Request For Feedback: Bullying

Markbrie

Maybe the best way is to be polite and to remember that even the person who is being asked had to learn it somewhere. I know it can be frustrating but I guess it comes down to patience.

Dravokivich

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

All the talk so far seems to be about people bullying other Boards members. But what the online bullying of "celebs"? In particular there is a few Irish celebrities that get a serious amount of abuse here. Do the same people here that are against bullying other members think its ok to do it to famous people?

There have been countless threads about the subject, even your previous thread Discussing people who aren't here to defend themselves would carry a similar idea to it. Just because people are known publicly does not mean they should be open to baseless ridicule and abuse. It will put boards.ie in a bad light if it was to be allowed here. So they don't. Mainly because it's not what boards is about. As mentioned by someone else, bullying would require some form of contact to the person being bullied, so it's not being discouraged due to that. It's about how the community and its members are perceived through association with Boards.ie.

Regarding bullying within boards.ie,
That's a bit of a though nugget when as mentioned, it can be rather subtle. A friend of mine who used to post here got bullied really subtly by tags referring to them being placed on a lot of threads through various forums here. It took a bit of time for them to go forward about it, because there was no way for a regular member to see who was doing it. On the face of it, it was possible in this instance for the bullying to go on with the bullier hidden from the victim.

RDM_83 again

Firstly I have to second Madam X's post, and make the point that feedback has improved massively over the years its still mainly ran and posted in by the same people that used to think pages and pages of LOLCATS were an appropriate response to "less involved" user concerns
(as a general point I'm probably unusually I find a lot of Boards.ie better the more corporate it has become )

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I think that repeatedly posting "unpopular" opinions would be trolling.
There's an unpopular opinions thread in AH now and the mod note states (paraphrased): "if your opinion is too unpopular then you shouldn't post it".

I suppose the community reacting the same way to the same person that's posting the same type of threads/opinions is more of a "you really shouldn't be posting these opinions" rather than "you should let this person express an opinion that'll annoy other people".

At the end of the day, if I'm going to come into the single parenting forum and start posting with the opinion that single parents are bad and two parents will always be better, then that's more of me lacking common sense. I could back up my opinions with hundreds of hundreds of links, articles, studies, etc but it's not going to be welcome in that forum.
If someone is being "bullied" by posting something that'll rile up the community, it's really that users fault if they keep on doing it.

As for being followed across threads, I suppose it's really just a "do these posters normally post in the forums they're now going to" and in either case, are the responses by them being aimed at the same person and it is escalating to flames or trolling quickly and if it is, who's more responsible. Of course, a case-by-case basis is a necessity I think.

Ok while I agree with the need for thick skins I don't think the example you gave is quiet correct.

I don't think the issue people have is there being unwelcome opinions on the forums that one would be expect there to be such a reaction, e.g posting something from Leviticus in the LGBT forums or conversely posting something from some of the LGBT forums in the Christianity one*.

Rather its that in forums that appear that they should represent a broader demographic, e.g AH, TLL,TGC** (the TGC does seem to have a greater pluraity of opinion though), there appears to be an acceptable narrative and an unacceptable one (in relation to certain hot topic issues) where a user unfamiliar with these forums might legitimately feel they are being bullied as the opinions they express would not be considered particularly unusual in real life Ireland, in particular this feeling would be exasperated when mods posting in the capacity as users (in their own forums etc) weigh in on the "acceptable narrative" side.

Now while it may sound like I'm trying to pull the thread of topic and onto a different and more controversial avenue,but I do feel that like any of the various ---isms bullying is something where an external examiner doesn;t really have the privilege to tell another what they are experiencing. This said I enjoy heated debate and don;t mind arguing against the flow (but I also feel that I've never been bullied in any situation).
And its also not necessary either, I'm sure some other Nationalists/Republicans (not same thing!) apart from myself will remember the politics forum of the late 2000's being a very unwelcoming place to be, I feel its presently much better without loosing any of the heated debate (trench warfare!) simply due to better stronger more clear cut rules evenly applied as well as some key changes in the moderation team.

Only two short more focused points as most of my other ones have already been covered by others in this thread.

