Feedback, and I don't see a card, he's been given a lot of rope to break the rules here yes?
This running narrative that I am 'protected' or whatever is silly: I have 3 reds and 2 yellows from CA/IMHO in the last 2 months, and threadbans.0 -
Is the implication here you do not report posts? If you are reporting, and aren't happy with the results, or an apparent lack of action, I'd suggest PM'ing the mods and asking about their justifications for not taking actions.
I never understand why people pretend not reporting things is some badge of honor, yet then complain that mods, in effect, don't read their minds or exhibit other psychic powers.
And neither apparently did the other party. My only sin was being addressed directly, and so replying to users directly addressing me, who then pretend they were being bullied by the sheer outrage of my replying to people speaking directly to me. The same person has been violating the rules even here in Feedback, and I don't see a card, he's been given a lot of rope to break the rules here yes?
This running narrative that I am 'protected' or whatever is silly: I have 3 reds and 2 yellows from CA/IMHO in the last 2 months, and threadbans.
I've never ignored anyone on boards, so congratulations you're the first ever.
Not because I dislike your opinions but because your constant trolling of threads and people.
You completely ignore and sidestep the main issues that I brought up, how the shutting down of discussions has been weaponized by your lot.
Your response the people you'r arguing against should also be reporting you is just the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.
I was making the point that dickish behaviour will be encouraged with these rules, just like we're seeing across the CA forum now. People being dicks and not honestly engaging in the discussion being presented.
Strawmanning everything they want to in instead.
I say that you are one of the main culprits in all of this Overheal and your defence is look how many red and yellow cards I have; are you for real?
Actually scrap that; I don't care. You argue in good faith less than 1<% of the time.0 -
You could just tell me I'm wrong, as you are the ones with all the information, not me, but no-one has told me that so far. Just tell me I'm wrong and that it's not the same people reporting posts over and over again, I could even PM you the names of the posters I think are doing it, I bet they correlate.
Its your theory. From my point of view it is wrong, but im not going to dismiss the theory without asking you to maybe develop it some more. Its yours to prove, not mine to disprove. Im trying to discuss your theory with you - which you presented as a fait accompli - but if what you wanted was my opinion, ive no problem sharing it when asked (and have done so now).
I'm not revealing info around who does or doesn't report posts - thats privileged info and who does or doesnt report posts is irrelevant to the discussion, tbh (mainly because reports are not the issue at hand here - the mod decision to close the thread is).0 -
I argue in good faith all of the time, actually, and that <1% comment and your 'im ignoring you now congratulations' tirade screams of petulance. Grow up.
I assume a portion of the posters you pretend to be a champion of needed to see that I'm not 'the protected one' the way they constantly moan about it in the threads, so I volunteered information that is otherwise nobody's business.
Your main issue "shutting down of discussions has been weaponized by your lot," is an entirely baseless accusation. What proof do you have that only one side of a debate reports posts? We only have your implicit admission that you do not report posts. I've already pointed out when these threads were shut down the action was as much thanked by "your lot" as your lot.Your response the people you'r arguing against should also be reporting you is just the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.
Then get out more: you have often been told or seen said on this website, 'if you have a problem with a post, report it.'0 -
Its your theory. From my point of view it is wrong, but im not going to dismiss the theory without asking you to maybe develop it some more. Its yours to prove, not mine to disprove. Im trying to discuss your theory with you - which you presented as a fait accompli - but if what you wanted was my opinion, ive no problem sharing it when asked (and have done so now).
I'm not revealing info around who does or doesn't report posts - thats privileged info and who does or doesnt report posts is irrelevant to the discussion, tbh (mainly because reports are not the issue at hand here - the mod decision to close the thread is).
Well a theory explains the facts. Gravity is a theory but it explains the facts we see around us; that objects always fall towards the earth, the moon orbits the earth etc... The fact is that every Antifa discussion has thus far been shutdown on boards(That wasn't positive about Antifa).
Another fact is that the people happy to defend Antifa were also the ones happy to see the discussion shutdown. Just look at the responses in this thread, and the people who liked overheals' posts. The very same people from the Antifa thread.
My assumption is that those defending Antifa were the same ones that were reporting the posts, but I guess I will never know that.
I can only go on what other social media sites say and are doing, and they are experiencing the same problems on facebook, twitter et al, people are forming groups and reporting en mass to have discussions shutdown. Groups of woke people, some call it 'cancel culture'. They believe they are fighting against nazis or something they are the most deluded group of people to have ever existed on this planet IMO.
I can post dozens of pages of evidence for my theory, but I will never be able to prove my theory, since a theory can never been proven, only disproven.
Would you like me to provide examples of where the woke users were being needlessly aggressive and illogical to the point of appearing like trolls? That has happened thousands of times in the Antifa thread. I can either PM you or reply in this thread, I only ask that if I do that, you don't dismiss me at the end of it and say 'that proves nothing; that is only evidence'. Because it is impossible for me to prove a theory.
