TGC Feedback Thread *Closes September 25th 9pm*

Femme_Fatale

Maguined wrote: »

Can I ask you what specifically do you think the browbeaters are doing wrong? Surely if they are being abusive in what they say then acting abusive is moderated on every forum? I don't mean to pick on you or anything but others have mentioned the same thing without really explaining what they mean?

So far all I can gather is that some posters are not breaking the rules but people don't like what they post so it gets called browbeating or bullying when all I can see is that they are not violating the rules so shouldnt be punished?

People can be disagreed with without the aggression, hostility and dismissiveness, which is the browbeating being referred to.

As for your feminism point what is your ultimate conclusion though? If given the choice between feminism not being allowed to be discussed or criticised in any mens rights threads or allowing such discussion even if it involves harsh criticism of feminism which would you choose?

Thought I'd been clear: I don't see anything wrong with criticism of militant feminism, but attacking "feminism" as a whole is attacking reasonable women, women who are also interested in men's rights. Even if there's disagreement with them calling themselves feminists, they do.

The Corinthian

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

People can be disagreed with without the aggression, hostility and dismissiveness, which is the browbeating being referred to.

Can we see some examples of this, as it's still a bit fuzzy what is meant?

Thought I'd been clear: I don't see anything wrong with criticism of militant feminism, but attacking "feminism" as a whole is attacking reasonable women, women who are also interested in men's rights. Even if there's disagreement with them calling themselves feminists, they do.

That's your opinion, but that's not what open discussion should be limited to.

It's all too easy to simply pin the blame on some 'extremists', but what if you can make an argument that such criticisms apply to mainstream feminism, or that feminism as a broad ideological movement is doomed to go down this road?

Just because someone may prefer that criticism is limited to a few 'extremists', shouldn't make feminism as a whole some kind of sacred cow.

Maguined

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

People can be disagreed with without the aggression, hostility and dismissiveness, which is the browbeating being referred to.

So do you feel that aggression, hostility and dismissiveness are not currently against the rules of the forums or that those rules are not currently being enforced by the moderators?

To me the above are all subjective especially regards the tone of a post which is why they are not moderated against and correctly so in my opinion.

Attack the post not the poster is the forum wide rule and I think it would be a bad move to revise this to include such subjective criteria not to mention an absolutely impossibly vague line for the mods to try and enforce.

Again I am not trying to pick on you but you are the only one who has given further clarification on what you mean so while I respectfully disagree with your opinion on this but I do thank you for taking the time to give detail to what you mean.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Thought I'd been clear: I don't see anything wrong with criticism of militant feminism, but attacking "feminism" as a whole is attacking reasonable women, women who are also interested in men's rights. Even if there's disagreement with them calling themselves feminists, they do.

So if a rule was brought in to say feminism cannot be criticised but militant feminism can be you would be happy with that?

Sleepy

I'd suggest that the forum shouldn't require set threads for particular topics and that unless there's a forum where a user will clearly get a better response e.g. legal discussion / PI / Motors / Shaving & Beards etc. it should be left in situ i.e. let the community determine the scope of the forum.

I see nothing wrong with this being the forum to post a fashion related question to get a male opinion on it rather than delving into the Fashion & Appearance sections of boards. It's akin to asking the lads down the pub instead of consulting Vogue.

Discussion of Men's Rights naturally fits here in the "Man's forum" and any attempts to lump the various topics into specific meandering threads just leads to horrendously long, meandering discussion which either end up wildly "off-topic" or mods having to constantly monitor them for off-topic issues that should have just been posted in their own threads.

TL/DR: the number of moved/closed threads in here often seems quite extreme. So what if there's another forum dedicated to the topic? This is the place for discussing it with other men.

Wibbs

Long time lurker and reader, (very) occasional poster.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

who decides what the members want to discuss, the active members or the moderators.

This would be my take on some aspects of the forum. It appears run more top down, than bottom up. The mods appear to drive the community, not the other way around. For me the moderator role is just that, janitorial moderation of the discussion. Discussion the community wants to have, not what I, or other mods have decided the community want to have.

Do NOT get me wrong I well know the line moderation of a forum can sometimes have to walk. God do I know. However when I was clumsily walking that line I did so with the confidence and backup that this was what the vast majority of the community had told us they wanted and mods were acting on that communities behalf. As it should be for all forums IMH. I just got/get the feeling that this is not necessarily the case here on a couple of subjects anyway*.

