Why is Boards.ie like the Ministry of Truth...

TheZohanS

Darragh wrote: »

Would you like to google yourself and find stuff from "anonymous" people calling you a c*nt?

Though I've read every post in this thread so far I still haven't seen one post convincing me that Boards.ie should condone abuse of anyone on the site.

The word "c*nt" has no place on boards and should not be used unless it's in a jovial sense in a private forum or is being quoted from an external article.

southsiderosie

Hi Darragh - Just a clarifying question: what is a 'bounce rate'?

4zn76tysfajdxp

Darragh wrote: »

40,281,479 visits came from the 26 counties, Dublin accounting for most, followed by Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford, Sligo, Galway, Kilkenny etc

So what does this all tell us?

Darragh doesn't proof-read.

copacetic

southsiderosie wrote: »

Hi Darragh - Just a clarifying question: what is a 'bounce rate'?

people who arrive and leave straight away. rate = viewed 1 page/total visits.

usually they arrive via an engine or other link.


40% is pretty high, but not crazily so considering how much traffic comes from google direct to inside pages with the info they might need. Preferably it would be a lot less though.

Morag

How did this thread go from being about a AH mod who is also a Rec Cat mod deciding that they could suspend the forum and site rules on a whim to allow abuse, to being about stats?

Kiera

Sharrow wrote: »

How did this thread go from being about a AH mod who is also a Rec Cat mod deciding that they could suspend the forum and site rules on a whim to allow abuse, to being about stats?

Yeah i'd like to know the same please. Maybe split this thread and deal with the original issue?

TheZohanS

Sharrow wrote: »

How did this thread go from being about a AH mod who is also a Rec Cat mod deciding that they could suspend the forum and site rules on a whim to allow abuse, to being about stats?

It was never about that tbf.

Kiera

TheZohan wrote: »

It was never about that tbf.

It certainly wasn’t about stats!

Darragh

Kase Bumpy Dew wrote: »

Darragh doesn't proof-read.

You know, I went to see how I'd made that mistake, and find that it's not just me....

Darragh

Sharrow wrote: »

How did this thread go from being about a AH mod who is also a Rec Cat mod deciding that they could suspend the forum and site rules on a whim to allow abuse, to being about stats?

Kiera wrote: »

Yeah i'd like to know the same please. Maybe split this thread and deal with the original issue?

As TheZohan points out it was never about that. It was about the action that Boards.ie should take about abuse on the forums.

The stats were provided as per a request from Almighty Cushion.

If you feel a different thread is needed, please start one, but for now I'm happy that this discussion is as much on topic as it can be, given how complicated the issue is.

Kiera

Darragh wrote: »

As TheZohan points out it was never about that. It was about the action that Boards.ie should take about abuse on the forums.

The stats were provided as per a request from Almighty Cushion.

If you feel a different thread is needed, please start one, but for now I'm happy that this discussion is as much on topic as it can be, given how complicated the issue is.

A request which was totally off topic. You're not getting attacked by the likes of TZ now, so you're happy to answer off topic questions!

Darragh

Kiera wrote: »

A request which was totally off topic. You're not getting attacked by the likes of TZ now, so you're happy to answer off topic questions!

It was actually completely on topic - we were discussing the effect that the perception of abuse being allowed has on the reputation of Boards.ie

Have a look at

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71175835&postcount=216

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71176321&postcount=218

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71176870&postcount=220

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71178901&postcount=225

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71181248&postcount=242

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71184366&postcount=246

all relating to this issue and the request around it.

southsiderosie

Kiera wrote: »

It certainly wasn’t about stats!

But the stats matter if:

1) people are coming to the site, and then fleeing because of their exposure to abusive language (which seems to be a concern of the admins)

2) If a core group of users are driving most of the posting, and these users would be turned off by overly restrictive terms of use policies (which seems to be a concern of some of the users on this thread)

This is something I dug up messing around on google, but I have no idea about their methodology:

Posting activity:

Week Month 3 Months
Threads: 15,826 81,546 237,530
Post: 77,758 435,865 1,323,070

Top 10 active forums on boards.ie during last week:

After Hours - 23,956 new posts
Soccer - 8,002 new posts
Motors - 5,507 new posts
Rugby - 2,507 new posts
Politics - 2,330 new posts
Cycling - 2,034 new posts
FlirTar - 2,018 new posts
Horse Racing - 1,951 new posts
Airsoft Adverts - 1,943 new posts
Puzzles & Quizzes - 1,723 new posts

(23956/77758) = 30.8%.
After Hours clearly drives a hefty chunk of the site's posting activity, far more so than any other forum.