I submit that:
Moderators will shutdown discussions when there are too many reported posts: fact
Users are well aware of this: fact
Users who want to get a discussion shutdown know they only have generate reported posts and will continue on the thread 24/7 until this happens: fact.
My theory that explains these facts is that people are using these rules purposefully to shutdown discussions. A theory that you know whether is true or not because you can see the reported posts.0 -
I argue in good faith all of the time, actually, and that <1% comment and your 'im ignoring you now congratulations' tirade screams of petulance. Grow up.
I assume a portion of the posters you pretend to be a champion of needed to see that I'm not 'the protected one' the way they constantly moan about it in the threads, so I volunteered information that is otherwise nobody's business.
Your main issue "shutting down of discussions has been weaponized by your lot," is an entirely baseless accusation. What proof do you have that only one side of a debate reports posts? We only have your implicit admission that you do not report posts. I've already pointed out when these threads were shut down the action was as much thanked by "your lot" as your lot.
Then get out more: you have often been told or seen said on this website, 'if you have a problem with a post, report it.'
This is absolute garbage. You do not argue in good faith all the time. I’ve been given several warnings due to you blatantly and ADMITTEDLY trolling current affair threads multiple times. While
I don’t always agree with every poster on here you’re a terrible example to have on this site. If anyone else acted like you they’d be gone.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hunky Monster wrote: »This is absolute garbage. You do not argue in good faith all the time. I’ve been given several warnings due to you blatantly and ADMITTEDLY trolling current affair threads multiple times. While
I don’t always agree with every poster on here you’re a terrible example to have on this site. If anyone else acted like you they’d be gone.
Wow. Where did I 'admit' to trolling? That's a bold accusation and I assume you have some sort of evidence???
If I'm the troll what is this post of yours: choir boy shyte?0 -
-
Hunky Monster wrote: »I must apologise.
For a second I confused you with another mod on here.
You just accused me of "ADMITTEDLY" trolling. Where is your evidence? I assume you must have some to make such a bold accusation?
Do you mean to say you are walking back that accusation or what, I'm unclear tbh.0 -
-
Hunky Monster wrote: »I’m confusing you with another mod. That is all.
Fair enough so. I think you are remembering Faceman a few weeks back:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113785709&postcount=4370 -
Fair enough so. I think you are remembering Faceman a few weeks back:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113785709&postcount=437
Yeah you’re spot on. I had to do a search for the thread. Sorry.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 72503
Back on topic, which means you should not be personalising anything. Discuss the forum but do not discuss any individuals. If anyone has a complaint that can be dealt with in Help Desk0 -
Well a theory explains the facts. Gravity is a theory but it explains the facts we see around us; that objects always fall towards the earth, the moon orbits the earth etc... The fact is that every Antifa discussion has thus far been shutdown on boards(That wasn't positive about Antifa).
Another fact is that the people happy to defend Antifa were also the ones happy to see the discussion shutdown. Just look at the responses in this thread, and the people who liked overheals' posts. The very same people from the Antifa thread.
My assumption is that those defending Antifa were the same ones that were reporting the posts, but I guess I will never know that.
I can only go on what other social media sites say and are doing, and they are experiencing the same problems on facebook, twitter et al, people are forming groups and reporting en mass to have discussions shutdown. Groups of woke people, some call it 'cancel culture'. They believe they are fighting against nazis or something they are the most deluded group of people to have ever existed on this planet IMO.
I can post dozens of pages of evidence for my theory, but I will never be able to prove my theory, since a theory can never been proven, only disproven.
Would you like me to provide examples of where the woke users were being needlessly aggressive and illogical to the point of appearing like trolls? That has happened thousands of times in the Antifa thread. I can either PM you or reply in this thread, I only ask that if I do that, you don't dismiss me at the end of it and say 'that proves nothing; that is only evidence'. Because it is impossible for me to prove a theory.
I submit that:
Moderators will shutdown discussions when there are too many reported posts: fact
Users are well aware of this: fact
Users who want to get a discussion shutdown know they only have generate reported posts and will continue on the thread 24/7 until this happens: fact.
My theory that explains these facts is that people are using these rules purposefully to shutdown discussions. A theory that you know whether is true or not because you can see the reported posts.
Most of the facts you have presented are half true.....Not all objects always fall towards Earth. Look up centrifugal force. Look up magnetism. Both cause objects to sometimes not fall towards the Earth.
Re: Every discussion being shut down - well this is a biased conclusion of facts. You assume the reason for closure is the 'popular' sway of the thread rather than the behaviour of those who hold that 'popular' sway. You are giving anyone who abuses the rules but is 'negative' towards the subject matter a free pass.
To be clear: discussions get shut down because of rule breakages and poster behaviour; not poster opinions. I cant be more clear on that.
Re: Theories cannot be proven....well thats not right. Theories can be disproven having one been proved; but if you dont prove something in the first place; how can you establish the validity of gravity, as you attempted to do before? Any theory can be proven to a reasonable degree; and can then be disproven by further research and testing. Thats scientific theory.