1) I'm not sure of the minimum age of users but I know I would argue and post with greater sensitivity if I knew there was a likelyhood the poster was 13-17, and I feel most people would by default think that other posters are at least 18+

2) I'm aware of one poster who i;m sure any politics and AH mods will be aware of who's name is often referenced in relation to CT/out there stories, I don;t think the intent is bullying at all but it could be definitely be construed as such by the user being name checked in a thread he's not part of. (I have reported a post from today where this occurred so if the AH mods feel its ok I'l ad it later in thread.


*Using this as a general example btw I know there is deeply Christian gay people

** as a feedback aside, as a user its really annoying the way some threads hop between these three forums (and humanities too)

PC CDROM

Madam_X wrote: »

Speaking of bullying: That locked thread here on Feedback about the person posting vile sectarian remarks is really disappointing. Out and out ganging up and ridiculing (i.e. bullying) of a person who is making a reasonable point.
The issue is not the person being unionist (completely disingenuous to say that's what's deemed the problem) but sectarian and bigoted. So what if they're the mod of another forum? They're a mod - and visibly so; therefore they should comply with a particular standard. And not being a mod in the forums they don't mod should not be taken advantage of.

Rozie

RDM_83 again

Ouch I'd never read that thread before! It certainly shows the forum in a bad light considering the very large amount of mods and 'higher' involved even Devores post would probably be taken as bullying/attacking the poster today.

Rozie, people arent disliking you because you are a transvestite. People are disliking you because you are goddamn annoying and never shut up with the whinging and the bitching and the ranting. Seriously, chill and stop fighting *everyone*.

DeV.

Wibbs

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Rozie, people arent disliking you because you are a transvestite. People are disliking you because you are goddamn annoying and never shut up with the whinging and the bitching and the ranting. Seriously, chill and stop fighting *everyone*.

DeV.

Considering the situation and looong background to that particular story Dev's post pretty much sums it up RDM. For me anyway.

Not everyone is the object of bullying, just because they call it as such, not everyone is a "victim" just because they call it as such. Some people, thankfully rare, even when given an incredible amount of leeway, still find a way to break life's "don't be a dick" rule. That's not bullying, that's calling it as it is and hopefully something might get through to the object of such a call. Hope sprang at the time. I see it this way; if one person tells you you smell, ignore them, if twenty people tell you you smell, buy soap.

*EDIT* as far as others being dicks in the thread and breaking the "don't be" rule hereabouts, the penultimate post is Beruthiel pointing out dickism and the very last post is Ecksor handing out bans to five people. So it's not much of an example, even given the OP was in extremis and a PITA/Timesink troll in the first place.

PC CDROM

Wibbs wrote: »

Considering the situation and looong background to that particular story Dev's post pretty much sums it up RDM. For me anyway.

Not everyone is the object of bullying, just because they call it as such, not everyone is a "victim" just because they call it as such. Some people, thankfully rare, even when given an incredible amount of leeway, still find a way to break life's "don't be a dick" rule. That's not bullying, that's calling it as it is and hopefully something might get through to the object of such a call. Hope sprang at the time. I see it this way; if one person tells you you smell, ignore them, if twenty people tell you you smell, buy soap.

*EDIT* as far as others being dicks in the thread and breaking the "don't be" rule hereabouts, the penultimate post is Beruthiel pointing out dickism and the very last post is Ecksor handing out bans to five people. So it's not much of an example, even given the OP was in extremis and a PITA/Timesink troll in the first place.

No one is a bully. Perspective and time past.

Nice edit too.

Would you like more?

RDM_83 again

I think you've completely misunderstood me, if the person involved had genuine personality issues/ trolling they should have simply be sitebanned quickly (and I hope they would be now), not subject to twelve pages of abuse that would land users in court these days if posted on Facebook.
A different time time back then when you could have stuff like as the first two posts to a feed back thread no matter how obnoxious a poster is

"a roze by any other name would want to chop it's testicles off"


"Someone please give this chick a serious deep dickin."

I'm sorry but if some one is annoying you ignore them you don't start insulting them, if somebody has personality issues you definitely don;t do that.

Edit: This comment was directed at Wibbs previous post not PC_CDROMS (stupid getting distracted)

TheFisherKing

Wibbs wrote: »

I see it this way; if one person tells you you smell, ignore them, if twenty people tell you you smell, buy soap.

That is a nonsense attitude to take but one which many bullies subscribe to, not surprisingly, as it allows them to absolve themselves of any guilt they should be feeling for pushing others around.