A forum can broadly go one of two ways, a forum in the image of the community or a forum in the image of the moderating team. IMHO the former is infinitely more attractive to posters and readers and is also far less likely to fade out down to 2 posters a week over time.

My 3cents anyway.


*Put it another way, TBH and obviously personally speaking if I wanted to start a debate on the state/rights of men going through separation or divorce I'd start the thread in After Hours or Humanities or Legal discussion before I'd start it here in what's supposed to be "the" men's forum.

awec

This post has been deleted.

awec

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

awec wrote: »

That has never, ever, ever been the case on here.

You know full well that it has never been the case. You know full well that the only stipulation be that criticism is constructive, not generalising and of a certain standard.

I was responding to Femme_Fatale's suggestion that only 'extremist' feminism should be criticized. I made no other implication.

Look - it's not as if I'm the only one pointing out that how the moderators are defining what is 'acceptable' or not is out of sync with a large proportion of the posters. Examples have even been given.

So what do you suggest?

Maguined

awec wrote: »

That has never, ever, ever been the case on here.

You know full well that it has never been the case. You know full well that the only stipulation be that criticism is constructive, not generalising and of a certain standard.

I have to disagree, ruling that feminism is off topic in a men's rights thread as has already been acknowledged to me is already in effect granting it sacred cow status.

I would wager the vast majority of people would view it as being on topic.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Maguined

awec wrote: »

Constructive criticism of feminism has always been allowed on this forum.

It has never been a "sacred cow" - else there would be a lot of posters sitting on bans in the forum for continual breaching of the rules.

We are human - we make mistakes, but it is incredibly disingenuous to declare that it is a "sacred cow".

Defining feminism as off topic to a thread when (in my opinion anyway) the vast majority of user of those threads would view it as on topic can only be seen as preventing criticism.

Humans make mistakes sure but generally they tend to be once off out of character actions that are labelled as mistakes but this is a consistent viewpoint. It's not like it was a once off thing, it is the persistant view of the mods that feminism is off topic. Unless the mods can provide a constructive reason as to why they feel it is off topic I think it is incredibly disingenuous to declare that it is not a sacred cow.

I could definitely be wrong, but currently can see no other reason why it would be declared off topic.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Liam McPoyle

Discussion / deconstruction of a subject is one thing and can be fantastic to read when people are mature enough to do it in an adult fashion.

When it comes to feminism however time and time again it brings out the very worst in some people and tends to bring out every crackpot with a chip on their shoulder.

So where does discussion stop and outright bitching start?

That's where a huge amount of ambiguity exists, one person agrees completely yet someone else is highly offended.

As has been said above, most topics are up for discussion here and always have been and AFAIR the only thing that was blanket banned was PUA discussion.

So I ask the people on here that are claiming certain topics are banned or censored, how many threads have they started on the subjects that are apparently not allowed?

I'd bet a fair few scheckles that the answer is next to or completely none.

Sleepy

Can you clarify, when you say "constructive" criticism do you mean politely made criticism or explicitly only criticism that seeks to improve the subject? For example, if I were to make the argument that I believe Feminism has had it's day and should be disbanded in favour of an egalitarian movement, would that be considered okay since it's politely made or not as it's "destructive" rather than "constructive".

Maguined

awec wrote: »

I certainly don't see it as a consistent viewpoint. Certainly I have never deleted a post purely because it mentioned or discussed feminism.

Can you provide examples?

No I cannot as off topic posts are deleted?

awec

This post has been deleted.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Rev Hellfire

Coleman Slawski wrote: »

the only thing that was blanket banned was PUA discussion.

Since its a feedback thread, why exactly is it banned? Personally I don't hold much store by it, but it always seems odd to have a blanket ban on the topic.

Maguined

awec wrote: »

I meant can you give any examples of when you have seen yours, or anyone elses posts deleted just because they mentioned feminism?

Or a thread locked just because it mentions feminism?

You obviously can't link me to the posts - but you should have some examples in your head if it was consistent?

Off the top of my head it normally happens that while discussing mens rights someone will criticise feminism for effectively blocking mens rights, this is generally fine and accepted but then another poster will complain about the criticism of feminism and defend it saying it is about equality. Generally then if posters respond with further criticism of feminism and make the point that it is not about equality at all but only about furthering womens rights at the expense of men and never vice versa this is when I have seen mod intervention stating feminism is off topic and posts deleted.