The first "fact" in your 'submission' is not correct; the other two fall apart as a result. You asked me to tell you if you are wrong; i have done so.
'that proves nothing; that is only evidence'
Evidence helps prove things. The above sentence doesnt make any sense whatsoever and i wouldnt say that (for your own clarity).
Im sorry but your post seems disingenuous to the point that you trying to put words in my mouth is offputting. As with every pm i get as a mod, i look at them and assess them. You will be no different if you do indeed PM me on actual unbiased evidence.
Having said that; my stance as things stand is that, based on the evidence you have provided to now, your theory and submissions are wrong. You would do well to actually take my comments on board before sending any further 'evidence'....because what you are posting here isnt proving what you claim it does.0 -
To be clear: discussions get shut down because of rule breakages and poster behaviour; not poster opinions. I cant be more clear on that.
You can say how clear you're being but at the end of the day it's simply untrue, and I know that having seen behind the scenes.
Left wing posters get away with far more than right wing posters, not due to rules being broken but because a majority of mods, and the site itself, are left leaning.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is it wrote: »You can say how clear you're being but at the end of the day it's simply untrue, and I know that having seen behind the scenes.
Left wing posters get away with far more than right wing posters, not due to rules being broken but because a majority of mods, and the site itself, are left leaning.
I dont know your experience but ive been modding multiple fora (including the busy ones) for years now and im only seeing rule breakages being actioned.
Its how i mod and i would greatly enjoy you trying to prove otherwise for me. If there is any effort to moderate opinions, i have never ever seen it discussed or encouraged or coordinated in any way. And as ive said here in this thread previously, if i did see opinions being moderated, you can be damn sure id be calling it out / quitting as mod / leaving the site.
I would further request of you to give an examples of someone being actioned for their opinion(s), rather than behaviour. If its as common as you are suggesting, it should be fairly easy find some examples?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 72503
That's an interesting observation, but not one I would agree with. I think the majority of mods look at the post rather than the politics behind itThis is it wrote: »You can say how clear you're being but at the end of the day it's simply untrue, and I know that having seen behind the scenes.
Left wing posters get away with far more than right wing posters, not due to rules being broken but because a majority of mods, and the site itself, are left leaning.
And if anything I would consider myself "right-leaning" (although I don';t think there's much evidence of my own politics anywhere on the site) with most mods somewhere in the middle based on what I see of them posting rather than "behind the scenes" - I really cannot recall any evidence suggesting what you claim "behind the scenes". Equally even if you were to frequent the mods forum you would probably find a majority of mods rarely post there and it's hardly ever with political motives/observations0 -
You assume the reason for closure is the 'popular' sway of the thread rather than the behaviour of those who hold that 'popular' sway. You are giving anyone who abuses the rules but is 'negative' towards the subject matter a free pass.
No I'm not, I would just expect you guys to threadban those users like you would in other threads, let's say the Gemma thread and the Trump thread.
But it continually doesn't happen in Antifa threads across this site they continually get shutdown. So that is a fact no matter how much you dress it up.
To be clear: discussions get shut down because of rule breakages and poster behaviour; not poster opinions. I cant be more clear on that.
I never said that the threads are being shutdown because of people's opinions. My claim is that users are forming a cabal and purposefully trolling the threads they want shutdown, and the users they want to shutdown. The first page of that Antifa thread has posters highly critical of Antifa, of them 4 have closed their accounts; one has been banned; 3 get constant abuse across these boards.
That's not scientific theory. No theory in science has ever been proven, that's why it's called a theory. The closest possible theory we have to being a proof we still call theorems.Re: Theories cannot be proven....well thats not right. Theories can be disproven having one been proved; but if you dont prove something in the first place; how can you establish the validity of gravity, as you attempted to do before? Any theory can be proven to a reasonable degree; and can then be disproven by further research and testing. Thats scientific theory.
Nothing is provable, gravity has never been proven. It has only stood the test of time of not being disproven.
That's fair enough that you tell me I'm wrong. The thing is though you can't argue with facts. All the Antifa threads have been shutdown because of the enormous amount of reported posts generated. I previously linked to the moderator notes that shutdown these threads citing this reason, so you're just wrong here and to argue with facts is disturbing.The first "fact" in your 'submission' is not correct; the other two fall apart as a result. You asked me to tell you if you are wrong; i have done so.Having said that; my stance as things stand is that, based on the evidence you have provided to now, your theory and submissions are wrong. You would do well to actually take my comments on board before sending any further 'evidence'....because what you are posting here isnt proving what you claim it does.
Of course my theory is wrong if you can't even agree on the facts.0 -
In the thread in afterhours "Win for antifa" of the posters that were strictly critical of Antifa on the first page, 3 have been banned and 3 have deleted their accounts.
From the Antifa handbook:It is true that the dynamics of “no platforming” changed significantly with the advent of the Internet. The Internet is a platform that anti-fascists cannot completely contest, though efforts to persuade Reddit and other forums to ban racist threads have borne some fruit.