They feel, because others (who they are usually influencing) are also personally attacking a person and accusing them of x,y and z, then they must be right for doing so. Such people rarely if ever check their own behavior and when challenged on what they may have said and even shown how it is unwarranted, they will still see themselves as having done no wrong.

Bullies rarely if ever act alone. They are invariably have numbers on their side for the simply reason that the payoff for most bullies is the reaction of the gallery that they are undoubtedly playing to. Anyone that has ever been bullied will tell you that the most frustrating aspect of it is when those around the bully/bullies don't examine the accusations of bullying and instead close ranks, or worse, join in.

Some people, thankfully rare, even when given an incredible amount of leeway, still find a way to break life's "don't be a dick" rule.

Mods and admin can be dicks also and the thing about bullying is that it is much easier to get away with when you have power over another. The average user on Boards has very little or no power. If they bully and harass a user, it's almost impossible for them to get away with. Contrast that with those that have the power to moderate a user, ban a user, remove a user and discuss users in front of a group out of the sight of regular users and you have an enormous capacity to bully those which you have a personal problem with.

I'm not saying that it goes on much, but go on it does.

K-9

RDM_83 again wrote: »

And its also not necessary either, I'm sure some other Nationalists/Republicans (not same thing!) apart from myself will remember the politics forum of the late 2000's being a very unwelcoming place to be, I feel its presently much better without loosing any of the heated debate (trench warfare!) simply due to better stronger more clear cut rules evenly applied as well as some key changes in the moderation team.

Tbh I don't think moderation of those threads has changed that much, maybe our perceptions just are different.

2) I'm aware of one poster who i;m sure any politics and AH mods will be aware of who's name is often referenced in relation to CT/out there stories, I don;t think the intent is bullying at all but it could be definitely be construed as such by the user being name checked in a thread he's not part of. (I have reported a post from today where this occurred so if the AH mods feel its ok I'l ad it later in thread.


*Using this as a general example btw I know there is deeply Christian gay people

** as a feedback aside, as a user its really annoying the way some threads hop between these three forums (and humanities too)

That is something we are targeting on AH, it isn't something I'd have seen as a big problem but I think I've slowly been converted. It has to be implemented consistently IMO, nobody should be name checked mockingly in a thread they haven't participated in, and more than likely never read.

Lazarus2.0

TheFisherKing wrote: »

Bullies rarely if ever act alone. They are invariably have numbers on their side for the simply reason that the payoff for most bullies is the reaction of the gallery that they are undoubtedly playing to. Anyone that has ever been bullied will tell you that the most frustrating aspect of it is when those around the bully/bullies don't examine the accusations of bullying and instead close ranks, or worse, join in.

It's become very noticeable to me over the years - more so in recent years tbh - that internet users in general behave like lemmings . Whether on forums , online gaming , social media or whatever while many wouldn't lead the way in breaking rules / baiting other users / out and out harrassment they'll sure as hell jump on the bandwagon if there's something in it for them - be that getting away with a game exploit or being seen to be 'in with the crew' and every other shade of wrong in between (and beyond) . In the context of this thread the keyboard doesnt have a conscience and many of those doing the bullying wont even realise or consider that they are doing so .

TheFisherKing wrote: »

Mods and admin can be dicks also

No argument there . Power can and often does lead to abuse of power - that's a human failing and it would be naive to think boards mods/admin are somehow immune to that .
It's encouraging that this thread was started by Admin with a view to understanding and addressing the issue though . I see that as a statement in itself and regardless of what conclusions they might ultimately draw I doubt I'm alone in revising my hitherto very simplistic take on bullying in light of some of the excellent posts so far .

Wibbs

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I think you've completely misunderstood me, if the person involved had genuine personality issues/ trolling they should have simply be sitebanned quickly (and I hope they would be now), not subject to twelve pages of abuse that would land users in court these days if posted on Facebook.
A different time time back then when you could have stuff like as the first two posts to a feed back thread no matter how obnoxious a poster is

"a roze by any other name would want to chop it's testicles off"


"Someone please give this chick a serious deep dickin."

I'm sorry but if some one is annoying you ignore them you don't start insulting them, if somebody has personality issues you definitely don;t do that.

Oh I agree, but as you point out it was a different time back then, even so that stuff was rare and even in that example bans were handed out. The difference today is that it would be far more proactive bans/thread closing than the reactive action of that example. That's a major improvement.

