A&A Feedback

Turtwig

Nodin wrote: »

I don't understand why all that content was deleted from the abortion thread......

Gay marriage thread?

Put simply things were very heated and several abusive comments were made. This wasn't helped by the viewpoint put forward by some and the attitude shown towards gay members on the forum. The discussion went nowhere other than further down the abyss. Easier to delete all the posts than to trawl through them deleted/editing the more personal ones as we go. If it was any other thread and not megathread it would just have been closed and let die.

As I stated in thread if anyone has a post they feel that contributes towards the original topic that shouldn't have been deleted feel free to say so via PM.

Nodin

Jernal wrote: »

Gay marriage thread?

Put simply things were very heated and several abusive comments were made. This wasn't helped by the viewpoint put forward by some and the attitude shown towards gay members on the forum. The discussion went nowhere other than further down the abyss. Easier to delete all the posts than to trawl through them deleted/editing the more personal ones as we go. If it was any other thread and not megathread it would just have been closed and let die.

As I stated in thread if anyone has a post they feel that contributes towards the original topic that shouldn't have been deleted feel free to say so via PM.

....admittedly I didn't see the last while of it, but certainly the majority of the nuttiness that was on display was not that bad (relatively speaking).

MrPudding

Nodin wrote: »

....admittedly I didn't see the last while of it, but certainly the majority of the nuttiness that was on display was not that bad (relatively speaking).

Also, arguably of some use in highlighting some of the vitriol that gay people, or even those are are supportive of gay people, have to put up with. Here is what happens when "hate the sin love the sinner" goes, as it invariably does, wrong.

MrP

Nodin

MrPudding wrote: »

Also, arguably of some use in highlighting some of the vitriol that gay people, or even those are are supportive of gay people, have to put up with. Here is what happens when "hate the sin love the sinner" goes, as it invariably does, wrong.

MrP

Indeed - very like what you get from the US religious right. What I saw (up until me asking about a catholic state imposing its will on protestants) was obnoxious and "odd", but compared to some stuff we've had it was (relatively mild) - yer man going on about anal sex all the time for instance, or one or two of the loopers nonsense in the Abortion thread .

Corkfeen

Since the poster who was the source of the ruckus is gone, wouldn't this mean that the heated nature of the debate has ended? So the posts shouldn't have to be removed since there shouldn't be any further trouble. The poster still acted as an insight into the utterly warped reasoning certain individuals use.

Turtwig

MrPudding wrote: »

Also, arguably of some use in highlighting some of the vitriol that gay people, or even those are are supportive of gay people, have to put up with. Here is what happens when "hate the sin love the sinner" goes, as it invariably does, wrong.

MrP

Yeah I definitely see what you mean there. However, considering they were made by a poster who considers debating with atheists to be a sin. I'm not sure if it's even correct to consider the opinions as an example of anything.

Also as personal non-moderating note I strongly disagree with using examples of the sort. It's like what those fundy nutters do, or even Joe Duffy. Use an extreme example and to try to further an agenda. It's nothing more than poisoning the well as means to an opinion that may or may be valid.

Nodin

Corkfeen wrote: »

Since the poster who was the source of the ruckus is gone, wouldn't this mean that the heated nature of the debate has ended? So the posts shouldn't have to be removed since there shouldn't be any further trouble. The poster still acted as an insight into the utterly warped reasoning certain individuals use.

Well presumably they said something that got them a smack of the banhammer. Outside of whatever that was (and I have no idea) removing the rest stuck me as OTT, TBH.

(Abbreviations - wahoo)

Turtwig

Nodin wrote: »

Well presumably they said something that got them a smack of the banhammer. Outside of whatever that was (and I have no idea) removing the rest stuck me as OTT, TBH.

(Abbreviations - wahoo)

It was very OTT. I wasn't going to through all the posts and make judgement calls - and I wasn't comfortable with leaving certain posts published either. :P So I just did the lazy slob thing.

As I said to others in PMs on Saturday the whole thing confused me very greatly. I tried, initially, to actively moderate the thread but with Soul's actual comments that was difficult and going to be a massive timesink. Then Munster were playing so I just jumped ship and left it Rob/Dade's judgement. Tonight when things got very heated I wasn't sure where to draw the line so I, just, well, yeah, purged everything. Otherwise I'd have to card other users to remain somewhat consistent.

/amateur mod.