[...]
Anti-fascists conduct researchon the Far Right online, in person, and sometimes through infiltration; they dox them, push cultural milieux to disown them, pressure bosses to fire them, and demand that venues cancel their shows, conferences, and meetings0 -
No I'm not, I would just expect you guys to threadban those users like you would in other threads, let's say the Gemma thread and the Trump thread.
But it continually doesn't happen in Antifa threads across this site they continually get shutdown. So that is a fact no matter how much you dress it up.
I never said that the threads are being shutdown because of people's opinions. My claim is that users are forming a cabal and purposefully trolling the threads they want shutdown, and the users they want to shutdown. The first page of that Antifa thread has posters highly critical of Antifa, of them 4 have closed their accounts; one has been banned; 3 get constant abuse across these boards.
That's not scientific theory. No theory in science has ever been proven, that's why it's called a theory. The closest possible theory we have to being a proof we still call theorems.
Nothing is provable, gravity has never been proven. It has only stood the test of time of not being disproven.
That's fair enough that you tell me I'm wrong. The thing is though you can't argue with facts. All the Antifa threads have been shutdown because of the enormous amount of reported posts generated. I previously linked to the moderator notes that shutdown these threads citing this reason, so you're just wrong here and to argue with facts is disturbing.
Of course my theory is wrong if you can't even agree on the facts.
I can agree on facts - you just haven't presented many that are actually facts. As i have said, please PM me on whatever you feel would help and ill give it an earnest appraisal, as i do for all users.
Im gonna let this go after this because its largely irrelevant but when you prove a theory it stops being a theory and becomes a fact / principle / law. So you are right, if something is a theory it isnt proven. But you are wrong in that theories cannot be proven. You are conflating things (and i have no idea why; but in an effort to clarify things, this site will explain the difference between a theory and a law (of which broadly speaking gravity is both) better than i can.0 -
I dont know your experience but ive been modding multiple fora (including the busy ones) for years now and im only seeing rule breakages being actioned.
Nobody is saying that Boards' mods just ban and action users without citing a reason. They're not that stupid. The point is that a right leaning user will get actioned for rule breeches which you will rarely if ever see left leaning users actioned for. Or, if they do get moderated, it will be a slap and the wrist for them whereas the right leaning user will get threadbanned/forumbanned.
It's absurd to the point of laughable to act as there is no truth to that. The disgraceful moderation of threads leading up to the 8th Amendment referendum left even fence sitters in no doubt to just how willing many mods were to apply the "rules" when it suited them in order to ensure that those threads remained as free from prolife views as possible.Its how i mod and i would greatly enjoy you trying to prove otherwise for me. If there is any effort to moderate opinions, i have never ever seen it discussed or encouraged or coordinated in any way. And as ive said here in this thread previously, if i did see opinions being moderated, you can be damn sure id be calling it out / quitting as mod / leaving the site.
It goes on all the time. What it takes for left leaning users to get moderated is a hell of a lot more than what it takes for right leaning ones to. It's sitewide, not just CA by the way. The Politics forum is by far the worst in that regard. For years you had the mods there banning anyone that dared say anything about the Clintons that they couldn't fully back up with evidence (some of which was understandable - the Pizzagate nonsense a good example) but yet carte blanche has pretty much given for the left leaning members of Boards to say what they hell they liked about Trump since his election. Anyone that says that the moderation around what you can say about Trump is the same as the moderation around what you can say about liberal politicians, has to be having a laugh.I would further request of you to give an examples of someone being actioned for their opinion(s), rather than behaviour. If its as common as you are suggesting, it should be fairly easy find some examples?
No mod is ever going to action a user and say they actioned them for their opinions. No, what they will do instead is just cite a charter rule that you have apparently broken and if you point out that other users, the ones with opposing viewpoints, do the same thing all the time without issue, you will generally just be told that what other users do is not important, that it is your posts that are being discussed. This goes on all the time in the DR forum. If the user persists they will generally be obtusely told that they are now guilty of "rules lawyering". Almost impossible then for any user to be able to make an argument that mods moderate in a biased way when you [collective you] have effectively made it impossible for them to make an argument based on moderation inconsistency.
I'll give you one example from CA (given that's the forum in question in this particular thread): two months ago I posting the following post:Outlaw Pete wrote: »This won't do the narrative that Shokin was removed for corruption purposes any good and will absolutely affect Biden's run for office.Poroshenko: "Joe, I have a second positive news for you: Yesterday I met with the General Prosecutor Shokin and despite of the fact that we didn't have ANY corruption charges, we don't have ANY information about him doing something wrong .. I especially ask him to resign as his position as a state person .. as a finish of my meeting with him he promised me to give me the written statement of his resignation and one hour ago he bring me the written statement of his resignation.."
Biden: "Great.."
The mod deleted it and posted "No Video Dumps" despite my post being a million miles from being a video dump.