Lazarus2.0 wrote: »

It's become very noticeable to me over the years - more so in recent years tbh - that internet users in general behave like lemmings

I would argue that people behave like lemmings. However on Boards and other sites that take this kinda thing seriously that is far better controlled than it was a few years ago. Again an improvement.

No argument there . Power can and often does lead to abuse of power - that's a human failing and it would be naive to think boards mods/admin are somehow immune to that .

Again that was much more likely in the past. It was thankfully rare enough, but it did go on the odd time. Caused a few blowups over it too and things changed because it was raised by the community. The mod/admin volunteer group in the community has much more transparency and accountability going on than in did and everyone has more avenues to question issues that may arise. Boards is highly unusual in this.

It's encouraging that this thread was started by Admin with a view to understanding and addressing the issue though . I see that as a statement in itself and regardless of what conclusions they might ultimately draw I doubt I'm alone in revising my hitherto very simplistic take on bullying in light of some of the excellent posts so far .

+1.

Wibbs

To put things in perspective that linked thread was five years ago, that's an age around here. The site has changed a lot in that time. Attitudes and practices among the moderation layer at all levels have changed too. I'd be right behind you on the barricades if that thread happened today(and actually was when similar went down in the past), but it doesn't and IMHO using it as an example is a tad inaccurate and not a little redundant.

To give a bit of "the other side" to that example and there are others, sometimes(thank christ rarely) you do get people that are "timesinks" for the mods and disrupt the community for everyone else. What you're seeing there is for the most part sheer bloody frustration being vented. Wrongly yes and yes today it would be handled better and similar has been handled better. I suppose the site/community has learned that with some talking and giving leeway will never be enough.

That's another aspect to the debate, I can think of a number of such timesinks that were bullying mods, harrassing them, here and on other sites online. Some got to silly levels. I certainly know of a few mods who've stepped down, even closed accounts because of the hassle they were getting. It can most certainly go both ways.

K-9 wrote:

nobody should be name checked mockingly in a thread they haven't participated in, and more than likely never read.

+1. It's been the unwritten rule in the forums I've modded in and I've seen it applied in other forums too.

RDM_83 again wrote:

Rather its that in forums that appear that they should represent a broader demographic, e.g AH, TLL,TGC** (the TGC does seem to have a greater pluraity of opinion though), there appears to be an acceptable narrative and an unacceptable one (in relation to certain hot topic issues) where a user unfamiliar with these forums might legitimately feel they are being bullied as the opinions they express would not be considered particularly unusual in real life Ireland, in particular this feeling would be exasperated when mods posting in the capacity as users (in their own forums etc) weigh in on the "acceptable narrative" side.

I missed this point

On the tLL feedback thread I posted this;

On the subject of cliques, even "pack mentality" you're going to get something of that evolving in any community or group. People tend to gravitate towards a community mind on some subjects. Usually the headwreck ones of course. And those who may disagree will tend to avoid posting or if they do may be more the kinda folks who will be more thick skinned or robust in their responses. Goes for most forums on Boards. EG outside the religious forums(and even in there often enough) religion and the religious are usually sneered at all the way up to open hostility, though the latter nearly always gets actioned. On the Politics forums you could argue a certain slant from the community(it would be a different vibe to Politics.ie for example) and yes on the Ladies Lounge you get "biases" in the community in certain subjects. TLL would in very general terms be coming from a younger, liberal, agnostic, pro choice, pro divorce etc vibe than other places on the interweb.

I don't know how one could go about changing that RDM(on any forum), not unless the community itself changes. The only thing we can do is report posts where obvious sneering etc is obvious and stick vigorously to the attack the post not the poster rule. The handy thing about the site is if you have a particular opinion on a subject there's nearly always somewhere you can post and have some likeminded people chime in. No forum will ever be a one size fits all.

TheFisherKing

Wibbs wrote: »

everyone has more avenues to question issues that may arise.

When members are "dealt with" by Admin directly via PM and told precisely what they can and can't post and / or are banned from forums, then they have NO avenues to dispute the reasoning behind such moderation, none.

As mentioned previously, I am aware of one case of a young chap being contacted about his political views by Admin and told not to post x, y and z. He mentioned that he was going to start a DR thread and was then told that if he started one, it would be locked as Admin had already dealt with him. He carried on posting for a few months but then posted in a private forum and said he had enough of Boards and was going to close his account, which he did a short time later.

That's not the only example of it, there are a few and so this avenue that is open to Admin if and when they wish to moderate a member of Boards and yet leave them with no means of disputing that moderation, needs to be closed. I'm sure they can convince each other that a user is a "timesink" and/or is deserving of whatever moderation it is that they have dished out (away from prying eyes) but Admin should (IMO) have to show this on thread in the DRF, if a user feels they have been mistreated and unjustifiably moderated. Should be easy for them, if the user has done something deserving of it.

I understand that at times there might be some sensitive issues at hand and a user might have been contacted directly by admin and instructed not to do x, y & z because of off-thread behavior (abusive PMs, stalking a user etc) and so keeping that to PM is quite understandable but if on the other hand, the user has been moderated for the content of their posts and /or posting style, then that is not something that should be dealt with via PM to begin with, but if it is, then without question it should be open to dispute, otherwise it is an easy option for admin when they want someone out of a particular forum but don't fancy their chances should that user appeal.

If Boards is serious about wanting transparency with regards to how and when they moderate users (and avoid accusations of bullying) then direct Admin moderation (carried out via PM) should also be subject to the DR process in the same way that on-thread moderation is. Until such time that it is and admin moderation remains immune from being disputed in the DRF, then current level of transparency can only really be referred to as partial and not full.

Wibbs

Well I see one problem with that TFK, so far I've yet to see any user get admin attention that didn't already go through a back and forth with local mods/cmod first. That's how it rolls 99% of the time. It's damned rare anyone would come to the attention of any of the admins without them being flagged by local mods first because of issues with them locally. If nothing else because there's only a handful of them, so unless they happen to walk into a forum and spot what nobody else, locals, mods, cmods spotted then it's pretty unlikely.

Admin PM's are usually only when other avenues have been exhausted with someone. I say usually just on the off chance someone comes up with an example where this wasn't the case. I'll be surprised if someone does mind you. For a start the local mods wouldn't be too happy about it. If an admin PM'd an otherwise bang on person in one of the forums I modded I know I wouldn't and I'd not be alone in that.

But let's take your point about no debate with Admins. 1) if it's getting admins involved the issue isn't coming from nowhere, there is a fairly longstanding/serious issue and the back and forth has usually been well exhausted. 2) who do you suggest admins the admins? Other admins will stick their oar in if one of them goes OTT. Mods will kick up if one of them goes OTT. Admins have the beady eye on them from all sides, way more than mods do. Outside of that lot? The folks in the Boards office? Sure if it ever did get to that stage I'm sure that would happen but like I said I've yet to see anything like that.

TL;DR?

The buck has to stop somewhere and if said buck is landing on the admins desk it's passed through a fair few hands first.


BTW if you think I'm on a defend the admins kick to toe the party line, I'd suggest asking others more longstanding of my history on this site.

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

TL;DR?

The buck has to stop somewhere and if said buck is landing on the admins desk it's passed through a fair few hands first.


BTW if you think I'm on a defend the admins kick to toe the party line, I'd suggest asking others more longstanding of my history on this site.

And what really is the solution? Create another level of bureaucracy.

Wibbs

That was my point K. Another layer isn't needed as if a situation has reached that point it's already gone through all the steps.

Nodin

TheFisherKing wrote: »

When members are "dealt with" by Admin directly via PM and told precisely what they can and can't post and / or are banned from forums, then they have NO avenues to dispute the reasoning behind such moderation, none.

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

There has to be a 'supreme court' or ultimate authority in any system, and here the admins are it.

It might help to bear in mind theres no obligation on any board to provide arbitration and appeals on moderator decisions - its entirely up to the owners, be they private individuals or companies.

El Guapo!

I just flicked through the "Embarrassing Dads" thread in AH and I have to say there was, what I would consider, bullying behaviour in there that went unchecked as far as I can see.

A poster, Westendgirlie, posted a story about her father, and immediately she was jumped on by posters who consistently called her father a cúnt, and a bell-end. These posts were thanked by a lot of people and she tried to defend herself but was only met with more abuse.

Now it seems that Westendgirlie has closed her account, and her last post happens to be in that thread. It seems a bit of a coincidence that she closes her account immediately after being ganged up on and having her father called names in the forum.

I think this was a disgusting display by the posters in AH, even if they didn't like what happened in her story. And I think the mods should have stepped in and sorted it out earlier.

Madam_X

Grow a thick skin, use the ignore button - hate that crap. Grand if it's in relation to innocuous stuff, a person who annoys you etc... but if it's in relation to someone who's harassing you, then it's basically deflecting responsibility.

Super-Rush

Dean09 wrote: »

I just flicked through the "Embarrassing Dads" thread in AH and I have to say there was, what I would consider, bullying behaviour in there that went unchecked as far as I can see.

A poster, Westendgirlie, posted a story about her father, and immediately she was jumped on by posters who consistently called her father a cúnt, and a bell-end. These posts were thanked by a lot of people and she tried to defend herself but was only met with more abuse.

Now it seems that Westendgirlie has closed her account, and her last post happens to be in that thread. It seems a bit of a coincidence that she closes her account immediately after being ganged up on and having her father called names in the forum.

I think this was a disgusting display by the posters in AH, even if they didn't like what happened in her story. And I think the mods should have stepped in and sorted it out earlier.

It slipped through the net unfortunately.

None of us were very active last night and had gone outside for a change and by the time we saw it she had already closed her account.

We're discussing it at the moment.

Nodin

Dean09 wrote: »

I just flicked through the "Embarrassing Dads" thread in AH and I have to say there was, what I would consider, bullying behaviour in there that went unchecked as far as I can see.

A poster, Westendgirlie, posted a story about her father, and immediately she was jumped on by posters who consistently called her father a cúnt, and a bell-end. These posts were thanked by a lot of people and she tried to defend herself but was only met with more abuse.

Now it seems that Westendgirlie has closed her account, and her last post happens to be in that thread. It seems a bit of a coincidence that she closes her account immediately after being ganged up on and having her father called names in the forum.

I think this was a disgusting display by the posters in AH, even if they didn't like what happened in her story. And I think the mods should have stepped in and sorted it out earlier.

.....you're rather exaggerating the tone and extent of it there.

And theres the fact that if somebody says something 'controversial' (eg "I kicked a dog") they'll be challenged on it by no small number of posters.

RDM_83 again

Ok there's a reason I referenced the forums I did

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I don't think the issue people have is there being unwelcome opinions on the forums that one would be expect there to be such a reaction, e.g posting something from Leviticus in the LGBT forums or conversely posting something from some of the LGBT forums in the Christianity one*.

Rather its that in forums that appear that they should represent a broader demographic,

Wibbs wrote: »

The handy thing about the site is if you have a particular opinion on a subject there's nearly always somewhere you can post and have some likeminded people chime in. No forum will ever be a one size fits all.

An example of this is the introduction of strict anti-sexism rules in relation to AH,I'm not directly comparing the two issues btw simply raising the issue that these fora are meant to be welcoming to a broad base of users and when it was felt that this was not the case the issue was directly actioned.

Wibbs wrote: »

I don't know how one could go about changing that RDM(on any forum), not unless the community itself changes. The only thing we can do is report posts where obvious sneering etc is obvious and stick vigorously to the attack the post not the poster rule. The handy thing about the site is if you have a particular opinion on a subject there's nearly always somewhere you can post and have some likeminded people chime in. No forum will ever be a one size fits all.

Ok I think this thread/poll illustrates my point well, I'd prefer to find something not from TLL really (cos as I guy I feel this is raising an issue with a forum I'm not particularly concerned about at all or should be) , but this as a bonus has a breakdown of users in it

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056744565

Now in this thread related to that great topic abortion and attendance of a pro-choice march( sorry ), there's a poll attached where the choices are
(A) YES!
(B) NO but I am pro choice
(C) NO due to being anti choice
(D) American Flags.

Now its quite clear what the correct answer is in the poll and its needlessly controversial/and or insulting to those with divergent views and I can't see the equivalent being tolerated on the opposite side (e.g a pro-life event being advertised with a poll with a who's dissenting option was pro-abortion).

A quick mod edit would have removed a lot of this impression of tacit approval of (a mod posts that they will be attending on the 7th post so this impression would be reinforced) and in fact this issue was raised on the 16th post (this not even raising the issue of of a thread being started to advertise a political/social/controversial event AFAIK event/advertising threads are handled differently in different fora and in fairness the thread was eventually closed after 13 pages having started to being simply bumped by the OP).

