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

_blank_

Darragh, I think you are wrong in saying that Boards.ie is not a community.

Here's two examples of why I think you are wrong.

Example #1

This post, look at the people who have thanked it. I, personally, don't interact with about 75% of the people there, and don't even recognise some of them, but the fact that these people read and thanked the post says to me that they feel a connection to the Football Team. A Football Team is often the focal point of a community.

To further illustrate this, have a read of this post.

DeVore wrote: »

Hang on... how did our goalie score for us?? What sort of formation are you playing Mr Manager 0-0-11 ?? :P

What is this "our" and "us"?

Example #2

Just look at the thanks on this post, and the comments that the passing of a valued member of the community generated. They weren't just members who post on the Soccer Forum, they were members who post on the whole site.

Tallon

Darragh wrote: »

What I'm asking is: Should abuse be acceptable on the site

No, never

Darragh wrote: »

and if not, how can we work together to minimise it? That's what I'm looking for a consensus/agreement on here.

I quoted your post from very early on in the thread, perhaps the discussion has changed since then so let me re-read the thread

Darragh

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't disagree with this numerically. But it does seem like reforms in this area would directly impact AH, which is (seems to be?) the busiest forum on this website. So any changes to how AH normally functions would likely have a disproportionate impact on the site overall.

Okay. I see what you mean. So can you help us come up with some way that we can diminish the abuse and keep the discussions going?

I know this is a tricky one and it's an important one so your input is appreciated.

oscarBravo

southsiderosie wrote: »

And I'm still waiting for a clear definition of "reasoned criticism".

Are you saying that, until we can create an unassailable definition of "abuse" that there's no point trying to have a policy of not allowing abuse on the site? Because that just seems ridiculously legalistic to me. You yourself said earlier that we depend on moderators to make judgement calls, so what's the problem with having a policy of not allowing abuse, and relying on the moderators to police it?

If it's a question of ultimate arbitration, we have an escalation path for that.

It seems fairly obvious that it would be contextual, which was my earlier point re McSavage, ORiordan and Harney. Calling someone like Alison O'Riordan a hack seems like an appropriate criticism, given that she is a paid journalist. The fact that so many of her columns are based on her personal life simply opens the door to critique of her lifestyle choices (given the state of the real estate market, I don't think calling someone a moron for paying 500K for a tiny apartment is 'abuse').

Calling someone a moron is abuse. You're arguing for permission to abuse someone if you feel they deserve it, which - for at least the third time - we don't allow between posters on the site, so I still don't understand why it should be allowed against third parties.

Yet I would agree that the threads about her went off the rails. But, as I have said before, administrative action seems to be more based on a subject's capacity to raise a fuss, rather than any kind of objective, consistent criteria; why should Alison O'Riordain be entitled to protection from abusive comments but the likes of Pamela Izevbekhai (another name that sends users into fits) is not?

First, you're talking to someone who, as mod of Politics, repeatedly pulled posters up on their abuse of Izevbekhai. Second, by your own argument above, she was perceived as deserving of abuse, so why not allow it?

I think both should be protected from abuse - not necessarily for their own sakes, but for that of boards.ie.

I know that many of the admins want to see 'reasoned discourse', but the reality is, sometimes people just want to shoot the **** about whatever non-serious news was in the paper that day. I don't think every thread needs to be something out of a debating society, especially when discussing celebrities, who seem to have become increasingly absurd over the last few years. Is it really possible to have a non-ridiculous conversation about people who make a living out of being patently ridiculous?

You're introducing a false dichotomy - it's possible to shoot the ****, and have a conversation that isn't out of a debating society, without being abusive to anyone.

...is it really worth the time or energy to write erudite posts about the likes of Katie Price?

Who's asking for erudition? Is it completely impossible to criticise the woman without descending into the realms of abuse?

Where else can you have a serious debate about the bank bailout and a discussion on how to deal with housemates who shower five times a day - all on one site?

I agree, the site is a great resource. I just don't see how the value of the resource is diminished in any way by removing the abusive aspects of it.

We're being told that this will be an open process to get input from users, but my sense is that it seems pretty clear the admins know what they want...it is just that it may not be what the plebes are interested in.

Not once - NOT ONCE - in this thread have I claimed to speak for the admins. One more than one occasion I have made it clear that I'm expressing my personal opinion. It's irksome in the extreme to come up against the sort of petulance you've expressed in that last sentence.