I did PM the mod but they never replied. Would seem to me some mods just act on volume of reported posts over all else and reports from certain left leaning users (that have been around a long time) are given a level of credence when they perhaps shouldn't be These would be the same left leaning users that thank mod posts when users are threadbanned. Of course they do, sure that was their objective in reporting the users to begin with. Well, that and the hope that if they report enough posts the thread might get locked and then they won't have to deal with something being discussed when they'd rather wasn't.0 -
Advertisement
-
I would say posting a ten minute video with no actual summary or opinion is a bit of a video dump.0
-
Course you would, Mike - and your political leanings have nothing to do with your view here I suppose. Would you be on here calling a video of a conversation with Trump a "video dump". Not a chance.
As for saying I posted "no opinion" - what's this, scotch mist?Outlaw Pete wrote:This won't do the narrative that Shokin was removed for corruption purposes any good and will absolutely affect Biden's run for office.
The video was included as a source for the Biden quote I used. Had I not included the clip, I would just have been asked for a source.
Oh and the video is timestamped at the quote by the way. Press play.0 -
I can agree on facts - you just haven't presented many that are actually facts. As i have said, please PM me on whatever you feel would help and ill give it an earnest appraisal, as i do for all users.
Im gonna let this go after this because its largely irrelevant but when you prove a theory it stops being a theory and becomes a fact / principle / law. So you are right, if something is a theory it isnt proven. But you are wrong in that theories cannot be proven. You are conflating things (and i have no idea why; but in an effort to clarify things, this site will explain the difference between a theory and a law (of which broadly speaking gravity is both) better than i can.
No in fact you are wrong. Theories can not be proven in science. NEVER. They can only be disproven. What you are thinking about is a 'law' in science.
From the link that you provided:While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded because of new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.
So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law of gravity that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory of gravity that describes why the objects attract each other.
A theory explains the fact.
Here's another definition:A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
A theory explains the facts.0 -
2u2me wrote:No in fact you are wrong. Theories can not be proven in science. NEVER. They can only be disproven. What you are thinking about is a 'law' in science.
You are wrong but I think it's better we discuss it via pm than further detail the thread.0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Course you would, Mike - and your political leanings have nothing to do with your view here I suppose. Would you be on here calling a video of a conversation with Trump a "video dump". Not a chance.
As for saying I posted "no opinion" - what's this, scotch mist?
The video was included as a source for the Biden quote I used. Had I not included the clip, I would just have been asked for a source.
Oh and the video is timestamped at the quote by the way. Press play.
I'd agree with Mike on this one and I have no idea of your political leanings or whatever.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 22734
Outlaw Pete wrote: »It's sitewide, not just CA by the way. The Politics forum is by far the worst in that regard. For years you had the mods there banning anyone that dared say anything about the Clintons that they couldn't fully back up with evidence (some of which was understandable - the Pizzagate nonsense a good example) but yet carte blanche has pretty much given for the left leaning members of Boards to say what they hell they liked about Trump since his election. Anyone that says that the moderation around what you can say about Trump is the same as the moderation around what you can say about liberal politicians, has to be having a laugh.
I've gone to great lengths to explain to you before that this allegation is completely untrue, and you've repeated it again. The rules apply to all posters and we don't play favourites with any particular position.
I've practially got RSI from moderating the Trump threads and most of those mod actions have been directed at anti-Trump posts in fact, mainly because they're far more numerous than pro-Trump posts.
The moderation record for those threads is there for any Admin or Community Manager to see and I think will demonstrate that we've been nothing but even-handed.0 -
Pete I don't think it's fair to tar all mods with the same brush as you did, and I also think it's unfair to call a comparison between multiple fora, all of which have bespoke rules, as representative. I also think your hypothesis around one side or the other being actioned more because of their leanings to give the same carte Blanche that I described to 2me2u.
If you are trying to say (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that mods are actioning with ulterior motives to do with one side of the argument, then all I can say is that is literally unprovable, and it's not what happens with my modding. And that's all anyone can actually say to something like that.0 -
Chips Lovell wrote: »I've gone to great lengths to explain to you before that this allegation is completely untrue, and you've repeated it again. The rules apply to all posters and we don't play favourites with any particular position.
I've practially got RSI from moderating the Trump threads and most of those mod actions have been directed at anti-Trump posts in fact, mainly because they're far more numerous than pro-Trump posts.
The moderation record for those threads is there for any Admin or Community Manager to see and I think will demonstrate that we've been nothing but even-handed.
Chips, the Politics forum is the most biased moderated forum on Boards. Just because you're getting away with it, doesn't make it not the case. The Trump thread there reads like a liberal chat room for heaven sake and that's because you have allowed the left leaning users to control the thread by way reporting posts.
Here's an example of just how biased the place is. I was forum banned for posting a Trump tweet on the Trump thread. You also threadbanned me and used the pathetic laughable excuse that my opinions were "conspiracy theories" - even though the view you highlighted is an oft expressed view and pretty common, to the degree that many liberals would even agree with it. Yet here is a clear example of personal abuse and the liberal user just got a slap on the wrist. So forum bans and thread bans for opinions and 'now now' moderation for vile abuse and you can't see the inconsistency in that?