Of course this is all subjective as it's only from my memory of dipping into the forum over the past year but I would be surprised if others did not share my view.

Liam McPoyle

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Since its a feedback thread, why exactly is it banned? Personally I don't hold much store by it, but it always seems odd to have a blanket ban on the topic.

When I modded it was banned because of its ideology ie its essentially about manipulating women into bed, it was felt by the mod team at the time that it was at best an unpleasant practice, at worst, something much more sinister.

We didn't feel it fitted in with the spirit of the forum and I'd still subscribe to that train of thought personally.

The Corinthian

awec wrote: »

I meant can you give any examples of when you have seen yours, or anyone elses posts deleted just because they mentioned feminism?

An example was already raised by me earlier in this thread, although this along with Pantro's reply that (s)he does not want to discuss it here appears to have been deleted, oddly enough - don't you think that censoring feedback in a feedback thread is kind of making a mockery of all this?

I later cited the same example to you yesterday (post #36). So you were given the example you seek only yesterday.

awec

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

awec wrote: »

That is one example.

Sure, why don't we raise the bar whenever you get evidence presented and hopefully that'll keep people busy.

Or you could just admit that your earlier claim that "constructive criticism of feminism has always been allowed on this forum" has demonstrated to be false, because already an example, from only yesterday, disproving it has been given.

There have been 0 posts by Panthro deleted in this thread. There have been 0 posts deleted by moderators in this thread. There is no "censorship" going on.

I never said Pantro did so - but clearly there is feedback being censored in this thread, given your careful non-denial denial. And yes, I'm using the term deliberately, because if you're going to start silently deleting feedback because you don't like it, then its probably fair to be open and let people know how seriously you're taking this process.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

awec wrote: »

I get the impression that there are posters on here who expect moderator protection when their views are questioned.

Sorry I'm being thick here A, but I dunno what you mean?

But a standard needs to be maintained and if certain posters are unable to drag their posts up to meet that standard then they will be deleted and the poster will be warned or infracted.

The underlined part worries me TBH. Oh I've certainly deleted posts from trolls and shills with extreme prejudice, however I'd feel deleting "off topic" posts(unless from obvious trolls), is a very dodgy road to go down. It's removing transparency and looks like censorship, even when it's not. IMHO Deleting a post is a more powerful button and sanction than banning. It's why we delete spam, shills and clear trolls. If a post is considered off topic then why not add a mod warning explaining why and asking to get back on topic? That's the usual way of things, is transparent and lets the community see what's actually happening and also gives an example of below standard stuff, otherwise it looks too much like and opens you up to accusations of airbrushing stuff you don't like.

This is the Gentlemen's Club, not the "bash women" or "bash feminism" forum. There is a difference.

There's also a huge difference between gender and an ideology. Any ideology is fair game and should be up for scrutiny, especially if the ideology is seen to impact another ideology or group. It's akin to attack the post(ideology), not the poster(gender). BTW I'd see myself as a feminist in the vast majority of gender issues and I'm a bloke so gender is an entirely different issue

Coleman Slawski wrote: »

When I modded it was banned because of its ideology ie its essentially about manipulating women into bed, it was felt by the mod team at the time that it was at best an unpleasant practice, at worst, something much more sinister.

We didn't feel it fitted in with the spirit of the forum and I'd still subscribe to that train of thought personally.

+1000. Personally I'd love to publicly have a go at these guys concepts and way back in the day before we banned it in PI(and in tLL) that's what I did, as I felt too many men, particularly young men were buying into the wider bullshít and often paying handsomely for it and the guff needed to be challenged. Problem was you'd get nowhere and more of these guys would jump in and quite the number were shills for PUA sites/courses/"gurus". It is, or at least was part of their sales tactic; searching for forums where people were bringing it up and pimping their wares.

Panthro

The Corinthian wrote: »

An example was already raised by me earlier in this thread, although this along with Pantro's reply that (s)he does not want to discuss it here appears to have been deleted, oddly enough - don't you think that censoring feedback in a feedback thread is kind of making a mockery of all this?

I later cited the same example to you yesterday (post #36). So you were given the example you seek only yesterday.

