A&A Feedback

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PopePalpatine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Maybe it's because the Republican Party tries its damnednest to disintegrate the separation between Church and State in the USA?

Turtwig

Cabaal wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not helpful.

bluewolf wrote: »

Dades has already said jank should have a new leaf, that rch was out of line in some comments, and that regulars should start reading his posts away from his history in A&A

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90824067&postcount=13

So maybe the "he will be banned" stuff is a bit unfair

Sorry colloquial vernacular/poor choice of wording.
If or when Jank will be banned it'll be for being a plank in far too many posts. Not some political bias against his positions.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really I understand you're criticism of the moderation but making it out that Jank is result of political bias is weaking your argument as he's most certainly not a result of that.

Also on the note of that thread:
If we were designed by evolution to reproduce then gays wouldn't exist? Fact is it's a statistical process not an absolute one. Variation is the name of the game. If you have a gene where 10% will be introverts but 90% will be social extroverted beasts getting sex at every opportunity (not saying introverts don't get sex ) then the introverts will still exist even though the argument could still be made that the gene's function is for extroversion.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry couldn't let that go.

Some of the best threads on this forum have been ones where the members of this forum were bashed from the offset. If Jank started a post like that he'd most likely be allowed to keep it going by the mod teams. I hate constantly talking about Jank so let's just call all future republican thread starters Bob. Bob would be fine until he starts chucking whataboutery into more serious threads. Fact is, if the mod team has to consistently create new thread spawns because of one poster then patience runs a little thin, if Bob makes personal attacks against posters and incredibly vague swipes and assumptions at a group of people for no real relevant reason other than to say "I disagree but 95% of this disagreement isn't relevant to your post or just about most other others peoples." then it starts getting into problem territory.

Here's a more in detail post I posted in the mod forum about it. With some modifications for privacy.

Generally speaking, when a person has little knowledge of the subject matter but isn't convinced by the other side's reasoning or argument they tend to become contrarian. This has many advantages. Principle of which is that the contrarian can test the understanding of others. Second then is that the contrarian can possibly come to understand the position of others and grow their knowledge base. But some posters almost never fits either of these . I'm all for letting them post in threads with little to no correspondences but too often they join in actual ongoing vibrant discussion and derails them with word pedantry attacking a supposed majority position that likely doesn't even exist. Killing the productive discussion in the process. I don't believe for one second this is the kind of contrarian category we can make use of.

The policy should never be to ban to contrarians they are incredibly useful to any discussion. The policy would be to consider the value of those who are intentionally contrarian for suspicious or poor communication reasons. Some are quite blatant at times with personal abuse and derailment and they contribute no value in any way that I can discern to helping people improve their understanding to any given position. Discussion is first and foremost about understanding the concepts of both sides. If this hinders in too many ways a thread becomes pointless. Often times, people are driven towards giving up more than anything else. When some posters post in a thread all that's usually left after one page of posts is the dedicated personal spats between posters the usual 5%. Hardly a good argument.

There's a spectrum for everything. In that spectrum exists happy mediums and boards should strive to keep all posters within that happy medium and steer those outside them into it. Make no mistake: any poster wouldn't be banned soley for being a contrarian, they might be banned for being a perennial derailer of discusssion and whataboutery, (though in A&A we're exceptionally lenient and will mostly just split threads as it becomes necessary), they're most likely going be banned for just being an all round abusive plank or really bizzare sh8t e.g advocating the sterilisation of specific posters! There are some lines you just cannot cross. Getting personal in arguments once in a while is ok; persistently doing it isn't! So back to the contrarians.

I wouldn't agree that contrarians should be automatically banned but I do believe that forum etiquette should be adhered to. I might not have a clue of economics but that doesn't give me the right to just pop right into the middle of a economics discussion and take a swipe at everyone in that thread over one particular sentence discussing a very complex concept. It certainly doesn't give me the right to persistently do it all over the boards. It's ok if I do it when there's no discussion ongoing but I think anything that derails a flowing exchange of ideas, if it happens persistently, needs to be sanctioned. Regardless of whether the poster is a Nobel Prize winner or not. Otherwise you just end up with unholy messes.
The problem is it's far too easy for a moderator to abuse it because it's far too easy to stray off a topic. So, I think lots of leeway should be given, especially to newcomers. Minority opinions on any thread should be biased towards by the moderator. By this I mean the moderator shows extra leniency and patience with the minority side. The reason being is that the majority of reported posts will be by people biased against the minority whereas the minority will have fewer reports - if any at all . And, it is so easy to miss the 'trigger' post that ignites a discussion into a tomato splat fest.
I'm getting a little side tracked here. Every poster even the ordinary the troll has their uses, contrarians likely more so. But, I do not think those minor uses where contrarian attitude is useful should absolve them of everything. Contradicting stuff is useful but it's also the easiest thing for anyone to do in a discussion. Ideas need to be followed through. If there's no ideas being exchanged there in a thread then this isn't as strict a requirement. However, where the discussion is serious and sometimes esoteric, or worse still emotional, contradictions with little less offered can just kill the discussion and other posters' appetite for it. Like I said though, we just split/merge the thread. But eventually we'll lose patience.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Stuff and nonsense there, if ever I saw it.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

25 warnings, 20 infractions, 13 forum bans. And no, they're not all from here afaik.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I have to say that this post exploded my irony metre as I stopped posted in Politics while you were a mod there due to the amount of 'lefty' bashing that was allowed to occur with impunity there.

Valmont

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear has never been a politics mod. Posters of all ideological stripes are given more or less equal treatment in that forum, but apparently you are uncomfortable reading posts you disagree with.

I have to agree with the accusations levelled towards this forum. Atheism brought me to boards.ie long before I even understood the terms left and right wing. But since Robindch became a moderator he has used his mod powers to soapbox against the right, close threads that were going against him, and to pretty much monopolise the forum towards his own brand of statist atheism.

coffee_cake

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have to say that this post exploded my irony metre as I stopped posted in Politics while you were a mod there due to the amount of 'lefty' bashing that was allowed to occur with impunity there.

He was never a polmod

Bannasidhe

Valmont wrote: »

Permabear has never been a politics mod. Posters of all ideological stripes are given more or less equal treatment in that forum, but apparently you are uncomfortable reading posts you disagree with.

I have to agree with the accusations levelled towards this forum. Atheism brought me to boards.ie long before I even understood the terms left and right wing. But since Robindch became a moderator he has used his mod powers to soapbox against the right, close threads that were going against him, and to pretty much monopolise the forum towards his own brand of statist atheism.

My mistake and I aplogise unreservedly to Permabear for my mistake.

However, the fact remains that there was a notable anti-left bias in Politics - might still be, I don't tend to bother with it any more, and Permabear was something of a cheerleader. I know because several times he dismissed my posts with terms such as 'typical left' blah blah.

I have no problem with posts 'I don't agree with' and it is condensing and untrue of you to accuse me of such. I do have a problem with people who complain of bias in one forum being part of an equally biased cabal in a different forum. Glass houses and stones spring to mind.

Turtwig

Ugh I hate that term "statist" having issues with libertarian views doesn't mean you are an advocate of absolute government control and intervention.

PopePalpatine

I have issues with economic libertarianism, but I'd consider myself a civil rights-libertarian when it comes to things like state surveillance, etc. My issues with economic libertarianism stem from my belief that it doesn't help the working class and social mobility. I come from a working class family, and I'm currently attending university courtesy of a government grant. I don't believe that a totally "free" market would enhance social mobility.

RDM_83 again

Nodin wrote: »

25 warnings, 20 infractions, 13 forum bans. And no, they're not all from here afaik.

How do you know this?I thought Infractions were private unless your a mod of the forum?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have to say that this post exploded my irony metre as I stopped posted in Politics while you were a mod there due to the amount of 'lefty' bashing that was allowed to occur with impunity there.

I know who you are confusing permabear with, its a nato phonetic alphabet username, politics is improved these days though.

Turtwig

RDM_83 again wrote: »

How do you know this?I thought Infractions were private unless your a mod of the forum?.

An admin published it in a thread in feedback.

Valmont

And the place to debate such issues is the one of the politics or economics forums. If Robindch dislikes certain political ideologies he should debate them on an equal footing with his opponents in politics or political theory; starting them in the forum of which he is a moderator and hence has total control over the trajectory of the discussion is completely inappropriate. I would also point out that I have never once seen him tackle the libertarians and 'right-wingers' he so despises in a neutral forum where he isn't surrounded by his regulars or where he can't close the thread if it becomes too much for him. To be fair, he has never infracted me, but this business with Jank seems to represent an acceleration of the abuse of his position.

Nodin

Valmont wrote: »

And the (............)an acceleration of the abuse of his position.

Yet another arrives with unsubstantiated allegations. Great stuff.

Valmont wrote: »

I have to agree with the accusations levelled towards this forum. Atheism brought me to boards.ie long before I even understood the terms left and right wing. But since Robindch became a moderator he has used his mod powers to soapbox against the right, close threads that were going against him, and to pretty much monopolise the forum towards his own brand of statist atheism. .

And you've examples of this, I trust?

Odd that you've managed to keep your silence for the eight years you've been here.

oscarBravo

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I know who you are confusing permabear with, its a nato phonetic alphabet username, politics is improved these days though.

o O

Penn

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Republican Fruitcakes thread. The vast majority of Republicans base much of their views on their religious beliefs to the extent that their stances on climate change and evolution are detrimental to their own country.

They absolutely deserve to be called Half-baked Republican Fruitcakes, and I fail to see how robindch is in any way responsible for directing the forum to believing that. I'm sure most of us probably came to that conclusion ourselves before that thread. It's also not an abuse of mod power to engage in or start threads while giving your own opinion. Unless someone can point to where he has actually abused mod powers, anyone who has claimed such should really retract those claims.

Dades

I think a perception has developed that because Robindch frequently espouses certain views - and is also a moderator - that he is some sort of Putinesque figure in this forum. This hasn't been backed up with evidence. Mods can post as posters in their forums and anyone can disagree here within the rules of discussion. Very few people here are ever carded or banned, considering the subject matters that crop up.

Yes, a poster may find themselves surrounded, which can often be seen as being ganged up on - but that's just numbers. If a majority agree on an issue, there's going to be a minority who feel put upon.

Using jank as an example of dictatorial methods in A&A doesn't stand up. He has 13 bans, only 2 of which are from this forum. He's been banned more times from Politics.

People should have their facts before throwing opinions around.

Cabaal

Dades wrote: »

Very few people here are ever carded or banned,

Surprisingly few from my own observations,
Alot of stuff is let go or posters are simply told to calm down for stuff that would earn them a infraction or ban in most other forums on boards,

Some people seem to miss this for some reason,

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cabaal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you think that because there might be a thread or two that something doesn't like/agree with, that will put them off contributing to the entire forum?

Your assertions are pretty baseless so far, you've shown none of the bias from any mod (acting as a mod at the time) in this form that you claim to be talking about above.

Seems you're just on a witch hunt here to be honest,

Dades

Nobody has posted in the "Half-baked Republican Fruitcakes" thread since May, and I've not seen or noticed political stuff in here recently. Frankly, talk of things like a "personal political fiefdom" come across as overwrought.

If you don't like what someone has posted - there's a button marked "POST REPLY" at the end of every post. Come back when you get banned or carded for responding and your concerns will be taken seriously.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Really Permabear, do you think posters in A&A do not have minds of our own and are quite capable of thinking for ourselves?

All this hyperbole about Robinch and his 'cohort' is deeply insulting and dismissive of A&A regular posters and frankly uncalled for.

'Personal fiefdom' - give me strength. If people have a problem with Rob's moderation they are free to go to DRP if they believe they have been unfairly infracted by a MOD- just like every other forum.

It seems to me that your sole purpose in posting here is to launch a personal attack on one mod and fire off a few insulting comments about other posters who happen to not agree with your political ideology.

As for Jank - he and I have certainly crossed verbal swords on many occasions but have reached a ceasefire via PMs and while I do not tend to agree with his political views- no more than he does with mine - I now have a better understanding of where he is coming from but think that he does not always express himself to best advantage and this is why he oft times causes controversy. My perception is that it is not Jank's views per se that land him in trouble but how he expresses those views.

However, you seem to be using this feedback thread to advance your own personal agenda and it has precious little to do with Jank.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I tried to find your thread in Help Desk re: biased moderation in A&A but can't seem to find it. Perhaps you would supply a link?

Dades

Permabear, you keep posting the same thing in jank's defense and keep studiously ignoring his (worse) ban record in other forums. Are you fighting his case in those forums, too?

You've also ignored the link to the recent Feedback thread the subject of which is very similar to what you are saying.

Why is this?

Cabaal

Dades wrote: »

Why is this?

am guessing its because he wants to soapbox,

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If you do not wish to discuss politics in A&A then don't.

Why on Earth would people attack you for your political beliefs unless you reference those political beliefs and therefore introduce them to the discussion?

If you dislike the fact that many A&A posters - but not all - are left wing than I fail to see how that is the 'fault' of the mods. Anyone is free to post as long as they abide by the rules of the forum or do you think there is some nefarious underhand recruitment campaign going on???

There are many topics in A&A I have zero interest in discussing so I don't. I would no longer participate in any discussion on Libertarianism- should one arise- , for example, as it brings me into unnecessary conflict with bluewolf and she is, political differences aside, a poster I have great respect for.

I don't see what your problem is to be honest. Do you want any reference to politics banned in A&A - not very libertarian of you (:pac: - tongue firmly in cheek!)

And using terms like 'personal fiefdom' and 'cohort' do appear to be very personal tbh.