Come on, who do you folks think you're kidding. You may all have each other's back but please don't think we're all buying this 'We're not politically biased' nonsense. Not suggesting all Politics/CA mods are incapable of being impartial, as that's not the case as some clearly try damn hard to be fair, but there are so bloody many that don't even try to hide their bias as they know admin have their back given the vast majority of them are on the very same page.
Locking that Antifa thread was a disgrace by the way. There are circular arguments on every longstanding thread. It's no excuse.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Here's an example of just how biased the place is. I was forum banned for posting a Trump tweet on the Trump thread. You also threadbanned me and used the pathetic laughable excuse that my opinions were "conspiracy theories" - even though the view you highlighted is an oft expressed view and pretty common, to the degree that many liberals would even agree with it. Yet here is a clear example of personal abuse and the liberal user just got a slap on the wrist. So forum bans and thread bans for opinions and 'now now' moderation for vile abuse and you can't see the inconsistency in that?
As I explained to you before, that ban came after you'd previously gotten five cards and a ban in Politics. The user who directed personal abuse at you, it was their first moderator action. In other words, they were receiving the same treatment you received, where we started with warnings and infractions and progressed to bans. If both of your track records had been the same, I'd agree it would have been inconsistent, but they weren't.
Also, note, nobody gets actioned for posting Trump tweets in Trump threads. More correctly, people get actioned for posting tweets in threads. As mods, we're blue in the face stressing that its a discussion forum and simply posting links to news stories, tweets and videos isn't a contribution to the debate. That rule applies to all topics and all viewpoints.0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Nobody is saying that Boards' mods just ban and action users without citing a reason. They're not that stupid. The point is that a right leaning user will get actioned for rule breeches which you will rarely if ever see left leaning users actioned for. Or, if they do get moderated, it will be a slap and the wrist for them whereas the right leaning user will get threadbanned/forumbanned.
It's absurd to the point of laughable to act as there is no truth to that. The disgraceful moderation of threads leading up to the 8th Amendment referendum left even fence sitters in no doubt to just how willing many mods were to apply the "rules" when it suited them in order to ensure that those threads remained as free from prolife views as possible.
Seeing as you brought up the 8th amendment threads and I was one of the mods in AH for that period, I'll answer this one for you.
As a mod there and one who posted against the repeal (feel free to check it if you wish), there was no effort whatsoever made by any mod, Cmod, Admin or office staff member to instruct, coerce or force any mod at the time to favour any one side in the discussion over another.
There was every effort possible made to allow a discussion of the 8th amendment referendum. Despite the eventual majority in the country and an even higher proportion in favour of the repeal on the site, a huge effort was made by mods, and discussed with Cmods and Admins behind the scenes, to allow a discussion to continue. It extended as far as allowing those against the referendum a huge, massively huge, ginormous amount of rope in the discussion. In part, this was because this is a discussion site and because opposing views do need to be heard. Fair play to those posting against the majority consensus, many of them gamely held out to the end despite huge efforts made to overwhelm them with accusations of them not answering questions when they may already have or simply found it difficult to cope with the sheer volume of opposing views and sometimes bile thrown their way.
The only bias shown was in favour of allowing a discussion to continue. Cards and bans were applied to both sides but to my recollection, any bias shown was in favour of the losing side. I myself sanctioned a good number of contributors who were on the same side of the debate as me because they were well beyond the pale in terms of discussion and debate and many having had repeated warnings to tone down their posting style. Many felt provoked into responding to jibes and would have lesser sanctions applied than similar posts from the opposing side.
And many, many pro appeal posters were sanctioned also.
From a mods perspective, it was a horrific debate to moderate.
This debate about wings is one I find very silly. Who exactly determines where the line is drawn in left and right wing debates? Is it yourself or is there a central Wing Register that we check in our credentials on a range of criteria and are then told where on this mythical aeroplane we find ourselves?It goes on all the time. What it takes for left leaning users to get moderated is a hell of a lot more than what it takes for right leaning ones to. It's sitewide, not just CA by the way.
The majority of people I come in contact with on a daily basis have a range of views on different subjects and some of their views would be far to the right of either of ours on particular subjects and some far to the left. There is no mandatory list of beliefs and levels of belief one has to have to be pigeonholed into a particular belief syatem.
After all, what would happen if the Wing Resister, on average, finds my overall views were to the left of yours?
Would that make you right wing then?
It's mad, Ted.
Posts are dealt with on their merit. If a sanction is required, it's applied, regardless of which 'wing' the reporter or reported wish themselves to be. On volume reporting, it's fairly clear after a short period which posters are attempting to carry on as you state above. If anything, it detracts from the gravity with which their reports are treated. They will be looked at, certainly, and actioned if necessary but many posters have been warned about abusing the report post function.I did PM the mod but they never replied. Would seem to me some mods just act on volume of reported posts over all else and reports from certain left leaning users (that have been around a long time) are given a level of credence when they perhaps shouldn't be These would be the same left leaning users that thank mod posts when users are threadbanned. Of course they do, sure that was their objective in reporting the users to begin with. Well, that and the hope that if they report enough posts the thread might get locked and then they won't have to deal with something being discussed when they'd rather wasn't.