My last posts on the topic were post No. 37 and No.40 so you can put that theory of deleted posts to bed.
I have not deleted any posts in this thread since it's creation.
It's feedback we're looking for at the end of the day.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Maguined

awec wrote: »

If people prefer things to be quoted instead of deleted going forward then we can look at that. I'm all game for that if it puts this notion of "censorship" to bed.

I would prefer things to quoted instead of deleted, it makes it more transparent so people can see what is and is not acceptable. By deleting things you deny the community the chance to learn from others mistakes just like the old saying "Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it".

The Corinthian

awec wrote: »

So clearly you're telling lies.

No, I was talking crap - Panthro has pointed out the posts in question, which for some reason I missed. So I retract any implication I may have made associated with this.

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

awec

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

awec wrote: »

People who report posts because they go against the general opinion of the thread.

"More feminism trying to derail the thread" etc.

There have been numerous cases of attempted derailment - where someone supporting feminism has sought to turn a discussion on, say, discrimination against men into one about discrimination against women though.

This doesn't mean that all such posts are designed to derail, some challenge and should be welcomed, but some definitely do.

Problem is that it feels very much that moderators are more likely to act when someone criticises feminism that when a feminist attempts to derail a discussion. Somehow, their posts are rarely 'off topic'.

Wibbs

awec wrote: »

And what about when there are 5 or 10 off topic posts in a row (which happens often).

Do you want me to quote all of them?

Why would you have to? A simple "OK folks back on topic" usually suffices(and doesn't raise hackles) and if it's unclear why it's off topic a brief explanation why thrown in(against forum charter etc). If that doesn't work then red cards and bans to follow. Basically what mods on Boards have always done. That's part of our role. Indeed I can recall a time when deleting posts(unless obvious spam/trolling) was considered not the done thing at all. I happen to agree with that.

I don't buy this transparent argument either. The rules are clear. It's not due to a lack of transparency that certain people break the rules.

Then with respect A you don't seem to grasp the concept of transparency in this case. So you don't see how passers by and other members of the community might see posts disappearing with no explanation/context as being a bit odd, even dodgy? As Mag said how can people can see what is and is not acceptable if it's gone? Charters don't cover everything and I'm getting the impression the rules aren't so clear at times. Why would anyone post in a thread/forum where posts may be deleted because it seems it's easier for the mods? Again it seems more top down thinking. That mods drive the forum, not the community. That runs the real risk of losing the community.

Panthro

I think we should give this thread a closing date. I'm thinking 9pm tomorrow night.
Until then, please feel free to air all grievances, all items on the agenda (serious threads/non serious etc etc.)
Any other topics you would like to see/or not, housekeeping etc etc.

Then we will close the feedback, chat among ourselves (it's been ongoing but nothing concrete has been formed) make a few decisions, update the Charter, dot a few "I"'s and hopefully the world will be all well again.

Continued thank you.

P_1

Like Wibbs I'd be a regular reader but seldom poster here. To be honest lads, ye seem to be doing a decent enough job (feck knows I'd say its a bloody tough one too).

Unfortunately there is a but. The deleting of OT (within reason) posts without any notice just doesn't look good I'm afraid. It does make the place seem slightly authoritarian and unfriendly. Now I know you can't let it become a free for all but a slightly lighter touch would make the place seem a little more friendly (and hopefully create a bit less hassle for ye).

TL:DR version: Ye're doing a grand job but I think ye might be making things a little bit harder on yourselves than it needs to be.

awec

This post has been deleted.

The Black Oil

Why the anxiety to close the thread? It's only been up just over a week.

I don't see why we can't learn from other forums on boards (no, not that one) where there is healthy and serious discussion, maybe the odd barb, but not asshattery, or if there is, gets infracted. Megathreads serve a purpose as a catch all, but they can also be a serious PITA. At this stage, I'd nearly suggest ditching the men's rights ones and starting over maybe with something about men's rights to family courts in the legal system in Ireland, another thread on false rape accusations, paternity leave*, challenging aggressive internet feminism in interesting ways, here's a TED talk on men and _______, is it not a bit _____? I don't know...wtf. I would like to see threads like that, or whatever people have to offer, really, if the use of the forum is clarified.