Top authors during last week:
Name Posts
hondasam 983
Saila 510
casio4 456
Solitaire 442
K-9 435
Trekmad 423
Chaotic_Forces 396
UrbanSea 368
Overheal 359
Wolfe Tone 344

Total posts by top 10: 4716
4716/77758= 6%

So ten posters out of an estimated 29,000 weekly active users accounted for 6% of the website's total activity in the last week. This strongly suggests that there is a core group of users who are driving the lion's share of posting activity.

Taken together, I think this suggests that while questions of legal liability should be of concern, there is a distinct risk of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs here. Clearly people who use this site enjoy After Hours, and the kind of loose, often infuriating, but sometimes really interesting and funny level of discourse that happens there. And clearly the post count is being driven by core users, rather than the scattershot folks who may or may not stumble across the site.

southsiderosie

To bring things back to the main topic at hand, I think the abuse policy as outlined on this thread is too restrictive.

The idea that public figures should be treated the same way as fellow posters, frankly, does not make any sense. By the standards proposed, the language used in most op-ed pages would be considered unsuitable. Can someone please explain to me why Fintan O'Toole, Christopher Hitchens, Molly Ivins, Charles Krauthammer, and countless others who write or have written for some of the world's best-known English language newspapers can call political leaders fools, shrubs, silly, and worse, but people on this website cannot?

Public figures, be they singers, politicians, or athletes are up for discussion by virtue of the nature of their celebrity, and as such the standards used to talk about their behavior should be different. This isn't necessarily license to call someone a cnut, but to call George W. Bush an idiot or Ghadaffi a murderous thug is a reasonable opinion based on their past and present behavior, and would be seen as such not only by op-ed columnists, but also by the editors of comment threads at any major newspaper in the world. I do not see why the comments standards of this website should be beyond those of flagship newspapers such as the New York Times or Irish Times - both of which moderate their user comments. These are not tabloids; they are the papers of record for their respective countries, and as such represent the gold standard of moderated user commentary. If their editors can be flexible about what constitutes abusive language when it comes to public figures, then so can the moderators - and administrators - of this website.

Nodin

southsiderosie wrote: »

To bring things back to the main topic at hand, I think the abuse policy as outlined on this thread is too restrictive.

The idea that public figures should be treated the same way as fellow posters, frankly, does not make any sense. By the standards proposed, the language used in most op-ed pages would be considered unsuitable. Can someone please explain to me why Fintan O'Toole, Christopher Hitchens, Molly Ivins, Charles Krauthammer, and countless others who write or have written for some of the world's best-known English language newspapers can call political leaders fools, shrubs, silly, and worse, but people on this website cannot?

Public figures, be they singers, politicians, or athletes are up for discussion by virtue of the nature of their celebrity, and as such the standards used to talk about their behavior should be different. This isn't necessarily license to call someone a cnut, but to call George W. Bush an idiot or Ghadaffi a murderous thug is a reasonable opinion based on their past and present behavior, and would be seen as such not only by op-ed columnists, but also by the editors of comment threads at any major newspaper in the world. I do not see why the comments standards of this website should be beyond those of flagship newspapers such as the New York Times or Irish Times - both of which moderate their user comments. These are not tabloids; they are the papers of record for their respective countries, and as such represent the gold standard of moderated user commentary. If their editors can be flexible about what constitutes abusive language when it comes to public figures, then so can the moderators - and administrators - of this website.

Amen.

My name is URL

I think that above all else; a simple distinction needs to be made with regards to what constitutes abuse towards a person. IMO, threads specifically designed to incite abusive responses against a person should be nipped in the bud. On the other hand, making a passing comment or sharing a simple opinion (which may contain seemingly abusive/profane language) in a thread not designed to be a platform for attacking someone should be dealt with on a case by case basis by mods and not automatically deemed to be against the rules.

Darragh

My name is URL wrote: »

I think that above all else; a simple distinction needs to be made with regards to what constitutes abuse towards a person. IMO, threads specifically designed to incite abusive responses against a person should be nipped in the bud. On the other hand, making a passing comment or sharing a simple opinion (which may contain seemingly abusive/profane language) in a thread not designed to be a platform for attacking someone should be dealt with on a case by case basis by mods and not automatically deemed to be against the rules.

Very good contribution, thank you.

OutlawPete

Before I reply here, would it not be a good idea at this stage to have a Feed Forward Public debate on this. To make it somewhat official that "abuse", with regards to how public figures can and cannot be spoken of is being debated with possible framing of new rules on the issue in mind.

I mean, if we are just discussing this and in actual fact what we say matters not one jot as the decisions regarding have somewhat being decided upon, then what's the point exactly. I know it's Feedback, but "feedback" is pretty pointless in and of itself if it doesn't go anywhere.

Think it's time an official debate was held on the issue (FFP?) and/or it was made clear to all moderators precisely what could and could not be levelled at public figures. At the moment it seems to be down to each mod to decide for themselves and I feel that is the cause of what occurred with the whole DMcS debacle. Making a scapegoat out of AC is not going to help anyway, as at the end of the day, what he did was decide that because the guy had abused us, therefore he should become exempt for Boards.ie protecting him.

If he was wrong to this, then it is really down to the rules not being fully cemented. Of course, I don't have access to the moderator forum, so maybe there has been specificity and clarity in this area, but from the outside, it sure doesn't seem that there is.

southsiderosie wrote: »

This isn't necessarily license to call someone a cnut, but to call George W. Bush an idiot or Ghadaffi a murderous thug is a reasonable opinion based on their past and present behavior, and would be seen as such not only by op-ed columnists, but also by the editors of comment threads at any major newspaper in the world.

This is different to me because they are not opinions, but facts.

Calling Jedward "two c**ts" is not a fact.

Okay, some would say it's a fact that George Bush is a "murderer" and that for me is the hardest area to decide upon who we should and shouldn't allow to be addressed in such a manner. Maybe a rule where someone has to make it very clear just why they feel the word is justified?

southsiderosie wrote: »

The idea that public figures should be treated the same way as fellow posters, frankly, does not make any sense.

You don't think they should be protected from "abuse" in the same way members are protected from "personal abuse", but yet -- from what I can tell from some comments - there seem to be some who want to protect them more.

southsiderosie wrote: »

By the standards proposed, the language used in most op-ed pages would be considered unsuitable. Can someone please explain to me why Fintan O'Toole, Christopher Hitchens, Molly Ivins, Charles Krauthammer, and countless others who write or have written for some of the world's best-known English language newspapers can call political leaders fools, shrubs, silly, and worse, but people on this website cannot?

Well, they are not in the middle of discussions, so it's less problematic.

If Christopher Hitchens writes that Bono is "insane" for believing in God, nothing happens, only Bono gets annoyed and life goes on. However, if Christopher Hitchens and Bono were members of Boards, letting Chris call Bono "insane" would be more problematic as then allowing people to abuse each other is the enemy of healthy debate.

Now lets say only Christopher Hitchens is a member of Boards, should he be then allowed to say that Bono is "insane" just because he is not a member? What if Bono became a member a year later, should Boards then go back and edit Christopher Hitchens's posts where he "abused" Bono?

southsiderosie wrote: »

I do not see why the comments standards of this website should be beyond those of flagship newspapers such as the New York Times or Irish Times - both of which moderate their user comments. These are not tabloids; they are the papers of record for their respective countries, and as such represent the gold standard of moderated user commentary. If their editors can be flexible about what constitutes abusive language when it comes to public figures, then so can the moderators - and administrators - of this website.

Well, the two people I used are never going to members here but Dave Mc Savage could very easily open an account again and if the rule is that we can say stuff about public figures that we CAN'T say to each other, what happens to all posts calling Dave McSavage a tosser? As from that moment on, they all become "personal abuse".

Whatever is decided upon, there will have to be some leeway and grey area for each Mod to decide upon that's for sure, as it's about as far from a black and white issue as you can get.

DublinWriter

Darragh wrote: »

Would you like to google yourself and find stuff from "anonymous" people calling you a c*nt?

There's a world of a difference between Mr.Private Citizen googling himself and someone who makes a living out of being a public figure of entertainment.

No, I wouldn't like it much if randomers accused me of being a c*nt, but then again, I don't take to the streets of Dublin most days and foist what most would arguably consider to be a very offensive comedy routine to unsuspecting passers-by. I'm not the warm-up comedy act for the Late-Late/Tubirdy show and I'm not their emergency guest either.

As a long time user of Boards I'm a little alarmed that the site is beginning to over-regulate itself. The conflict resolution procedure is a bamboozling wonder of flow-charting and every forum has it's own charter. In contrast, the terms and conditions of Facebook and Twitter are wonderfully terse.

Every modern study of empires comes to the conclusion that they decline due to an inherent problem of over-bureaucratisation as they mature.

I really wouldn't like to see boards going the same way.

southsiderosie

I don't understand this whole "what if people join" thing. So what if they do? I don't think that the rules on abuse should be shaped by the improbable idea that public figures a) are going to become members of the site if we just all quit picking on them and/or b) that they can't take criticism.

If they join the site in their "civilian" capacity, then they are bound by those rules. However, if they join as a specially registered user in their official capacity as a public figure (like Paul Gogarty did), while calling the guy a cnut should still be off of the table, I see no reason why people could not use the same language towards him on this site as they could on the Irish Times website.

OutlawPete

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't understand this whole "what if people join" thing. So what if they do? I don't think that the rules on abuse should be shaped by the improbable idea that public figures a) are going to become members of the site if we just all quit picking on them and/or b) that they can't take criticism..

I'm not saying that they are going to join nor that rules should be put in place in case the do. I'm just using the scenario to make the point of why journalists shouldn't be used as an example of what should and shouldn't be allowed to be posted on Boards.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I see no reason why people could not use the same language towards him on this site as they could on the Irish Times website.

Because they are not in the business of healthy debate, Boards.ie is.

southsiderosie

OutlawPete wrote: »

I'm not saying that they are going to join nor that rules should be put in place in case the do. I'm just using the scenario to make the point of why journalists shouldn't be used as an example of what should and shouldn't be allowed to be posted on Boards.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Because they are not in the business of healthy debate, Boards.ie is.

If the issue here is proper use of language in public debates, then journalists should absolutely be used as an example of what should and should not be allowed on boards. Op-ed pages EXIST primarily to promote healthy debate; there is a reason why most papers will allow comments on most op-ed columns but not general articles.

How can "blast them with piss" can be considered part of 'healthy debate' on this website, but calling a public figure an idiot is a potentially ban-able offense? Obviously boards - and in particular AH - is a 'looser' discussion forum than most newspapers, so it makes no sense whatsoever for boards to have tighter rules on treatment of public figures.

P. Breathnach

DublinWriter wrote: »

There's a world of a difference between Mr.Private Citizen googling himself and someone who makes a living out of being a public figure of entertainment....

That's a tacky excuse trotted out by tabloid journalists to justify intrusive stories and all sorts of attacks on individuals, many of which serve no purpose other than to entertain prurient readers.

If somebody makes a living as a singer, what concern is it of ours what her private life is like? Are we entitled to label her a slut if we discover that she has had three liaisons in the past two months?

If a wealthy businessman leaves a small tip in a restaurant (perhaps because he was dissatisfied with the service) is it fair to hold him up to public opprobrium as a skinflint?

If a member of the government goes to the Cheltenham Festival, is it fair to draw an inference that she is party to the type of corruption supposedly associated with the Galway tent?

P. Breathnach

southsiderosie wrote: »

... Op-ed pages EXIST primarily to promote healthy debate ...

You are wearing rose (or rosie) tinted glasses. They serve a wide range of purposes, many of which are ignoble.

southsiderosie

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You are wearing rose (or rosie) tinted glasses. They serve a wide range of purposes, many of which are ignoble.

Newspapers give people an outlet to air their views.

You can put some kind of post-moderninst spin on it if you want to, but ostensibly part of the role of the Fourth Estate is to be a place for opposing ideas and views to be publicly aired. Certainly there are editorial decisions made about whose views are 'legitimate' enough to get a public airing, but arguably papers have democratized the process of debate greatly through allowing a comments section rather than the relatively limited "Letters to the Editor" section.

Overheal

southsiderosie wrote: »

To bring things back to the main topic at hand, I think the abuse policy as outlined on this thread is too restrictive.

The idea that public figures should be treated the same way as fellow posters, frankly, does not make any sense. By the standards proposed, the language used in most op-ed pages would be considered unsuitable. Can someone please explain to me why Fintan O'Toole, Christopher Hitchens, Molly Ivins, Charles Krauthammer, and countless others who write or have written for some of the world's best-known English language newspapers can call political leaders fools, shrubs, silly, and worse, but people on this website cannot?

Public figures, be they singers, politicians, or athletes are up for discussion by virtue of the nature of their celebrity, and as such the standards used to talk about their behavior should be different. This isn't necessarily license to call someone a cnut, but to call George W. Bush an idiot or Ghadaffi a murderous thug is a reasonable opinion based on their past and present behavior, and would be seen as such not only by op-ed columnists, but also by the editors of comment threads at any major newspaper in the world. I do not see why the comments standards of this website should be beyond those of flagship newspapers such as the New York Times or Irish Times - both of which moderate their user comments. These are not tabloids; they are the papers of record for their respective countries, and as such represent the gold standard of moderated user commentary. If their editors can be flexible about what constitutes abusive language when it comes to public figures, then so can the moderators - and administrators - of this website.

I'm deliberately not following this molehill for the most part, but I agree with this. Public figures - Politicians, Celebrities, etc. - are just that, public figures. George W Bush is retired, doesnt bother anyone, doesnt get bothered. People still poke at his legacy and that will happen. Celebrities have their privacy invaded all the time, but thats the game they play when they look for Fame. I for one still reserve the right to ridicule Sarah Palin if she continues to wildly charge in to a political arena she knows absolutely **** all about. Aside from that, I have no hate for the woman, I'm sure she's a nice person when she's stewing up a moose and not trying to get control of the country.

The way I see it a Public Figure should get the same privileges a user gets by - wait for it - becoming a user. Politicians want people to stop calling them a twat? I challenge them to register, come on here, and make their case for not being a twat.

OutlawPete

southsiderosie wrote: »

How can "blast them with piss" can be considered part of 'healthy debate' on this website, but calling a public figure an idiot is a potentially ban-able offense?

It's not.

Not everything posted on the site is part of debate but I was referring to debates as that is where abuse is most problematic between members. Just frequenting Feedback regularly enough and it's obvious that most times when issues with abuse end up here, it's because someone said something they felt 'wasn't' abuse and a Mod thought different.

'Blast them with piss' seems to be latest meme (I believe that's what the kids are calling them) and as of yet, I see no issues with it. It's AH afterall and unless you also have an issue with obscenity, then it's irrelevant. If a user said that another member should be "pissed on" then I can bet it would suddenly be looked on in a new light.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Obviously boards - and in particular AH - is a 'looser' discussion forum than most newspapers, so it makes no sense whatsoever for boards to have tighter rules on treatment of public figures.

But After Hours DID have that attitude for years (more or less) and that's what caused the issues in the first place. Your words don't seem to be acknowledging that there is a problem. There have been numerous issues with certain people complaining about threads that have been about them and the level of abuse contained therein.

Are you of the opinion that Boards should just ignore them and see them in court if they sue?

southsiderosie

OutlawPete wrote: »

It's not.
Not everything posted on the site is part of debate but I was referring to debates as that is where abuse is most problematic between members. Just frequenting Feedback regularly enough and it's obvious that most times when issues with abuse end up here, it's because someone said something they felt 'wasn't' abuse and a Mod thought different.

And based on the comments from mods - both in this thread and previous threads on the topic - it seems like they are trying to strike a balance, but are somewhat unsure how to proceed because a) the thread of legal liability differs by celebrity and b) they are stuck in the middle of user expectations from below and administrative expectations from above.

OutlawPete wrote: »

'Blast them with piss' seems to be latest meme (I believe that's what the kids are calling them) and as of yet, I see no issues with it. It's AH afterall and unless you also have an issue with obscenity, then it's irrelevant. If a user said that another member should be "pissed on" then I can bet it would suddenly be looked on in a new light.

I agree. That's actually exactly my point. AH is a looser discussion thread, so I don't understand the insistence on setting the bar higher there than in a mainstream newspaper when it comes to the dialogue around people in the public eye.

OutlawPete wrote: »

But After Hours DID have that attitude for years (more or less) and that's what caused the issues in the first place. Your words don't seem to be acknowledging that there is a problem. There have been numerous issues with certain people complaining about threads that have been about them and the level of abuse contained therein.

Are you of the opinion that Boards should just ignore them and see them in court if they sue?

I have said before that my issue is not with setting standards for liability issues. But that isn't the crux of the issue here. My concern is with the idea that standards for addressing users should be the same as those addressing public figures. At this point, I'm not going to repeat my argument; I've taken up enough space on this thread.

OutlawPete

southsiderosie wrote: »

.. I don't understand the insistence on setting the bar higher there than in a mainstream newspaper when it comes to the dialogue around people in the public eye.

Because if you allow users to address people the way Christopher Hitchens or Kevin Myers does, you end up with threads full of people "abusing" public figures, from the start of the thread, until the end. Boards has a reputation for it at this stage and understandably, certain people would rather it didn't.

southsiderosie wrote: »

My concern is with the idea that standards for addressing users should be the same as those addressing public figures.

I have the same concern and my first post here was because a joke I made was considered "abuse" directed at Dave McSavage, so don't think I am blind to your concerns there, I'm not - I share them.

My point is that if you allow the type of comments that you are referring to, it doesn't solve the issue. If you allow one user to call someone like DMcS a "pr*ck" then you have to allow 100 to call him a "pr*ck".

I shall bow myself now, but would be nice to see a Feed Forward Public thread at some point though.

bonkey

Its clearly a conspiracy to make sure Galway doesn't seem as big as Cork...or even bigger.