The poll is particularly important because some around 25% of users opted for a dissenting opinion even though by selecting that option they may have been forced to misrepresent their views or find the term offensive (can you imagine a poll in politics for example , this is a very significant minority (I'd guess that 25% is probably close to the female to male ratio of boards overall for example) and readinga
through the Feedback thread in that forum it appears that at least one user has since left feeling the forum is a cold place.

Now this isn't having a go at this forum in particular but I do feel it shows how a majority position in a forum that may be approved of by the moderation team, both openly in their position as users (which of course is acceptable) but also tacitly in terms of moderator action or inaction, serves to reduce the diversity of opinion as posters holding those views feeling they are not welcome (as raised in post 16 of the thread) and or isolated, forming a self perpetuating cycle where the minority (or least vocal) becomes smaller and smaller.

If its felt that this post is too of topic feel free to delete, though I am rather loath to post on tLL feedback


In relation to bullying in general on boards.ie, I just don;t think the set up is conductive to bullying of a highly focussed nature as long at the "bullied party" reports it and there is co-ordination of across different forums.

El Guapo!

Nodin wrote: »

.....you're rather exaggerating the tone and extent of it there.

And theres the fact that if somebody says something 'controversial' (eg "I kicked a dog") they'll be challenged on it by no small number of posters.

I'm not exaggerating anything. That's exactly what happened. And yeah people will get called out if they say something unpopular, but not in that way. It seemed excessively mean to me, and it looked as though she was being ganged up on to the point where she closes her account. That's not fair in my book.

RoundyMooney

Over reaction on her part, and that's putting it mildly. If people are going to come on internet fora and make up or "exaggerate" stories, then that's their problem. People are not going to let that slide. Unlike the mods, I don't think anything was "overlooked" because no action was warranted.

Closing her account was a ridiculous, foot stomping fit of pique, and she's probably reregged already anyway.

Dean09 wrote: »

I'm not exaggerating anything. That's exactly what happened. And yeah people will get called out if they say something unpopular, but not in that way. It seemed excessively mean to me, and it looked as though she was being ganged up on to the point where she closes her account. That's not fair in my book.

Madam_X

RDM that abortion poll made me giggle - it's so pointed. I'm pro choice but I dont like the idea of someone who is a moderate pro-lifer being torn to shreds just for having that view.

Same with the atheism forum - I'm an atheist, really dislike organised religion and find the hate-filled "christians" here comical. But if someone makes a reasonable point defending religion in the atheism forum they can expect to be shredded - including by mods and admins. It's not a discussion forum at all - it's a backslapping mutual appreciation society where reasonable dissent is not welcome.

Nodin

Dean09 wrote: »

I'm not exaggerating anything. That's exactly what happened. And yeah people will get called out if they say something unpopular, but not in that way. It seemed excessively mean to me, and it looked as though she was being ganged up on to the point where she closes her account. That's not fair in my book.

It wasn't "excessively mean" to me. I was expecting a 20 page clusterfuck - it had got to 7 by the time I viewed it last night, of which about two were given over to the incident in question.

The problem is that at the moment people are going round with a "bullying" hole, and they'll beat incidents into the right shape to fit it.

El Guapo!

While I do agree that closing her account may have been a knee-jerk overreaction, I still don't think it was really fair that people ganged up on her and called her dad names like that.
There's a rule on boards that you can't say insulting things about celebrities etc in case they see it. Yet when a group of posters mock a members father, nothing is done. It just doesn't seem right to me.
The girl was simply sharing a story from her youth and the high-horse brigade came rolling out and berated her and called her father names. Now I don't know about you, but that's not a very nice thing to do. If it was in real life, people wouldn't have said the things they did, but just because its the Internet, people think they can say what they like.

Nodin

Dean09 wrote: »

While I do (..........)they like.

You think there should be a limit of two people allowed comment negatively per post or something?

Right. A man kicks a dog. No reason, he just does it because he's a bollix. No one can refer to the fact that (a) hes a bollix and (b) clearly some form of nut because its 'mean' and "not a very nice thing to do"? Ye might as well have them pull the plug out and shut the place down.

And with regards to that specific incident, if you think it wouldn't have got a similar reaction IRL, I'd say you were wrong.

K-9

While I'm not defending the abusive comments it was hardly a nice action to do and it was an exaggeration, maybe even a bit trollish.

We must think of the children effected!