But at the end of the day, Pete, it's all down to beliefs. I doubt anything is going to convince you of anything other than a left wing conspiracy on Boards whereas in reality it's more to do with the demographics and relative maturity of posters on the site, with the younger generations generally being to the left of the older generations.0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »It's absurd to the point of laughable to act as there is no truth to that. The disgraceful moderation of threads leading up to the 8th Amendment referendum left even fence sitters in no doubt to just how willing many mods were to apply the "rules" when it suited them in order to ensure that those threads remained as free from prolife views as possible.
Wow. Just wow.
You cannot be serious. Can you?
Of course it would have helped their cause if certain pro-life posters could have refrained from using terms like "murderers" and posting pics of miscarried foetus parts, but the pro-life viewpoint was extremely well aired on every single abortion thread on this site and to claim otherwise is bizarre in the extreme.Outlaw Pete wrote: »The Trump thread there reads like a liberal chat room for heaven sake and that's because you have allowed the left leaning users to control the thread by way reporting posts.
Boards thankfully isn't run the BAI, pro-Trump view is not entitled to 50% of posts. The vast majority of Irish people have an extremely negative opinion of him and Boards threads will reflect that.Scrap the cap!
0 -
And a lot of people can't distinguish between putting a point across and putting it across civilly: and as a result assume mod actions are about moderating opinions rather than what they are: moderating discussion.
I can't comment on what goes on behind the scenes in terms of moderation obviously, but the above quote describes a lot of CA (and AH before it) for me.
In a thread about say Travellers, there will be a few posts along the lines of 'forcible sterilisation for every one of them' and others in similar vein, and then when the thread gets locked, we get same old moans about how 'you can't have a discussion on Traveller behaviour any more'.
As long as I've been on boards, it's the posters moaning about how you can't have a mature/honest/serious discussion on topic X who actually have the least inclination for such a discussion.0 -
I can't comment on what goes on behind the scenes in terms of moderation obviously, but the above quote describes a lot of CA (and AH before it) for me.
In a thread about say Travellers, there will be a few posts along the lines of 'forcible sterilisation for every one of them' and others in similar vein, and then when the thread gets locked, we get same old moans about how 'you can't have a discussion on Traveller behaviour any more'.
As long as I've been on boards, it's the posters moaning about how you can't have a mature/honest/serious discussion on topic X who actually have the least inclination for such a discussion.
The same type of posters always seem outraged at something while constantly claiming that others are.
The same type of posters complaining about left wing bias from mods when a non CA mod regularly posts and opens threads complaining about immigrants.
Same type of poster stating that they hoped that the Eid celebrations in Croke park would get the national party more votes. While of course ignoring the fact that the national party and their followers have strikingly similar attitudes to women, homosexuals, killing people etc that most Muslim extremists would have. The only obvious differences would be nationality, skin colour and the religious dictatorship that they want.
That's the sort of mentality that you find a lot of in CA and those complaining about it being left wing biased.0 -
DubInMeath wrote: »The same type of posters always seem outraged at something while constantly claiming that others are.
The same type of posters complaining about left wing bias from mods when a non CA mod regularly posts and opens threads complaining about immigrants.
Same type of poster stating that they hoped that the Eid celebrations in Croke park would get the national party more votes. While of course ignoring the fact that the national party and their followers have strikingly similar attitudes to women, homosexuals, killing people etc that most Muslim extremists would have. The only obvious differences would be nationality, skin colour and the religious dictatorship that they want.
That's the sort of mentality that you find a lot of in CA and those complaining about it being left wing biased.
i mean
i dont believe that theres a bias tbh, but all this post seems to be is a complaint that a mod (or anyone) can hold those opinions.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »i mean
i dont believe that theres a bias tbh, but all this post seems to be is a complaint that a mod (or anyone) can hold those opinions.
Big swing and a miss0 -
Advertisement
-
fair enough, must have picked it up wrong.
as i say, i wouldnt be of the opinion that theres a big mod conspiracy or bias anyway.
i do think that there is a big push from posters who would identify as true lefties to have discussion shut down, though, which can affect how things play out0 -
I can't comment on what goes on behind the scenes in terms of moderation obviously, but the above quote describes a lot of CA (and AH before it) for me.
In a thread about say Travellers, there will be a few posts along the lines of 'forcible sterilisation for every one of them' and others in similar vein, and then when the thread gets locked, we get same old moans about how 'you can't have a discussion on Traveller behaviour any more'.
As long as I've been on boards, it's the posters moaning about how you can't have a mature/honest/serious discussion on topic X who actually have the least inclination for such a discussion.
