Far too much premature moderating

Steve

Gordon wrote: »

There was, there are a load of deleted posts.

QED.

Just goes to show that users whinge about stuff without knowing about all the shite that has to be cleaned up. Damned if you do, damned if you don't it seems.

Hobart

Gordon wrote: »

There was, there are a load of deleted posts.

As the thread stands, there is not though. I think the point of the OP was why was it closed? Mods have the tools to edit out, delete posts that "may" break charters, condone illegal activity. I have done myself in the past.

The fact that some posts were deleted out of a thread, does not answer the reason why it was closed. In-fact, the opening post of the thread I referrred to was actually praising the fact that this illegal activity was in some way addressed by UPC.

It also does not address my earlier question wrt the discussion of "illegal activity", that an SMod has deemed to be in breach of some "general" rules.

As an aside, the boxes themselves are not illegal, discussion on them should not break any law/charter, I think watty has addressed this very point in the past.

javaboy

Hobart wrote: »

As the thread stands, there is not though. I think the point of the OP was why was it closed? Mods have the tools to edit out, delete posts that "may" break charters, condone illegal activity. I have done myself in the past.

The fact that some posts were deleted out of a thread, does not answer the reason why it was closed. In-fact, the opening post of the thread I referrred to was actually praising the fact that this illegal activity was in some way addressed by UPC.

It does answer the reason why it was closed imo. The mods aren't full-time paid workers. Obviously these threads lead to people making posts that need to be deleted. Ideally the thread could stay and people could stick to the rules but since a mod won't be there 24/7 to read every post, the unfortunate compromise is that the thread gets locked.

Basically a small number of idiots are ruining it for everybody but the mods have to do what's best for the site.

Hobart

javaboy wrote: »

It does answer the reason why it was closed imo. The mods aren't full-time paid workers. Obviously these threads lead to people making posts that need to be deleted. Ideally the thread could stay and people could stick to the rules but since a mod won't be there 24/7 to read every post, the unfortunate compromise is that the thread gets locked.

Basically a small number of idiots are ruining it for everybody but the mods have to do what's best for the site.

I appreciate that, and I see where you are coming from. But the thread, as it stood, did not contain *anything* which could have been deemed to be illegal. By the same count, threads talking about other "controversial" topics are started in other fora, is there a blanket ban on those subjects? Are illegal activities gererally unacceptable for discussion?

What about those that discuss the subjects I brought up before? they have as much potential for muppetry, as the discussion of star boxes.

Should we perm-ban users, because thier behaviour would suggest that they are just going to be trouble?* This discussion is more of a general one, and not solely about the use of illegal software. We have already had an SMod say that the discussion of illegal activity is a no-no. Is that the case?

*Waits for the obvious

Steve

Hobart wrote: »

I appreciate that, and I see where you are coming from. But the thread, as it stood, did not contain *anything* which could have been deemed to be illegal.

How do you know that? can you see what was deleted?

Left open, it would have just attracted the same responses that warranted deletion. Had the thread been deleted altogether then someone would have started another one. As it stands it's a 'head on a pike' warning that it's a no no.

Hobart

SteveC wrote: »

How do you know that? can you see what was deleted?

You are not actually reading what I wrote. The thread, as it stands, has 3 posts on it. The OP, a response, and a clarification from Watty.

I have also said that I do not want to derail this discussion by talking about the specifics of that thread, and I would like if the debate was kept more general.

In answer to your specific question, on some forums, yes I can.

Left open, it would have just attracted the same responses that warranted deletion. Had the thread been deleted altogether then someone would have started another one. As it stands it's a 'head on a pike' warning that it's a no no.

How do you know that, can you see into the future?

The mod made his point very clear on that specific thread. There are also rules in the charter, that forbid any talk or linking to any sites that allow the software that is sometimes used on these boxes to be downloaded. That's all fine, and pretty clear for everybody to see. If you break these rules, you get banned. That also seems clear to me.

My question was, and again not really specific to that thread, why can't we discuss these and other matters in a non-muppet fashion, and let the mods use the tools that they have at their disposal, to delete/ban/edit as they see fit, or is it a clampdown from the start, without, imo, justification?

I hope the above paragraph clarifies to you what I am trying to ask.

javaboy

Hobart wrote: »

My question was, and again not really specific to that thread, why can't we discuss these and other matters in a non-muppet fashion, and let the mods use the tools that they have at their disposal, to delete/ban/edit as they see fit, or is it a clampdown from the start, without, imo, justification?

Why can't we discuss these things in a non-muppet way? Unfortunately because some of us are muppets.

As for the mods using the tools, I think I covered that already. Moderation after a post works in general but threads on certain topics almost always yield posts that need deleting so it's better to preempt the posts unfortunately. Boards.ie can't rely entirely on the mods being around to see something potentially illegal before someone else who might be in a position to kick up a legal stink about it.

There are plenty of threads that discuss ways to avoid paying the TV licence though which is a fair point but I think the main difference is that copyright enforcement and piracy prevention is more prevalent on the net. The site is more likely to get into trouble for that kind of thing.

Steve

Hobart wrote: »

I have also said that I do not want to derail this discussion by talking about the specifics of that thread, and I would like if the debate was kept more general.

This thread was opened about that specific thread so I don't see how discussing it is derailing in any way.

In answer to your specific question, on some forums, yes I can.

But not that one right?

How do you know that, can you see into the future?

No I can't, I based my statement on the assumption that the established trend would continue - i.e. illegal discussion responses.

My question was, and again not really specific to that thread, why can't we discuss these and other matters in a non-muppet fashion, and let the mods use the tools that they have at their disposal, to delete/ban/edit as they see fit, or is it a clampdown from the start, without, imo, justification?

Wouldn't such discussions be more suited to say the humanities or legal discussion forums then as opposed to a tech forum?

I appreciate your point of view, I just don't think that particular forum is the place for such a discussion.

Hobart

javaboy wrote: »

Why can't we discuss these things in a non-muppet way? Unfortunately because some of us are muppets.[/qute] Thats what the ban option is for.

SteveC wrote: »

This thread was opened about that specific thread so I don't see how discussing it is derailing in any way.

The opening line of the OP on this thread Over the last 2 months I have noticed a huge rise in the amount of threads that are being closed before anything against the rules has even occured..

No I can't, I based my statement on the assumption that the established trend would continue - i.e. illegal discussion responses.

That's actually part of the nub of the issue. You assume.

Wouldn't such discussions be more suited to say the humanities or legal discussion forums then as opposed to a tech forum?

I don't really know, and I don'rt really care tbh. Mods can move threads to other forums, if they think the thread would be more suited there.

I appreciate your point of view, I just don't think that particular forum is the place for such a discussion.

Again, I don't think that thread is the centre of the OP. It's used as an example, as are others, bnut the OP clearly stateds what he/she has observed over the last few months.

Steve

Hobart wrote: »

The opening line of the OP on this thread Over the last 2 months I have noticed a huge rise in the amount of threads that are being closed before anything against the rules has even occured..

Yes and it's been established here that we can only see the sanitised aftermath. You or I can seldom tell what actually went on before the fact. (yes I know there are exceptions due to email subbing and I assume you can see if posts were reported)

That's actually part of the nub of the issue. You assume.

What's wrong with making an educated guess about what will happen based on similar circumstances in the past?
Your forum seems to have a lot of threads which try to estimate the probability of some future event based on past performance and current circumstances, is this not the same thing?

Again, I don't think that thread is the centre of the OP. It's used as an example, as are others, bnut the OP clearly stateds what he/she has observed over the last few months.

Fair enough, point agreed.

Hobart

SteveC wrote: »

Yes and it's been established here that we can only see the sanitised aftermath. You or I can seldom tell what actually went on before the fact. (yes I know there are exceptions due to email subbing and I assume you can see if posts were reported)

I embolded my post to show you that it was not the thread we are discussing (be it sanatised or not) that the OP is specifically talking about. He clearly states that he has observed this over the past 2 months. He then goes on to list some examples, one of which has been discussed to death, at thi stage.

What's wrong with making an educated guess about what will happen based on similar circumstances in the past?

nothing at all

Your forum seems to have a lot of threads which try to estimate the probability of some future event based on past performance and current circumstances, is this not the same thing?

No, not at all. Horse races finish, they are not stopped after 1 furlong because the horse in front would be assumed to be the winner.

Fair enough, point agreed.

Cheers.

Steve

Hobart wrote: »

I embolded my post to show you that it was not the thread we are discussing (be it sanatised or not) that the OP is specifically talking about. He clearly states that he has observed this over the past 2 months. He then goes on to list some examples, one of which has been discussed to death, at thi stage.

I was referring to locked illegal discussion threads in general, I should have made that clearer - apologies.

No, not at all. Horse races finish, they are not stopped after 1 furlong because the horse in front would be assumed to be the winner.

To further your analogy, the 'race finish' for a thread discussing illegal stuff would be a pile of clean-up work for a mod, users getting banned, and possibly boards getting into bother over it.

To generalise more, bt / drugs / car theft / tax evasion / whatever threads are locked because (I'm guessing) the particular mod has seen the same situation unfold in the past and is therefore preventing a shitstorm rather than having to clean up after one. I don't see what's wrong with that - certainly in quieter forums where the mods arent perched at their keyboards waiting for someone to post.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Me and another user have been banned from a forum for a week for "Discussing and advocating illegal activities".

I asked someone could he get Bravo 2 on his digi box . I don't see what banning someone for a week does. The mod could've deleted the posts sent us a pm saying "don't talk about digi or dodgy boxes" and that'd have been that. Instead, we got no warning , there's nothing in the charter that says that mentioning "dodgy,digi, doggy boxes" isn't allowed and we're banned.

There hasn't even been a conviction (that I'm aware of) that specifically makes these boxes illegal. Using software to decode and view channels you've not paid NTL for I'm assuming is illegal, having a box capable of doing that can't be illegal - just like having a computer doesn't automatically mean that you're uploading, downloading or making copies of copyrighted content.


Here's an article from the Irish Times :
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dodgy-box-seller-angry-over-claims-1566359.html

I'm assuming that that's what's led to this zero tollerance crackdown.
I still think that our bannings were stupid.

RoundyMooney

Actually no.

I know for a fact that a leading cable service provider has made contact with boards.ie ltd., in connection with, specifically the presence of modified or bespoke "digi boxes" on the site.

This was specifically directed at adverts.ie, and it's entirely probable that subsequent communications have led the management here to direct that a moratorium be extended to discussions relating to both the boxes themselves, and related matters as well.

When it comes to legal matters-both here or anywhere else, don't jump the gun. It's one aspect of the site here where I have the utmost of sympathy for boards.ie

That may have something to do with the abhorrence I have for those in the legal profession who hitch their wagons to the detriment of liberty in the pursuit of profit, or moral rectitude. Actually it has everything to do with that, but that's a whole other debate.

Overheal

Hobart wrote: »

As the thread stands, there is not though. I think the point of the OP was why was it closed? Mods have the tools to edit out, delete posts that "may" break charters, condone illegal activity. I have done myself in the past.

The fact that some posts were deleted out of a thread, does not answer the reason why it was closed. In-fact, the opening post of the thread I referrred to was actually praising the fact that this illegal activity was in some way addressed by UPC.

It also does not address my earlier question wrt the discussion of "illegal activity", that an SMod has deemed to be in breach of some "general" rules.

As an aside, the boxes themselves are not illegal, discussion on them should not break any law/charter, I think watty has addressed this very point in the past.

it kind of changes to the other foot now for me though. I'll take Gordon on his word that there were a couple posts that had to be deleted in order to maintain the sanctity of the site. If you have to delete that early on, leaving the thread open would have been an invitation to have to keep pruning away at the thread on a constant basis.

As an aside, it would probably look more sensible from The Registered Users Point of view if the offending posts were snipped, not deleted, and the thread locked to prevent the posters from coming back to edit in what they said.