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

Darragh

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

In that case I took it as (maybe this is incorrect) you were saying that "Celeb is a something abusive here". Whereby something abusive is anything from the word fool to stupid cúnt or whatever.

Ah, no. I chose my words very carefully. I don't think calling someone a "fool" is the same as calling someone a "stupid fcuking c*nt". When I say "ABUSE" I mean much harsher terms than just "fool".

As I said, criticism is one thing. Going out of your way to intentionally insult someone in an offensive way that isn't relevant to the discussion is quite another. If you have a look at the mod forum you'll see where my mind is at.

For anyone else, it's pretty much the same as the latter half of post #352.

Darragh

southsiderosie wrote: »

I get the feeling that the "journalist" version of this thread would be locked, while the music version of this thread is still open AFAIK.

Actually my feedback would still stand on that one. It's at worst (best?) insulting but it's not directing abuse at any one person, in the same way as a thread using words like "f*cking c*nt" would be, for example. It's not very tasteful but I also think it's more about the OP's opinion than them out to maliciously/vindictively harm someone's reputation or incite abuse against them.

I think My Name is URL's response could and should be the guide for abuse. It's contextual, and it addresses the issue of "keyboard warrior" abuse threads (which the original music thread seemed like to me).

Excellent.

Nodin

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

..................


Because banning someone for calling Gaddafi a bollocks or some politician an idiot will just piss people off. Surely you can see that. The reason it may seem to work in other forums is because it normally doesn't happen. Even in the tech forums it would be rare to get it simply because it's usually the gadgets and companies that get talked about and not specific people. We still get people calling Steve Jobs this and Steve Ballmer that but it's just extremely rare because of the nature of the forum's discussions. When you have a forum that is more focused on discussing people and their actions it will obviously happen more.

.....................................................
I don't think people should be punished or warned for it on the most part unless it's aimed at another user.

Yes, but as long as its grounded in something - 'that gee eyed prick steve jobs overpriced, overrated fashion-accessory-masquerading-as-technology products that promise much but deliver little....' then fair enuffski.

gandalf

Darragh wrote: »

How many more times must I (and/or Boards.ie) face this? How many ways can I say that it's not the primary focus for this discussion - while it's a factor, it's not the main one?

Yes but this discussion was kicked off because a "celebrity" was given a pedestal to abuse members of this site and when some of the members of this site reacted by starting a thread about it they were shut down.

Again I think that those who court fame and especially those who court fame by being controversial or contentious should not be protected by this site unless it crosses the line into actual and not perceived libel.

Why is it so difficult to believe that what we want is a site free from abuse so it's better for the members and readers, more attractive for new people to join or for lurkers to participate in and more designed to move us away from being considered a site that condones abuse to a site that protects people from it while still having great discussions?

But we are not a site that condones abuse of private users or readers and we never have been. However I believe what you are really saying is that we need to sanitize the site so it is more corporate friendly and the perception among the social media 140 character brigade is that we cannot be easily categorised and therefore should be viewed with suspicion.

What I think is falling between the cracks here is that there is no be all and end all exact standard that can be applied to every forum. After Hours is different from Politics, what is tolerated in there will get you banned in Politics.

For example if I call David McSavage a talentless media whore then that imho is perfectly valid as imho he is and considering that is the persona he has projected into public life I should not be chastised for the same in a light hearted forum like After Hours.

However if I said Mr McSavage was involved in illegal activity and that wasn't true then yes I should be dealt with in a severe manner.

If on the other hand I say a normal user of the site like AlmightyCushion (sorry I picked you because you were the last person to post before I replied) is a **** and a $$$$$$$ and he is known to %%%%%% that is personal abuse and should be subject to the full rigours of moderation.

Common sense needs to be applied here and knickers need to be untwisted.

Probably around 40 emails a week with people who have valid complaints about something that is posted on the site about them or their organisation. It can depend. Some are easy to deal with, some less so.

So you have a weekly complaint ratio of 0.142857% against 28000 active users on this site. That's not bad. Considering a portion of those consists of organisations who are having issues which I would not count as personal abuse then that figure is lower. If some of those remaining complaints are down to moderators not doing their jobs then the reality is lower as pointing these issues out to said moderators in the effected forums should diminish the problem further.