Ain't that the truth. At this stage I'm convinced that it is actually physically impossible to have a rational and civil discussion on Boards about Travellers. I just dont bother clicking into those threads anymore because you just know what way it is going to go every time without fail.
Even the thread Omackeral started 'Say something good about Travellers' started off fine for a few pages but then quickly descended into the usual bile, rhetoric and traveller bashing and had to be locked by the mods. And then the posters whose bile got it locked in the first place will be the very ones complaining about mod bias and their opinions are being censored and their free speech being infringed and blah de blah de blah :rolleyes:0 -
Is there anything that can be done about posters who just do not do so in good faith?
They’ll make a wild claim, with no evidence, someone goes through all the hard work to refute it, and the OP comes back, completely ignores what was said, and will make another nonsense, unsubstantiated claim.
If a claim is made a poster should be made to back it up. It completely derails threads.0 -
A user is suggesting the indiscriminate killing of people arriving in dinghies to the UK. This clearly violates the forum charter which says you shouldn’t wish harm on an individual or group. I’m deeply disappointed that this hasn’t been actioned even though it’s been reported and a mod is discussing it with the user on the thread.
https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058075749/450 -
A user is suggesting the indiscriminate killing of people arriving in dinghies to the UK. This clearly violates the forum charter which says you shouldn’t wish harm on an individual or group. I’m deeply disappointed that this hasn’t been actioned even though it’s been reported and a mod is discussing it with the user on the thread.
https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058075749/45
Site issues are also affecting moderation.
However, the mod "discussing it with the user" is a) not a mod of that forum, and b) discussing it insofar as to say "I'm going to be honest, that's absolutely disgusting."
You are expressing your disappointment at 8:30 am over something that was posted late yesterday evening. Feedback should be for actual feedback, not the go-to because a poster doesn't feel their reported post was acted upon quickly enough. I don't think it's unfair to expect that mods be given a reasonable amount of time to deal with forum issues, as well as have a life outside of here.
It will be addressed as soon as I also don't have to deal with 503s.0 -
Site issues are also affecting moderation.
However, the mod "discussing it with the user" is a) not a mod of that forum, and b) discussing it insofar as to say "I'm going to be honest, that's absolutely disgusting.
You are expressing your disappointment at 8:30 am over something that was posted late yesterday evening. Feedback should be for actual feedback, not the go-to because a poster doesn't feel their reported post was acted upon quickly enough. I don't think it's unfair to expect that mods be given a reasonable amount of time to deal with forum issues, as well as have a life outside of here.
It will be addressed as soon as I also don't have to deal with 503s.
On your first point fair enough. On your second point, I wasn’t suggesting An Capaill Dorcha had said or done anything wrong - just that it’s clear Mods on the site have seen this and it still hasn’t been actioned.
Beasty found the time to close the thread about the Eid celebration in Croke Park but this has been ignored even though it’s far more egregious. You found the time to go and read the thread but decided to come back here and reply to me defensively instead of taking some action.
Is there ever an occasion here when instead of getting defensive you’d say “Yeah, that was a mistake on our part, that should have been actioned as soon as it came to any moderators attention given how egregious it is in terms of violating the charter”?0 -
On your first point fair enough. On your second point, I wasn’t suggesting An Capaill Dorcha had said or done anything wrong - just that it’s clear Mods on the site have seen this and it still hasn’t been actioned.
Beasty found the time to close the thread about the Eid celebration in Croke Park but this has been ignored even though it’s far more egregious. You found the time to go and read the thread but decided to come back here and reply to me defensively instead of taking some action.
Is there ever an occasion here when instead of getting defensive you’d say “Yeah, that was a mistake on our part, that should have been actioned as soon as it came to any moderators attention given how egregious it is in terms of violating the charter”?
Mods are struggling to use the site as ourselves, I'm sure the poster involved will be dealt with correctly, truly disgusting posts0 -
Wanderer78 wrote: »Mods are struggling to use the site as ourselves, I'm sure the poster involved will be dealt with correctly, truly disgusting posts
I’m sure that’s true, yet Mike chose to come back here and get snappy with me, taking the time to read through the thread and check what time I lodged a report at so he could do so, instead of doing something about it.0 -
A CMod like an capaill dorcha going around using words like ‘r*tard*d’ is fairly sickening.0
-
Advertisement
-
You found the time to go and read the thread but decided to come back here and reply to me defensively instead of taking some action.
Yes, I did. And I stand by my statement that feedback isn't the immediate go to without giving the mod team a realistic window of opportunity to deal with the situation, particularly in light of the fact that there have been technical issues overnight.
Feedback should be used to address prevailing issues, not because a reported post hasn't been dealt with to someone's satisfaction, and frankly I'm tired of seeing members of the mod team being called out because they aren't jumping through hoops quickly enough.
As to your opening comment regarding where my priorities lie, I haven't taken action simply because the tools I would use to do so are also being affected by site issues, and I'm not going to simply nuke the thread or indiscriminately action posters without being able to look at the posts and surrounding conversation properly.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement