A&A Feedback

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's the procedure as I understand it. Please don't misinterpret my posts to try and derail the discussion, thanks.

Now, for the third time at least, where's the evidence for this "political fiefdom"?

jank wrote:

Naturally, you would never be found guilty of anything like that yourself.

It would appear that my remark about jank being a Trojan horse for petty grudges was well on the mark.

Cabaal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nodin is right though,

Bans do increase in pretty much every forum if you keep doing stuff that warrants a ban.

So if a user is for example low level trolling in a forum they might first get a warning or infraction then a two day ban, then a 3 day, then a week etc. This could eventually lead to a perma ban from the forum or if the admin's think it warrants a site ban this can happen.

If each new post was treated as new the bans would never increase.

A user would never be perma banned or site banned unless they really went to town in one post with a massive amount of abuse OR they spammed the site or something to that affect,.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

You having seen it and it having happened are separate things. Given the cries of martyrdom that seem to abound in the last few pages, its quite pertinent that the details of infractions be made public.

Says who? You? When replying keep in mind that Robin has made this public well before this thread in another thread. One is not allowed to post a PM with out the other users permission so why has this mod taken it upon themselves to post private information that is only available to mods publicly? I have not seen it done to elsewhere unless you can provide me with an example that there is precedent for this and its all OK.... never mind the reasons why it was done as well.

As I said, I am going to ask the admins about this to get clarity.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Says who? You? When (..........)clarity.

Your record was posted in a prison thread after you received a month siteban. That's where I saw it. PM's etc are nothing to do with it.

Now - if you'd be good enough to get back to me...

jank wrote:

Firstly, my main issue with this forum is in the way that Robindch treats it like his own personal fiefdom. There has been many instances where I have been in a debate..............

The evidence, please....

jank wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=1359
Tell me why did Robin post a video about Nigel Farage where religion is NEVER mentioned in a thread about the GOP?..............

Presumably he thinks they're birds of a feather. He's entitled to an opinion isn't he?

jank

Nodin wrote: »

Now that we've dealt with the cherry picking -

Jaysus, you have some neck. You talk about cherry picking when you went off without hesitation involving yourself in a matter that was really none of your concern to 'cherry pick' statements I made on this forum to prove some point.... Really?

jank

Nodin wrote: »

Your record was posted in a prison thread after you received a month siteban. That's where I saw it. PM's etc are nothing to do with it.


The evidence, please....

Robin mentioned it publicly before this afaik and as I said before when I get time I will dig out some posts. We don't all have as much spare time as you it appears Nodin.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Says who? You? When replying keep in mind that Robin has made this public well before this thread in another thread. One is not allowed to post a PM with out the other users permission so why has this mod taken it upon themselves to post private information that is only available to mods publicly? I have not seen it done to elsewhere unless you can provide me with an example that there is precedent for this and its all OK.... never mind the reasons why it was done as well.

As I said, I am going to ask the admins about this to get clarity.

A few samples

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057141788

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057013584

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057112804

Turtwig

Thread temporarily locked as this is no longer feedback. Will clear up after Chile match. Or a co mod will clear before then. In either case a cooling period is probably good.

robindch

Sheesh, a guy drops out for a weekend that turns out a little longer than expected and comes back to *this* :rolleyes:

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Really? I then suggest you read what you wrote.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Doesn't read that way to me.

coffee_cake

PB wrote:

On moderators as posters, I'd suggest that if a mod is involved in a heated debate in a thread, another mod (or a Cat Mod if necessary) should take any necessary action against posters. This involves giving the impression that a moderator might be manipulating a thread to his own ends.

I suggested similar to turtwig yesterday. I think it's fairly standard mod procedure elsewhere and a good idea.

Nodin wrote: »

Doesn't read that way to me.

"Suggest" was mentioned more than once, there's no need to be antagonistic about it

Cabaal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd agree with this, though it really depends on the action needed as if somebody comes in and just openly abuses (personal abuse) somebody its pretty clear cut case.

If however its a case of low level trolling its best for a mod thats not involved in the discussion to take any action if needed

Also if a mod is giving a warning etc its best for it to be clearly put in bold. this ensures people can see the different between a comment made by a mod as a user or a mod actually acting as a mod

Just my 2c

Nodin

bluewolf wrote: »

"Suggest" was mentioned more than once, there's no need to be antagonistic about it

Considering the nature of the posts that preceded this one, and the implicit reference to me in the above, its unfortunate and somewhat disappointing that you only reference antagonism now.

coffee_cake

Nodin wrote: »

Considering the nature of the posts that preceded this one,

For the record, I PM'd robindch while the thread was locked and apologized for the excessively vitriolic criticisms excerpted above. He graciously accepted my apology, and has reopened the thread so the debate can continue.

Where he apologised? That one?

I'm referring to antagonism now as it seems that was more cleared up and it's time to be constructive

Nodin

bluewolf wrote: »

Where he apologised? That one?

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

No, the ones he supposedly apologised for, the others directed against other posters...these drew not a comment from yourself.

However, as you suggest, lets see if we can be constructive.

coffee_cake

Bannasidhe

Personally, I would prefer any 'rebuttal' that takes the line 'typical right/left blah blah sweeping insulting generalisation' was a cardable offence. It's pathetic school yard tactics which should be seen as trolling/flaming.

I would be hesitant in laying down a definitive list of what is and is not permitted in discussions - as in mods coming in and saying 'nope, you can't branch off down that verboten tangent' - one of the things I love about A&A is it's freewheeling (careering?? ) attitude to what is 'on topic' and many the time I have read a completely 'off topic' post and thought 'ohhh, I did not know that!'. I like learning new things. I also find that is even a tenuous connection isn't obvious then other posters will quickly question the relevance. Plus, like one of Billy Connelly's rambling stories - we usually get back on topic again all by ourselves without mod intervention.

A&A - home of the light touch regulation.

I also don't see why any set of beliefs - be they religious or political (pharmaceutical/ horticultural/multicultural/yoghurtcultural) should be protected from interrogation. Don't like what has been said? Rebut it! As I said earlier - this does not in any way include 'typical:rolleyes:' type comments which are best ignored.

No Protectionism in A&A

Turtwig

Doesn't count unless you spit on it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coffee_cake

Turtwig wrote: »

Doesn't count unless you spit on it.

I don't spit, I ... shake hands in a polite and mannerly fashion

Turtwig

I wrote this in a pm to another user so I hope that don't mind be quoting.

The problem as I can see is that a and a mocks loony positions. Other posters feel offended by their beliefs being mocked. This can't really be changed. I mean, the forum ripped the piss into feminism and that upset a few posters that some left. It's really tough line to establish as clearly loony religious views get the piss taken of them. So do bizarre pseudo science groups. Every so often various groups are going to feel offended as they perceive their views get considered loony. Often times this isn't even the case, but the appearance is there. Often times it is the case in both cases moderating wise as long as there's nothing personal or blatantly untoward we let things continue that's what makes this forum what it is.

Threads like abortion and laws concerning rape show serious discussions can be had.

The biggest problem I see that some people are overly attached to their viewpoints. They're fine when other stances are being mocked but not their own. A and a is at the end of the day a forum that mocks everything.

Where possible we let threads steer themselves. Only when the line is blatantly crossed do we step in. I think this approach is best to any discussion. No idea is sacred. Regardless how obviously stupid something is if you can't explain why then it's not stupid.


Regarding jank all too often posts pointless posts asking "what about x" in a thread that is clearly got nothing to do with X. He also straw man positions far too often. And gets vigorous and confrontational in tone. Every card and infraction I gave him had nothing to do with politics. Strictly speaking I should have given more. So no more political bias shyte using jank please. There may have political bias for some of his actions, not saying there was. Fact is it's irrelevant, he's been given an unbelievable amount of leniency. If he has reformed his ways then that leniency will have been worth it and we'll be glad to have his other contributions.

I think the suggestion of not modding self active heated discussion is a fair one. There is one obvious time constraint. The mod in active discussion will have read the thread, there is no guarantee another mod will be able to read the thread in a fair and reflective manner. I think the onus should be on the mod to know when their impartiality is compromised and report the posts, letting their co mods know immediately. If a mod can't do this autonomously then frankly they've no business in modding. I do actually believe it's possible for a mod to be active in discussion and still remain impartial to the degrees that is humanely possible. We're posters first mod second and many posters can remain impartial for most topics. Everyone just has different triggers.

keane2097

All the best communities end up diversifying into topics other than what they are created for. If I wanted to read what the regs in the Politics forum think about the latest Republican faux pas/developments in Crimea/etc I know how to do it, but having gotten to know the posters in this forum over the years (mainly through reading rather than writing) I reckon I'm more interested in what they think.

It's a bit like the horse racing forum debacle here over the last while - the community that has grown up over years wanted to talk amongst themselves about the WC rather than all getting split up in the Soccer forum, which is the sign of a good community operating well IMO.

Turtwig

One more thing:

Religion gets marginalised in a lot of threads. Mostly by the gay agenda, but often times by other things. This forum itself is the non stamp collecting category of stamp collecting. So some threads will have very little, if anything, to do with religion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

keane2097

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is a forum for those who share a&a views clearly, do you need a poll to see how many of us believe in a god? It doesn't say it's a forum for discussing the topics of atheism and/or agnosticism, it says it's a forum for people who subscribe to those views.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

keane2097

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's a forum for people who share atheist and agnostic views, that's surely only unclear if you're going out of your way to get confused.

Penn

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Forums throughout Boards might be about a central topic but has threads which deviate a bit every now and then. Obviously if someone started a thread here about the World Cup, it'd likely be moved or closed. If someone started a thread how religion influences the performance of sports stars (like how the impact of prayers or other religious factors might influence a players mentality and how well they play etc etc), which ended up drifting back and forth about that topic and just World Cup chat in general, it'd probably be allowed, so long as it doesn't simply become a World Cup thread.

Same with the thread about Republicans. It started off about how Michelle Bachman said God told her to run for President (which was also the focus of an episode of The Newsroom) and was also about general Republican/religious news, which may have segued into politics talk without a religious specific angle, but then goes back to having a religious angle when the topic arises again.