Quite frankly I would have thought that the employees of this site have far more important issues to get their knickers in a twist over than a complaint ratio of around 0.142857% against the active user base.

I think that if we were very clear that no abuse was to be had on Boards.ie, we'd cut the emails down to a lot less. And that would be nice.

Given the number of emails is very low for a site with what is it now 600 forums (that is a wild guess!), 28,000 weekly active users I reiterate that I think your resources can be concentrated better elsewhere.

Morag

The problem is that while it may be true it can still be considered defamation under irish law.

pickarooney

I don't get the parallel between an off-the-cuff reference to 50,000 people as '****' and a direct 'X is a cnut' post. Why on earth would you take the former personally?

If you did, you could just come back with 'comedians are bastards' and that would really be the height of it.

Gordon

40 emails a week is one email every working hour, and that's not factoring in lunch hours.. Seeing how in depth Darragh goes into answering queries (like this thread for example) and how a lot of these queries will need some form of investigation, I consider that to be a lot of emails/time. Obviously that's not the only reason that being a dick isn't cool on boards, but it's one of them

gandalf

Gordon wrote: »

40 emails a week is one email every working hour, and that's not factoring in lunch hours.. Seeing how in depth Darragh goes into answering queries (like this thread for example) and how a lot of these queries will need some form of investigation, I consider that to be a lot of emails/time. Obviously that's not the only reason that being a dick isn't cool on boards, but it's one of them

Surely that is split between two people with the Community Manager coming into play as well.

And again I would not consider messages from organisations as personal abuse. And again 40 emails against an active user base that this site has is actually not that bad. Zero would of course be far more preferable but alas we do not live in a perfect world

Gordon

Relativity is one thing, cold, hard, total time is another

Morag

Esp if even one of those emails due to first contact mishandling then esclates into a 6 figure law suit.

chicken fingers

McSavage was sitebanned a number of times as far as I can remember.
Probably before Darragh joined the site.
Generally speaking sitebanees are told in no uncertain terms to go and never come back.

Then you see a Boards manager simpering and pandering to McSavage in an interview?
Since when did boards reach out and give low-level celebrities a platform to do anything? Espcially mock boards users? Especially people whom the majority of the community do not like? Seems like it was an interview for the sake of it.

I think careful consideration should be given to any further interviews like this done by a boards manager. Perhaps people from the television forum might want to organise it. That said, I did enjoy the Saw Doctors interview.

But personally I dont think its appropriate.

I would like to echo Darraghs point that its not about McSavage. He can give it but not take it.
Him dressing up as a priest and waiting in a bush pretending to jack it as the Dublin womens mini marathon jogged by, but then whingeing to boards because people abuse him on here...
That guy is one fellow who does deserve abuse, but thats not the issue.

Just my 2 dinars worth, the world has bigger problems and boards will keep turning regardless.

Darragh

gandalf wrote: »

What I think is falling between the cracks here is that there is no be all and end all exact standard that can be applied to every forum.

Do you think that if we had a message - similar to our statement that we have on http://www.boards.ie/legal - that personal abuse is not condoned on Boards.ie, that it would detrimental to the site?

Do you think that if we said that if you use Boards.ie to direct personal abuse (see post 352 for definition) at someone, without contributing to the site, the discussion and just as your own personal "weapon", we will take action against you, as per our terms of use, that this would be detrimental to the site?

Do you think that if I went to After Hours today and put a thread in saying "Folks, while I appreciate that you enjoy a freer discussion style in this forum more than others on Boards.ie, we're asking you not to use the forum to direct personal abuse at people.

Sharing an opinion, giving feedback and all your usual posts are fine, but if your only contribution to a thread is to say that "Person X is a f******* ***** ***** *******" then we'll take action" would be detrimental to the forum or to the site?

You said earlier

"I have no problems with the rights of the individual members being able to post free of abuse here at all."

and followed it up with

I have a problem with people not being able to express an opinion on someone who is in the public light

I'm not asking that someone can't express an opinion. I'm not even saying that they can't use their own style of writing to do so.

What I am saying is that if you're using Boards.ie as a platform to direct abuse at someone and contributing nothing else to the discussion, why should we put up with that? Why should we devote any resource to you? Why should we allow our site to be your platform for that? Go somewhere else. Abuse people there. Don't do it on Boards.ie

Why is that unreasonable? Why can't that message be enforced sitewide?

If that message existed and moderators used their discretion to decide what is and isn't "Being a dick" - as happens all the time on the site (882 forums fyi) - what would really change here?

There's a lot of accusations flying around. We're doing this for advertisers, for media, for celebrities. We're doing it to sanitise the site. We're doing it somehow out of "badness" - rather than the simple truth - that is a cultural decision as much as a business one - we're doing it to make the site better.

Better for posters who don't have to deal with other member's abuse, better for readers who don't have to see it, better for moderator and admins who don't have to moderate it and better for us in that we don't have to deal with it.

We already have a Be Civil. Don't be a Dick rule. We already tell people in our terms that they can't use the site to abuse people. All I want to do is remind people of both of these and have a very clear message that if you are using Boards.ie as your platform to abuse people, then you're not welcome here.

Does that fit into

Common sense needs to be applied here and knickers need to be untwisted.

as for

Quite frankly I would have thought that the employees of this site have far more important issues to get their knickers in a twist over than a complaint ratio of around 0.142857% against the active user base.

Given the number of emails is very low for a site with what is it now 600 forums (that is a wild guess!), 28,000 weekly active users I reiterate that I think your resources can be concentrated better elsewhere.

Every complaint is a complaint and should be dealt with. That's what customer service is. We don't pick and choose what complaints to deal with - we deal with everything we can - complaints, questions, queries, issues, concerns and more - as best we can as soon as we can. I'm a big believer in this whole "sort your customers out" lark.

AlmightyCushion

Darragh wrote: »

better for moderator and admins who don't have to moderate it and better for us in that we don't have to deal with it.

Just on this point, if you bring in a rule regarding abuse to people off site then the moderators will have to moderate it. Just because there is a rule doesn't mean members will suddenly obey it. So, no abuse rule - mods don't have to moderate it. Abuse rules = mods do have to moderate it.

dr.bollocko

Whats upsetting is that there's been a case here to say "Actually this is a complex issue. Here's example X. Here's example Y. This is why it's complex."
And the response is "IT'S SIMPLE! DON'T BE A DICK."
And that doesn't help because you actually have to still go and wade through the complex decisions when moderating and try and not be retarded about it but the actual concrete guidelines / info etc. just isn't there. It's just seen as straight forward.
It's clearly not. We've been here before. People are trying. It's not that simple to solve this problem.

bonkey

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Whats upsetting is that there's been a case here to say "Actually this is a complex issue. Here's example X. Here's example Y. This is why it's complex."
And the response is "IT'S SIMPLE! DON'T BE A DICK."

Its as simple as "don't be a dick" is, though. If you prefer, DBAD is no less complex. DBAD covers just as many examples (if not more), with equal complexity.

And that doesn't help because you actually have to still go and wade through the complex decisions when moderating and try and not be retarded about it but the actual concrete guidelines / info etc. just isn't there.

This is no different to any other aspect of moderating.

There are virtually no clear, unambiguous rules about any aspect of moderating....and yet the moderators manage to collectively do a pretty fantastic job of figuring out how to make it work.

It's just seen as straight forward. It's clearly not.

Personally, I think its as straight forward as moderating is, in general. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this particular case is so different...so special that it needs to be handled in such a unique way.

Whenever a forum modifies its charter...its enforcing a new rule without having clear, hard definitions of exactly where that rule is crossed. It doesn't have a backlog of experience to show when the rule is and isn't broken. Somehow, though, it works. In my experience, the mods either clamp down hard initially and then lighten up a bit....or "wean" people onto the new rule(s) by giving them a few more warnings etc. before really enforcing things.

When a new mod joins a team, there's a similar lack of clarity. THey either have experience of modding from a seperate forum (where things are inevitably done a bit differently), or they're completely new to modding. In either case, there is no hard-and-clear definition of how they make every decision....but again, they find their way.

Mostly, this approach works because in the clear-cut cases, its clear cut....there's nothing to discuss. In the not-so-clear cases...its a judgement call to begin with. Sometimes mods just make those calls on their own. Sometimes, they consult their co-mods, or ask the moderators "en masse" in the Mods forum. Sometimes, they consult the CMods, or even the admins. Overwhelmingly often they make good calls, without having detailed clear-cut instructions, and without having to have someon approve that call in advance.

We've been here before. People are trying. It's not that simple to solve this problem.

I'd go further. Its impossible to solve this problem.

Bear with me here...

We have sitewide guidelines about respecting other posters. We don't have clear, hard definitions.
Each forum has found what this guideline means for it. It differs from forum to forum...some push the boundaries in one or another direction (i.e. some are much less strict then the average, some far moreso).
We haven't solved the problem of people not respecting other posters, but that doesn't mean that all the work that moderators do in this regard is worthless...or that the basic notion of respecting other posters isn't worth having at a site level.

Its a complex issue, summed up in some very simple guidelines. There is no solution, per se....and I genuinely don't believe that anyone would be better served by a set of examples and clarifications which turned DBAD into a codified set of detailed rules.

The same can be said of any of the existing site guidelines.

The question of what is and is not "fair game" outside the borders of boards.ie is not one which has been much focussed on.

So other than that we're talking about something thats new (or a new focus) rather than something that's part-and-parcel of what we do...where is the difference that makes the lack of clear guidelines so significant here?

As a final note...I would point out that in isolated instances (e.g. death of a celb, natural disasters, etc.) some forums have often put a "show a bit of respect" clampdown in place. They manage to make it work, without clear guidelines and hard rules. Some people feel hard done by, some people applaud it....but by and large it works. Why is that?

Kinetic^

Next we'll have interview with Polmki. Fml.

DeVore

For those who complain and accuse us of being the "minstry of truth". Please explain to me how this thread (which is a reasonable example of how a sensitive discussion about journalistic integrity SHOULD go), still exists.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056219623

Don't get involved in that thread because of this thread, don't derail it... just watch.


I don't often agree with Dudess (:)) but she nailed it there during the thread by saying it stays open if people stay civil. It gets closed if they dont.


Yes there were a few instances of people saying she was a "cnut" and those (in a perfect world) should be moderated but our mods are human and cant be expected to sit on the site all day! The *important* thing is that the vast majority of the thread is a robust and serious discussion of her specific case and the general topic. It is NOT just one giant free for all about who would "do" her..... that SHOULD be closed.

DeV.

K-9

DeVore wrote: »

For those who complain and accuse us of being the "minstry of truth". Please explain to me how this thread (which is a reasonable example of how a sensitive discussion about journalistic integrity SHOULD go), still exists.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056219623

Don't get involved in that thread because of this thread, don't derail it... just watch.


I don't often agree with Dudess (:)) but she nailed it there during the thread by saying it stays open if people stay civil. It gets closed if they dont.


Yes there were a few instances of people saying she was a "cnut" and those (in a perfect world) should be moderated but our mods are human and cant be expected to sit on the site all day! The *important* thing is that the vast majority of the thread is a robust and serious discussion of her specific case and the general topic. It is NOT just one giant free for all about who would "do" her..... that SHOULD be closed.

DeV.

I think I remember reading "I'd do her" type comments on the breakingnews site funnily enough. It isn't quite the Times but still a nationally reputable site. Though, I suppose it isn't the worst thing that could be said about her, if a tad sexist and patronising.

TheZohanS

There was a lot of constructive debate in this thread and it would be a shame for it to fall by the wayside like the last thread we all contributed to that was moved over to the AH Mods Forum and then nothing happened.

Can we get a "Final Thought" on this if needed, action taken and a sticky over in AH on the new abuse rules?

The reason I ask is because since the last post here we've had Glenda Gilson attacked in AH(I believe she actually mentioned boards.ie as a source of abuse) and similar treatment to Sile Seoige with terms like "pikey head" aimed at her.

Also if there are abusive threads that get locked by mods(as was the case in the two that I mentioned above) may I suggest that they're also deleted? I notice that a few abusive threads about the mod Hotlips were deleted as they contained unsavoury comments, surely we could extend this courtesy to non-users.

And Darragh, oscarBravo et al I completely see your point of view now on abuse and agree with it, boards should not be used as a platform to attack anyone, regardless of who they are. It's bad enough that DMcS, Michael O'Doherty, Gerry Ryan and Glenda Gilson have come out and singled out boards for abuse, we don't need anyone else telling us.

Wibbs

TheZohan wrote: »

And Darragh, oscarBravo et al I completely see your point of view now on abuse and agree with it, boards should not be used as a platform to attack anyone, regardless of who they are. It's bad enough that DMcS, Michael O'Doherty, Gerry Ryan and Glenda Gilson have come out and singled out boards for abuse, we don't need anyone else telling us.

We should also ask ourselves why some of those types, media whores in some instances, are singling out the place for abuse. They'll milk the old stylee media for all it's worth and earn money and have a career from that. In a very rarified and cronyish environment in this country. But the same types really don't like the audience talking back. Mr Ryan for all his "the ryanline is open" could certainly be accused of that. There exists a good chunk of the old Irish Medja that is very suspicious of and indeed aggressive towards the new more egalitarian media. They may crow on about "quality dropping" and other nebulous accusations, but scratch below the surface of a lot of them and it's more about them not wanting to lose their "powah". Boards being the most successful of the bunch is sure to get the most potshots.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater either. I'm not talking about "Michael O'Doherty is an [insert abusive term here]", but I am talking about pointing the finger at talentless hacks and the like, sometimes vigorously when required. After all fingers are pointed at the rest of us with impunity http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/ive-been-called-a-ponce-a-cretin-and-a-tosser--anonymous-bloggers-are-the-ultimate-cowards-1924607.html. I can't imagine the shítstorm if Darragh had interviewed him and he had come out with that.

g'em

TheZohan wrote: »

Can we get a "Final Thought" on this if needed, action taken and a sticky over in AH on the new abuse rules?
.

This is being discussed at length by the Mods at the moment. We're trying to figure it all out ourselves and once it is it'll be rolled out across the board

TheZohan wrote:

The reason I ask is because since the last post here we've had Glenda Gilson attacked in AH(I believe she actually mentioned boards.ie as a source of abuse) and similar treatment to Sile Seoige with terms like "pikey head" aimed at her.

tbh one of the things that we're trying to discern is what constitutes an "attack" - where does banter end and abuse begin? There's a lot of people talking about it with very different points of view so a consensus is difficult to reach.

It's definitely not being forgotten about or swept under the carpet, it's just that there's a lot of people involved and a lot of opinions being considered.

I know it probably sounds like a cop out for now but for the time being all we can do is ask that offending posts are reported. In all honesty the more they are the more we'll be able to gauge what the users want from this.

pickarooney

TheZohan wrote: »

And Darragh, oscarBravo et al I completely see your point of view now on abuse and agree with it, boards should not be used as a platform to attack anyone, regardless of who they are. It's bad enough that DMcS, Michael O'Doherty, Gerry Ryan and Glenda Gilson have come out and singled out boards for abuse, we don't need anyone else telling us.

You can't 'single out' tens of thousands of people. When are you going to get that?

TheZohanS

pickarooney wrote: »

You can't 'single out' tens of thousands of people. When are you going to get that?

You can "single out" boards.ie as a platform for abuse.

I'll leave this here for you to brush up on the definition.

pickarooney

TheZohan wrote: »

You can "single out" boards.ie as a platform for abuse.

I'll leave this here for you to brush up on the definition.

That. Makes. No. Sense. At. All.

Honestly, are you seriously offended/paranoid or are you just taking the piss because nobody has singled anyone out for anything (unless you count you singling yourself out as some representative of boards.ie and its collective feelings).

Nodin

TheZohan wrote: »

There was a lot of constructive debate in this thread and it would be a shame for it to fall by the wayside like the last thread we all contributed to that was moved over to the AH Mods Forum and then nothing happened.

Can we get a "Final Thought" on this if needed, action taken and a sticky over in AH on the new abuse rules?

The reason I ask is because since the last post here we've had Glenda Gilson attacked in AH(I believe she actually mentioned boards.ie as a source of abuse) and similar treatment to Sile Seoige with terms like "pikey head" aimed at her.

Also if there are abusive threads that get locked by mods(as was the case in the two that I mentioned above) may I suggest that they're also deleted? I notice that a few abusive threads about the mod Hotlips were deleted as they contained unsavoury comments, surely we could extend this courtesy to non-users.

And Darragh, oscarBravo et al I completely see your point of view now on abuse and agree with it, boards should not be used as a platform to attack anyone, regardless of who they are. It's bad enough that DMcS, Michael O'Doherty, Gerry Ryan and Glenda Gilson have come out and singled out boards for abuse, we don't need anyone else telling us.

People unable to take fair comment, a slagging or criticism =/= abuse, and theres at least two in there who fall under that.....Don't eject Baby with the bathwater please.

I might add that people who base their living on journalism are going to get criticised on their writing and people who base their living on their looks are obviously going to be criticised on that.

TheZohanS

pickarooney wrote: »

That. Makes. No. Sense. At. All.

Honestly, are you seriously offended/paranoid or are you just taking the piss because nobody has singled anyone out for anything (unless you count you singling yourself out as some representative of boards.ie and its collective feelings).

Can you not grasp the basics of the english language? And why do you have to resort to baiting/flaming?

I explained the term "singled out" to you, I'll do so again. The people I mentioned in my above post have "singled out" boards as a site that has been used as a platform to abuse them, that is they have made the distinction between boards and other sites and "singled out" boards.ie.

Seriously if you don't have anything constructive to add you'd be better off not contributing. This thread is not improved by smart-arsed comments.

Nodin wrote: »

People unable to take fair comment, a slagging or criticism =/= abuse, and theres at least two in there who fall under that.....Don't eject Baby with the bathwater please.

I might add that people who base their living on journalism are going to get criticised on their writing and people who base their living on their looks are obviously going to be criticised on that.

Saying that someone has a "pikey head" is not really fair comment. Yes we should of course be allowed to critique someone's work, I agree with you there.

pickarooney

In an interview with boards.ie the interviewee singles out boards.ie.

I've heard it all now.

Nodin

TheZohan wrote: »

........


Saying that someone has a "pikey head" is not really fair comment. Yes we should of course be allowed to critique someone's work, I agree with you there.

"pikey head" is childish, and only dubious to me by its implications with regards travellers. "x has slept her way to the top" would be worthy of censure.

I said there was two there that were being criticised for what they do. I might add theres also been (buried amongst the abuse) legit criticism of McSavage as well.

In addition Gilson referred to her Wiki page being vandalised (though in what way I've no idea), then referenced boards members generally as 'a sad lot' or some words to that effect. Considering the woman barely rates a mention in the greater scheme of things, its not worth referencing.

Again I might point out that people complaining does not itself mean theres valid grounds for them to do so. Nor does the existence of offence mean the world should turn itself into white bread with the crusts sliced off.

copacetic

g'em wrote: »

This is being discussed at length by the Mods at the moment. We're trying to figure it all out ourselves and once it is it'll be rolled out across the board


tbh one of the things that we're trying to discern is what constitutes an "attack" - where does banter end and abuse begin? There's a lot of people talking about it with very different points of view so a consensus is difficult to reach.

It's definitely not being forgotten about or swept under the carpet, it's just that there's a lot of people involved and a lot of opinions being considered.

I know it probably sounds like a cop out for now but for the time being all we can do is ask that offending posts are reported. In all honesty the more they are the more we'll be able to gauge what the users want from this.

just out of interest, where is this being discussed?

I don't see it in feedforward or feedforward public. I thought that was were all these types of policy discussions were supposed to take place?

AlmightyCushion

copacetic wrote: »

just out of interest, where is this being discussed?

I don't see it in feedforward or feedforward public. I thought that was were all these types of policy discussions were supposed to take place?

The after hours mods forum and the mod forum.