It's also not the first time an admin has, in effect, been accused of dishonesty in this thread. If you don't want to hear opposing points of view, just say so, and I'll stop wasting my time.

Darragh

Des wrote: »

Darragh, I think you are wrong in saying that Boards.ie is not a community.

Hye Des, thanks for that post and I accept that I may be looking at this in a different way to other people.

There's no denying that there are both communities on Boards.ie AND there's a community around Boards.ie - I'm just saying that not everyone who accesses the site should be considered a member of the Boards.ie community.

I'm basing this on stats primarily.

As of today, we have 430,667 registered users on the site and 206,377 people with active accounts.

There were 29,157 members active on the site in the last 7 days (14,980 in the last 24 hours) and 124,873 posts put up.

There were 657,217 unique visitors to the site between March 7 and March 14.

What I'm saying is that not all of those would feel that they're part of the "community" and that changes to the site need to be for "everyone", not just those who feel that they're part of the community.

I'm probably phrasing that badly but my point is that if we were to manage the site solely for the people who consider themselves part of the "community" we'd be missing out on many many more.

southsiderosie

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you saying that, until we can create an unassailable definition of "abuse" that there's no point trying to have a policy of not allowing abuse on the site? Because that just seems ridiculously legalistic to me. You yourself said earlier that we depend on moderators to make judgement calls, so what's the problem with having a policy of not allowing abuse, and relying on the moderators to police it?

Yes and currently they make those calls based on the norms of their forums and the subject at hand. The way that Mary Harney is discussed in AH is completely different from the way she is discussed in Politics. And I think that is reasonable.

The real issue here seems to be, what should be the definition of abuse in AH (and perhaps the celebrity forum), because those seem to be the areas where the complaints stem from.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it's a question of ultimate arbitration, we have an escalation path for that. Calling someone a moron is abuse. You're arguing for permission to abuse someone if you feel they deserve it, which - for at least the third time - we don't allow between posters on the site, so I still don't understand why it should be allowed against third parties.

To use some of the examples from the previous thread on this topic, calling a convicted child molester like Gary Glitter a dick is abuse? Saying someone who is a convicted wife-beater a 'wanker' is utterly intolerable? Sometimes people do things that are so stupid, callous, or obviously horrible that, yes, some level of abuse should be tolerated. Maybe the legal line is that they have to be convicted, or admit to doing said horrible things, but I think a blanket ban - rather than a contextual interpretation based on the subject and forum - is actually a form of unnatural, rather than natural discourse.

oscarBravo wrote: »

First, you're talking to someone who, as mod of Politics, repeatedly pulled posters up on their abuse of Izevbekhai. Second, by your own argument above, she was perceived as deserving of abuse, so why not allow it?

Yes, in POLITICS. This was not necessarily the case in other parts of the website. What I am saying is that there seems to be the perception that there is some correlation between what gets defined as abusive and people/entities seen as litigious. All targets for 'abuse' are equal, but some are more equal than others.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think both should be protected from abuse - not necessarily for their own sakes, but for that of boards.ie. You're introducing a false dichotomy - it's possible to shoot the ****, and have a conversation that isn't out of a debating society, without being abusive to anyone. Who's asking for erudition? Is it completely impossible to criticise the woman without descending into the realms of abuse? I agree, the site is a great resource. I just don't see how the value of the resource is diminished in any way by removing the abusive aspects of it.

Because the definition of abuse that is emerging from this thread seems to be some weird combination of fears about litigation and offending delicate sensibilities, rather than something that is contextual.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not once - NOT ONCE - in this thread have I claimed to speak for the admins. One more than one occasion I have made it clear that I'm expressing my personal opinion. It's irksome in the extreme to come up against the sort of petulance you've expressed in that last sentence.

It's also not the first time an admin has, in effect, been accused of dishonesty in this thread. If you don't want to hear opposing points of view, just say so, and I'll stop wasting my time.

Why are you getting so defensive? When did I say that YOU are speaking for admins?

As for opposing points of view, I have no problem entertaining them here or in any other forum, and I stand over my record in that regard.

southsiderosie

Darragh wrote: »

Hye Des, thanks for that post and I accept that I may be looking at this in a different way to other people.

There's no denying that there are both communities on Boards.ie AND there's a community around Boards.ie - I'm just saying that not everyone who accesses the site should be considered a member of the Boards.ie community.

I'm basing this on stats primarily.

As of today, we have 430,667 registered users on the site and 206,377 people with active accounts.

There were 29,157 members active on the site in the last 7 days (14,980 in the last 24 hours) and 124,873 posts put up.

There were 657,217 unique visitors to the site between March 7 and March 14.

What I'm saying is that not all of those would feel that they're part of the "community" and that changes to the site need to be for "everyone", not just those who feel that they're part of the community.

I'm probably phrasing that badly but my point is that if we were to manage the site solely for the people who consider themselves part of the "community" we'd be missing out on many many more.

Sorry I'm a bit of a stats nerd, so feel free to ignore this if it is too out there, but do you have any sense of the relationship between users and posts?

I guess what I am saying is, if you weight posting activity, would you find that a relatively small percentage of users (say 10%) account for a disproportionately high number of posts (say 70%)? Because that's where my concern lies - reforms may be targeting general users, even though posting is driven by a core set of users - i.e. the people who feel like they are a part of this community - some (or many) of whom might feel alienated by certain changes.

Maybe these are not the users that people want on this site, which may be a whole different issue, but I think it's important to be clear just what we are talking about here.

Darragh

Good on you. I'll find out for you.

Wibbs

Good point from southsiderosie. It depends how the stats go. I've been a member in a private forum where the off topic thread had hit 100,000 posts or some such figure, in under a year and with(at the time) less than ten members, of which 6 or 7 were regular posters. If that had been a public forum it would have looked really popular, yet less than ten people generated that. I'd say similar of other forums. There are as many readers as writers, both lurkers and members. For all the stats, I'd reckon that a rolling core of under 2000 people drive the majority of posting and the site. Or as southsiderosie, maybe 10% drive 70% of the site. That's your community. The ones that thanked Des' examples and similar. It's still a big figure, but alienating that core too much could hurt the place. We've seen that in individual forums. There's a tipping point where no new blood comes in, the old blood loses interest and the forum becomes a ghost town. Boards is too big a fish in a small pond at this stage to go that far, but the community could lose out in more subtle ways.

oscarBravo

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes and currently they make those calls based on the norms of their forums and the subject at hand. The way that Mary Harney is discussed in AH is completely different from the way she is discussed in Politics. And I think that is reasonable.

Yet again, I agree that there will be a difference in the tenor of the discussion. That's not the issue here.

The issue is whether it's acceptable for the difference in tenor to extend to calling her a fat bitch. I would deem that out of order. It seems some would argue that that isn't abuse.

The real issue here seems to be, what should be the definition of abuse in AH (and perhaps the celebrity forum), because those seem to be the areas where the complaints stem from.

I'd prefer to think we were having a discussion about a policy on abuse because we don't want boards.ie to be perceived as an abusive website, rather than in response to complaints.

To use some of the examples from the previous thread on this topic, calling a convicted child molester like Gary Glitter a dick is abuse?

Yes! Yes! It's abuse!! For at least the fourth time now, if a user called gary_glitter was called a dick by another user, the person who called him that would be sanctioned for - you guessed it - abuse! It doesn't matter, and has never mattered, how dickish the user was being - you don't get to call him a dick, or any other abusive term.

In other words, we already have a policy on abuse, sitewide. At the moment, it only extends to other users of the site. It's a policy that works, despite some people feeling aggrieved at being deprived of their "right" to abuse other people.

So why is it such a big deal to extend the policy towards people who don't have a boards.ie account?

Saying someone who is a convicted wife-beater a 'wanker' is utterly intolerable? Sometimes people do things that are so stupid, callous, or obviously horrible that, yes, some level of abuse should be tolerated.

Should we rescind the rule that says a poster isn't allowed to abuse another poster, no matter how stupid, callous, or obviously horrible the things they have done or said?

We don't allow abuse of other posters for those or any other reasons.

Maybe the legal line is that they have to be convicted, or admit to doing said horrible things, but I think a blanket ban - rather than a contextual interpretation based on the subject and forum - is actually a form of unnatural, rather than natural discourse.

And yet, that blanket ban has been successfully in place for years without a major problem - as long as the target of the abuse is another user of this website.

Yes, in POLITICS. This was not necessarily the case in other parts of the website. What I am saying is that there seems to be the perception that there is some correlation between what gets defined as abusive and people/entities seen as litigious. All targets for 'abuse' are equal, but some are more equal than others.

You're absolutely right. Maybe we should have some sort of discussion on introducing a sitewide policy on the subject? Oh wait...

Because the definition of abuse that is emerging from this thread seems to be some weird combination of fears about litigation and offending delicate sensibilities, rather than something that is contextual.

I'm perfectly content to extend the definition of abuse that we've successfully implemented for years as it applies to other members of the site. I don't feel the need to define it in terms of litigation, delicate sensibilities or anything of the kind.

Why are you getting so defensive? When did I say that YOU are speaking for admins?

NOBODY is speaking for the admins. Anyone who has posted on this thread, who happens to be a member of the admin group, has expressed personal views. In Darragh's case, he's also expressing views - his views - as a boards.ie employee.

As for the views of the admins being at odds with the views of the "plebes" - the admins are entrusted by the owners of the site with safeguarding the best interests of the website, on a very many levels. The "plebes" have no such responsibilities. This isn't a democracy - it's important to know what people want, but it's not a given that they're going to be able to get it.

P. Breathnach

southsiderosie wrote: »

... calling a convicted child molester like Gary Glitter a dick is abuse?...

oscarBravo wrote: »

... Yes! Yes! It's abuse!! ...

I say that's a good call. In my view, it's okay to call him a child molester, because that is an established fact. I could live with the use of some of the pejorative expressions used as alternative labels for child molester. But when the language becomes so general as to lose the specific reference to what is bad about him, then we start wading through quicksand.

Many people in the public eye have done something that might be widely agreed to be bad behaviour (as have many of us who are less in the public eye). That does not mean that the person is entirely bad, and yet some posters here seem to feel that they are entitled to regard them as such, and to post about them as if it is so.

And we can create absurd situations. What if people abuse a celebrity, and the celebrity then joins the site? Suddenly she becomes an illegitimate target, but she is still the same person. Do mods have to go back through months of posts to delete abusive content?

What do we do if one half of Jedward signs up as a boards member?

I do not see how abusing people (members or not) is a benefit to the site. What I do see is people who have the mask of anonymity seeming to derive personal satisfaction from taking cheap pot-shots. That's not discussion; it's often inimical to discussion.

southsiderosie

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for the views of the admins being at odds with the views of the "plebes" - the admins are entrusted by the owners of the site with safeguarding the best interests of the website, on a very many levels. The "plebes" have no such responsibilities. This isn't a democracy - it's important to know what people want, but it's not a given that they're going to be able to get it.

We clearly aren't going to agree on the abuse issue, so there is no point in arguing about it further.

But in reference to my point about "core" versus "general" users, it may be in the best interest of the website in terms of posting and traffic to not be so persnickety about the level of discourse in high-traffic forums that generate the lion's share of activity. Now if there is the sense that the site is willing to sacrifice users for a better reputation, than so be it. But I don't think that is a decision to be made lightly, especially since the numbers aren't clear. But since the data are in the works, I'll stop speculating here.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

........... It's irksome in the extreme to come up against the sort of petulance you've expressed in that last sentence.

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

It's irksome in the extreme to come up against this incessant, aggressive arguing from the extreme when looking for a reasonable compromise with a clear set of boundaries, IMO.

LoLth

southsiderosie wrote: »

We clearly aren't going to agree on the abuse issue, so there is no point in arguing about it further.

But in reference to my point about "core" versus "general" users, it may be in the best interest of the website in terms of posting and traffic to not be so persnickety about the level of discourse in high-traffic forums that generate the lion's share of activity. Now if there is the sense that the site is willing to sacrifice users for a better reputation, than so be it. But I don't think that is a decision to be made lightly, especially since the numbers aren't clear. But since the data are in the works, I'll stop speculating here.

by that reasoning, if enough posters decide among themselves that someone, anyone, celebrity or not is deserving of abuse then the site should allow any commetn to be posted about that person no matter how damaging, illegal, or upsetting those comments might be.

How many should be enough? darragh posted numbers of total active accounts and number of posts earlier on in this thread

As of today, we have 430,667 registered users on the site and 206,377 people with active accounts

cool, mistype and I just discovered that ctrl-b automatically puts in [ b] and [ /b] for you.... I've been here years and I never knew that....

anyway, do we take it as a eprcentage of registered users or active users. lets say active. what figure? 1% sound fair. so, if 2,063 users all post abuse at an individual we should say thats ok and leave it go? What do we do with abusive threads before they reach that number of contributors? leave them , just in case ?

In the meantime (yay!, it works of ctrl i as well! ) the figures posted state that

There were 29,157 members active on the site in the last 7 days (14,980 in the last 24 hours) and 124,873 posts put up.

There were 657,217 unique visitors to the site between March 7 and March 14

so of the 657,217 unique visitors, 628060 were not registered users (ie didnt log in) lets say 100,000 of those, for the sake of argument, actually have boards.ie accounts but didnt log in. that leaves 528060 unique visitors.

lets say another 100,000 of those were bots.

that leaves 428060 unique visitors that didnt sign up. lets say 50% of these didnt sign up because they dont like the level of moderation, or dont like the fact that its mainly an irish site or wanted to advertise but read the terms and conditions.

that leaves 214,030 visitors that didnt sign up for other reasons. they went to the trouble of coming here but didnt feel inclined to join. There's no way of knowing so I'm open to suggestions as to how many were put off by the level of abuse they witnessed in a thread or the tone of a thread or two or the language used by members. 1%? 2%?

in my opinion, a policy to make the site more amenable to discussion while making that discussion more pleasant to read, would also serve to entice more of these unique visitors to stay, register and contribute. If it even made a 1% difference, thats a potential 2,140 new members every week (if we assume the figure posted by Darragh is indicative of an average boards.ie week but of course there are trends and peaks and troughs in web traffic, but for argumetns sake lets say it is).

please , and I'm not being facetious or patronising, show me how this could be a bad thing.

yes, I realise my math and assumptions are flawed and quite general but without visitors filling in a questionaire we can only really guess at their reason for visiting in the first place as well as their reason for leaving without signing up.

TheZohanS

LoLth wrote: »

that leaves 428060 unique visitors that didnt sign up. lets say 50% of these didnt sign up because they dont like the level of moderation, or dont like the fact that its mainly an irish site or wanted to advertise but read the terms and conditions.

that leaves 214,030 visitors that didnt sign up for other reasons. they went to the trouble of coming here but didnt feel inclined to join. There's no way of knowing so I'm open to suggestions as to how many were put off by the level of abuse they witnessed in a thread or the tone of a thread or two or the language used by members. 1%? 2%?

in my opinion, a policy to make the site more amenable to discussion while making that discussion more pleasant to read, would also serve to entice more of these unique visitors to stay, register and contribute. If it even made a 1% difference, thats a potential 2,140 new members every week (if we assume the figure posted by Darragh is indicative of an average boards.ie week but of course there are trends and peaks and troughs in web traffic, but for argumetns sake lets say it is).

please , and I'm not being facetious or patronising, show me how this could be a bad thing.

yes, I realise my math and assumptions are flawed and quite general but without visitors filling in a questionaire we can only really guess at their reason for visiting in the first place as well as their reason for leaving without signing up.

There is absolutely no way to know so it shouldn't even come into it, there are way too many factors to consider eg how many of your "unique" visitors were regular visitors that didn't bother signing in from a friends house etc etc? Were on holidays?

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

It's irksome in the extreme to come up against this incessant, aggressive arguing from the extreme when looking for a reasonable compromise with a clear set of boundaries, IMO.

OK, here's what I'd consider a reasonable compromise with a clear set of boundaries: extend the ban on abuse towards other boards.ie members to a blanket ban on the same type of abuse towards any third party, with the moderators entrusted with the task of deciding what constitutes abuse, as we have trusted them to do for years.

If you disagree, please explain why you believe that someone who happens to have an account on this website deserves a greater level of respect than someone who doesn't.

LoLth

can't know for certain so disregard completely? dont even entertain the possibility ?

Pity I didnt know that sooner or I could have aced my econometrics exams.

Logical Fallacy

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, here's what I'd consider a reasonable compromise with a clear set of boundaries: extend the ban on abuse towards other boards.ie members to a blanket ban on the same type of abuse towards any third party, with the moderators entrusted with the task of deciding what constitutes abuse, as we have trusted them to do for years.

If you disagree, please explain why you believe that someone who happens to have an account on this website deserves a greater level of respect than someone who doesn't.

lol 40% of the posts on AH must be abuse towards someone or something though.

Basically this is all getting blown out of proportion. There is a difference between the line "I don't like Dave McSavage and feel he is bereft of talent" and "Dave McSavage is a ****"...that's as complicated as this is.

oscarBravo

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

lol 40% of the posts on AH must be abuse towards someone or something though.

And that's OK, is it?

LoLth

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

lol 40% of the posts on AH must be abuse towards someone or something though.

Basically this is all getting blown out of proportion. There is a difference between the line "I don't like Dave McSavage and feel he is bereft of talent" and "Dave McSavage is a ****"...that's as complicated as this is.

just as there is a difference between

"I think your post could be better worded. the way you have phrased it makes it seem like you are agreeing with painting all fences pale blue by law"

and

"**** you you ****ing **** oh, and **** your mother too!"

perhaps?

Thing is, it seems there is a lot of resistance to either type of post being ruled against (either of your examples, my examples are already covered under boards.ie rules). OBs question is should we not extend the same courtesy to non-boards.ie entities?

No one has, as yet, given a strong reason why :

"<Celebrity X> is a ****ing ugly tool and deserves to be given a H2SO4 enema. actually he/she/it will be in dublin on the 20th, I'm gonna organise a few mates and we're going to go beat the **** out of him/her/it. anyone else interested in joining us?"

or

"**** YOU <random person>. You're a ****ing **** and you family are all knacker pieces of ****"

should be deemed as acceptable as:

"i dislike <celbrity X> because I dont think he/she/it is actually all that good. from the interview on TV3 last night he/she/it came across as rude. His/her/its' comments about boards.ie were way out of line and should have been questioned at the time in my opinion."

tell me, which is better for discussion? which is more open to disagreement or discourse? Which would you prefer to have stuck with you in a lift during a 12 hour power cut?

ps. no AC, these are not meant to be examples of posts on AH, I made them up to illustrate a point

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, here's what I'd consider a reasonable compromise with a clear set of boundaries: extend the ban on abuse towards other boards.ie members to a blanket ban on the same type of abuse towards any third party, with the moderators entrusted with the task of deciding what constitutes abuse, as we have trusted them to do for years.

If you disagree, please explain why you believe that someone who happens to have an account on this website deserves a greater level of respect than someone who doesn't.

And back at square one, as it's not at all clear to anyone anymore what constitutes "abuse". Without a clear definition we can all see (or at least an attempt of same ) and talk of 'change', no I don't trust anyone to regulate it.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

And back at square one, as it's not at all clear to anyone anymore what constitutes "abuse". Without a clear definition we can all see (or at least an attempt of same ) and talk of 'change', no I don't trust anyone to regulate it.

And yet, we trust our entire team of moderators to make that same call, day in day out, across the site - but only when it comes to other posters.

Why aren't you arguing hard for the right to be abusive towards other posters?

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

And yet, we trust our entire team of moderators to make that same call, day in day out, across the site - but only when it comes to other posters.

Why aren't you arguing hard for the right to be abusive towards other posters?

....and once more, hopping around the issue of what constitutes abuse, and ignoring the idea of fair comment on a public figure and their actions.

I believe Southsiderosie put the case forward in a more eloquent manner than I'm capable of.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

....and once more, hopping around the issue of what constitutes abuse, and ignoring the idea of fair comment on a public figure and their actions.

...and once more, ignoring the fact that we've had a successful abuse policy in place on the website for years.

I believe Southsiderosie put the case forward in a more eloquent manner than I'm capable of.

I don't think anyone has, eloquently or otherwise, addressed the question of why it's OK to abuse people who don't have an account on this site but not OK to abuse people who do.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and once more, ignoring the fact that we've had a successful abuse policy in place on the website for years..

...which is now to change, under some initiative or other, for reasons disputed.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't think anyone has, eloquently or otherwise, addressed the question of why it's OK to abuse people who don't have an account on this site but not OK to abuse people who do.

I referenced it above. However given the attack-dog manner in which you seem to trample over every nuance in a mad dash to scream 'why do you want to abuse people' (or its close equivalent), it doesn't suprise me to read that you didn't notice that, or anything by anyone else, unfortunately.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

...which is now to change, under some initiative or other, for reasons disputed.

What?

I referenced it above. However given the attack-dog manner in which you seem to trample over every nuance in a mad dash to scream 'why do you want to abuse people' (or its close equivalent), it doesn't suprise me to read that you didn't notice that, or anything by anyone else, unfortunately.

I apologise for asking questions. You can have your thread back now.

Wibbs

LoLth wrote: »

cool, mistype and I just discovered that ctrl-b automatically puts in [ b] and [ /b] for you.... I've been here years and I never knew that....

Snap. I was here for years before I knew that too. Given my penchant for bold typing that's worse...:D

so of the 657,217 unique visitors, 628060 were not registered users (ie didnt log in) lets say 100,000 of those, for the sake of argument, actually have boards.ie accounts but didnt log in. that leaves 528060 unique visitors.

I really don't think it does LL. Unless someone is logging in we've no clue how many actual people are viewing. In the last 18 months I've noted the reporting of a big increase in forum traffic and not just on Boards. Two words; smart phones and another two words; public wireless. Attributing IP's to unique users is no longer worthwhile as an even vaguely accurate stat building tool. Handy for google to pimp their business model, but not so much otherwise.

In any event go to any forum out there and lurkers outnumber members by at least 3 to 1. On some forums it's slight less and on others more. Like the poor lurkers will always be with us.

As for why people don't sign up, or sign up, post a few times and leave? I think you've nailed the reasons I've heard. There is the very prevalent idea of the over moderation of the site. I recall an Eircom(I think?) publicity flyer thing that namechecked and indeed recommended Boards, but mentioned the "over moderation" angle. IIRC that also caused a few knickers to bunch. Now I somewhat agree with that take, but only somewhat. Clearly its worked well for Boards and it's what most users seem to want. I still reckon it can be improved mind. The other one that still has some currency is the "forum users are all under/overweight gamer geeks with unfortunate skin conditions and severe social phobia". That perception and reality is changing a lot of late though. More of the ladies signing up made a helluva diff there I reckon.

Of all the reasons why someone wouldn't sign up I really truly believe that abuse of some celeb could be reduced to the mathematical technical term of "sweet fúck all". For a start there are very very very few threads like that in AH, never mind the entire site. Even in those threads there are few enough youtube stylee abusive posts and what there are get yanked by the mods of AH. A passer by would want to be one lucky bugger to stumble across a post that caused such offence. Plus lets face it if they did, do you really want to add such a precious flower to the community?

BTW LL I fully agree with you re civility. I think that's how it should continue, but the stats dont come into it IMHO and ye should be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

OutlawPete

g'em wrote: »

Within a matter of minutes McSavage had been called a c*nt repeatedly on-thread and a suggestion was made to flashmob his Vicar St. show to throw flour and eggs at him.

I was the user who made that *joke* and while my earlier post agreed that we should not abuse "celebrities", please don't think I regard jokes as abuse, I do not. I didn't respond to the user on that thread who took issue with my post, as other users had alreay pointed out to them that I was joking. It wouldn't be considered abuse if I was to say to another user that we should all egg them, so I am not sure why you are implying in your post that when I said it on that thread, it was abusive to Dave McSavage.

This is what I mean about it not being clear to users and Mods about what users should and shouldn't say - is it any wonder then that we get inconsistent modding. There is a BIG difference between calling someone a "cunt" repeatedly and joking that should get the flour and eggs thrown at them. If it comes to a stage where just making jokes about celebrities is to be considered 'celeb-abuse', then you may as well shut down After Hours now and be done with it.

Quite frankly, I would be appalled if it got to the stage where there were some things that we could say to and about each other, as users of this site, but yet make the same jokes about "celebs" and it's "abuse". To say that that would be taking it too far would be the understatement of the year. The only way that a 'celeb-abuse' rule can work and be respected by the users of Boards, is if it runs parallel to what the 'personal abuse' rule is here, with regards to what we can say to and about each other.

If Boards starts protecting celebrities more than it's own members, the place will lose it's soul - fast.

DeVore

Sometimes I post as a member/follower/supporter of a particular community... I have a soft spot for Boardeaux for example and I love to hear when they do well...

Sometimes I post as , well... I'm not sure as what in fact. People put weight on my words I'd often rather wasnt there but in that case I probably shouldnt have opened my mouth to Cloud that day.



The crux here is this: I do not believe its a stark choice between allowing a free for all of abuse on one hand or turning the forum into a bland mix of politeness.



I'm rarely accused of politeness, I cut people up with words all the time and still I manage, I believe, to do it without resorting to abusive language. This is the crux of this entire debate imho.


DeV.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

What? I apologise for asking questions. You can have your thread back now.

I don't have a problem with questions. It's the complete disregard of the answers that strikes me as problematic.