Sarky

Nothing amateur about extreme prejudice. Sometimes, nuking it from orbit really is the only way to be sure.

TheChizler

Aww, I go one day without obsessively checking boards...

Nodin

Jernal wrote: »

It was very OTT. I wasn't going to through all the posts and make judgement calls - and I wasn't comfortable with leaving certain posts published either. :P So I just did the lazy slob thing.

As I said to others in PMs on Saturday the whole thing confused me very greatly. I tried, initially, to actively moderate the thread but with Soul's actual comments that was difficult and going to be a massive timesink. Then Munster were playing so I just jumped ship and left it Rob/Dade's judgement. Tonight when things got very heated I wasn't sure where to draw the line so I, just, well, yeah, purged everything. Otherwise I'd have to card other users to remain somewhat consistent.

/amateur mod.

......yes, but tbh, that's not a very good way of doing things. 'Excessively censorious' and all that. Up until my last comment, things were still in a (relatively) sane mode. I can't pass judgement on the rest, not having seen it. Ye must wean yourself from the delete key, IMO.

Pherekydes

TheChizler wrote: »

Aww, I go one day without obsessively checking boards...

Me too. I missed all the "fun".

Sarky

It was more depressing and scary than fun tbh.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

It was more depressing and scary than fun tbh.

I found it fascinating.

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I found it fascinating.

I was a bit alarmed

Nodin

Obliq wrote: »

I was a bit alarmed

.....that's because unlike a lot of our 'visitors' they were entirely sincere.

Gbear

There's maybe some merit to the argument that it's become the done thing on this forum to have lax rules about us abusing people who do absurd or horrible things.

I'm not referring to personal abuse of other posters - I think that's handled pretty well.

It's more about relatively minor things - like the name of the thread "Half Baked Republican Fruitcakes". Even if there is some merit in doling out abuse to people who've done horrible or ludicrous things I think maybe sometimes calling them names is let slide a little too easily. I'm sure I've been guilty of it too.

I think there's a (perhaps unfair) onus on us to be beyond reproach.
I could be wrong, but it's just a feeling I've had in the back of my mind for a little while. Not a big deal and there's no major offences that obviously spring to mind, but I think there's a whisker too much of playing the man and not the ball.

It sometimes feels perfectly reasonable to call someone who believes that a "Woman's place is in the home" or something a misogynistic dope but it's probably not technically the right thing to do.

Even if there's no need for any Mod action on the issue, it's probably always good to strive to extricate the facts of an issue from the emotional baggage it often has in the sorts of topics we cover here. It's not something you can ever get perfect.

Brown Bomber

I wanted to ask why Michael Nugent is permitted to make three separate threads on the Constitutional Convention and as soon as I make a single one it is merged?


Are the mods here members of Atheist Ireland?

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I wanted to ask why Michael Nugent is permitted to make three separate threads on the Constitutional Convention and as soon as I make a single one it is merged?


Are the mods here members of Atheist Ireland?

This is continually under review.
The mod team discussed this a while back. We decided we're happy to let Michael post threads as long as he is an active contributor to those threads. If he overdoes it then he shall be reeled in. However, for the time being it does appear these contributions have a value to the larger boards.ie community so they're staying put.


To answer your last question. Neither Dades or I are AI biggest fan in many areas. Though since they were kind enough to send us both a box of biscuits for Christmas this attitude is also under review. Finally, to answer your first question. The threads you create tend to be fit rather nicely into already existing threads. Michael's thread are very focused to a particular topic.

legspin

Jernal wrote: »

..... since they were kind enough to send us both a box of biscuits for Christmas.....

Too late. They have just bought your souls. You had better hope they were worth it....

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

This is continually under review.
The mod team discussed this a while back. We decided we're happy to let Michael post threads as long as he is an active contributor to those threads. If he overdoes it then he shall be reeled in. However, for the time being it does appear these contributions have a value to the larger boards.ie community so they're staying put.


To answer your last question. Neither Dades or I are AI biggest fan in many areas. Though since they were kind enough to send us both a box of biscuits for Christmas this attitude is also under review. Finally, to answer your first question. The threads you create tend to be fit rather nicely into already existing threads. Michael's thread are very focused to a particular topic.

My thread was focused to a particular topic. Their apparent misrepresentation of the facts.


Like I said, there are now 3 threads from Atheist Ireland on the Constitutional Convention. http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=303480&threads=1&sort=newest are they so different from each other? And is Robin a member of AI?

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My thread was focused to a particular topic. Their apparent misrepresentation of the facts.


Like I said, there are now 3 threads from Atheist Ireland on the Constitutional Convention. http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=303480&threads=1&sort=newest are they so different from each other? And is Robin a member of AI?

What topic was it focused on?
And, how independent was it to warrant its own thread? These are the two pertinent questions and here are the answers:

You have been contributing in a thread on the constitutional convention for two days. Your 'new' thread is correlated heavily with those posts. We're never going to split your conversation over two separate threads. That's similar to letting you start another feedback thread because the posts here might not be agreeable. It's simply not tenable to have two identical threads. Whether you agree with him or not, Michael's thread were very heavily focused on certain themes e.g blasphemy, education. These are subject to the same rules and standards that you are.

As for Rob's member ship, other than a retired power ranger, I don't know.

Turtwig

Actually coming to think of it maybe Rob wants us to think he gave up the morphers.

pauldla

Jernal wrote: »

Actually coming to think of it maybe Rob wants us to think he gave up the morphers.

Once a power ranger, always a power ranger.

Beruthiel

Jernal wrote: »

Though since they were kind enough to send us both a box of biscuits for Christmas this attitude is also under review.

All I want to know is, where's my feckin' box of bikkies!?

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My thread was focused to a particular topic.

(Again) feel free to open a thread in feed back (again) if you feel (again) as though you've been hard done by in A+A (again).

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And is Robin a member of AI?

While I'm not a former power ranger, although I'd love to be, I am a fully paid-up member of one sailing club and one gym. I hope this firm knowledge helps still your quivering, aching chest.

Beruthiel wrote: »

All I want to know is, where's my feckin' box of bikkies!?

On the way, Beruthiel!

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

What topic was it focused on?
And, how independent was it to warrant its own thread? These are the two pertinent questions and here are the answers:

You have been contributing in a thread on the constitutional convention for two days. Your 'new' thread is correlated heavily with those posts. We're never going to split your conversation over two separate threads. That's similar to letting you start another feedback thread because the posts here might not be agreeable. It's simply not tenable to have two identical threads. Whether you agree with him or not, Michael's thread were very heavily focused on certain themes e.g blasphemy, education. These are subject to the same rules and standards that you are.

As for Rob's member ship, other than a retired power ranger, I don't know.

Granted, I accept why you merged my thread but my point is that Michael has opened 3 identical threads which were allowed to remain as 3.


Please do this Today to help Separate Church and State in Ireland
Today you a have a unique opportunity to help reverse the historic influence of the Catholic Church on the Irish Constitution – a document that begins with the embarrassing anachronism of: “In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority,”


A Secular Constitution for a Pluralist people
Atheist Ireland has today made this submission to the Constitutional Convention. 1. Executive Summary 1.1 Atheist Ireland is an advocacy group for atheism, reason and ethical secularism.


Constitutional Convention insults secular citizens with 2% vote on Church & State
The Irish Constitutional Convention has responded insultingly to the many citizens who asked it to discuss Separation of Church and State.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

(Again) feel free to open a thread in feed back (again) if you feel (again) as though you've been hard done by in A+A (again).While I'm not a former power ranger, although I'd love to be, I am a fully paid-up member of one sailing club and one gym. I hope this firm knowledge helps still your quivering, aching chest.On the way, Beruthiel!

I don't get the Power Rangers reference. Could you please clarify if you are a member of the pressure Group Atheist Ireland?

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you please clarify if you are a member of the pressure Group Atheist Ireland?

As above, I'm a member of one sailing club and one gym, though I'm not quite sure why either of these might interest you. I'm not a member of any "pressure group" and find your usage of the term typically unhelpful.

I'm also putting you on formal notice that if you don't start contributing to A+A in the generally helpful, or amusing or interesting, fashion that most other posters do, you will be carded or banned at the mods' discretion.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

As above, I'm a member of one sailing club and one gym, though I'm not quite sure why either of these might interest you. I'm not a member of any "pressure group".

I'm also putting you on formal notice that if you don't start contributing to the forum in the generally helpful, or amusing or interesting, fashion that most other posters do, you will be carded or banned at the mods' discretion.

Just so I have this right if the mods consider me less helpful, interesting or amusing than others then I am facing a ban?


Could you please confirm if you are a member of Atheist Ireland?