*Most of these issues have probably been done to death on boards, but if the forum is geared towards a male audience (and supposed to be 'our' platform without obvious attacks or ridicule for simply breathing), then why not try to accommodate that within normal boards rules with *mod note: read OP* specifically for a particular thread, discourage handbagging, etc, if required? Core topics should come from the community, though, and mods should only enact extra conditions where they are warranted - lack of clarity on that now seems to be getting people's backs up. Some people appear to be getting too bogged down in questioning or commenting on the mechanics of moderating or particular mod decisions, what's acceptable to say re feminism, this and that is restrictive, etc.

I don't see why there can't be a couple of main health threads as they currently exist, serious topics that affect men/political/whatever, personal experience of sexism, grooming type ones, light hearted ones and then maybe childhood nostalgia ones or something that doesn't needed be moved, but still might hold interest here. I'd only really bother moving other stuff if it was the specifics on how to buy particular clothes online/whatever or where people in another forum may have more knowledge. FWIW, I've never had an issue with the timing of how the mods respond to reported post. All that PUA crap is picked up, gift for my girlfriend, why do all women ____ is generally stopped dead in its tracks. I've mostly stayed away from men's rights thread and don't recall reporting posts there, so I can't comment on the quality of modding there.

Core points so far seem to be -

- Lack of clarity as to what the forum is for.
- Lack of clarity of re range of topics allowed in general, and then specific content within some existing threads.
- Why some threads are closed/moved
- Diversity of mods/quality of moderating.
- Others I'm forgetting.

If it were me, I'd take the main points on board, leave this thread open for a bit longer to hear other issues and grievances that give the mods a concrete sense of what's working and what's frustrating people. After that, mods come up with solutions behind the scenes. Clarify role of forum, specify clearer boundaries for threads...encouraging report of posts, with the caveat that they are not always actionable, where required. Relay same to the community, implement and review, but please be open to further change if stuff isn't working.

Femme_Fatale

People who post something dissenting here actually have been warned/infracted - I have (just saying it because some seem to hold the view that it doesn't happen).

Maguined wrote: »

So do you feel that aggression, hostility and dismissiveness are not currently against the rules of the forums or that those rules are not currently being enforced by the moderators?

To me the above are all subjective especially regards the tone of a post which is why they are not moderated against and correctly so in my opinion.

I can't quote examples but I have seen it happen so much on this forum - someone reasonably questioning something and being ganged up on. No, there isn't outright personal abuse but there is still very full-on hostility and sneering dismissiveness. And the person is viewed as a whatabouter or pushing an agenda, when all they are doing is questioning, seeking clarification.
I'm not referring to cases where guys have posted about blatant sexism and women come along and say "Well it happens to women too" which is obviously acting the dope, and total whataboutery.

So if a rule was brought in to say feminism cannot be criticised but militant feminism can be you would be happy with that?

Ach, I don't know how or if such a thing could be enforced, but I'm just saying: the reason it gets women's backs up when feminism across the board is aggressively condemned, is because there are women who are simply the female equivalent of moderate men's rights activists under attack.
I agree with someone who said an egalitarian movement would be the ideal though.

KyussBishop

D'Agger wrote: »

That's a fair point - the issue then becomes what can be covered on those specific threads, the scope for what is on or off topic becomes tighter but like you said if it's a related topic then it should be allowed, the question then is what's to stop people pushing that to include the most tenuous of links to drag a thread into a different region the excuse of 'well it's related to mens rights so it should be allowed' - it's us who has to make that decision and often you're not going to please everybody.

On the mens rights thread, from a personal viewpoint - it seems like we're being shouted at by both sides of an argument via reporting of posts and it's tedious to say the least, we're in a position where you need to decide what should be allowed and not allowed - that's why we're here, we want to find out what needs to be addressed in an open forum to allow threads like the mens rights thread to be discussed and see how we can improve the overall standard of both individual threads and the forum as a whole.

Well, the problem here is you say yourself: You have to exclude discussion of some topics related to mens rights. This means we can't discuss mens rights, only some parts of mens rights.

This suggests to me, there needs to be a new forum for this kind of stuff; such as the 'Gender/Sex equality issues' type forum I mentioned, which covers this kind of topic from all genders/orientations (which is, in my opinion, the only unambiguous way to have it).

This kind of subtle inconsistency in moderation (and the root problem is: it's not possible to consistently moderate it, because the subjects are so intertwined) is a problem I've seen a few times on different subforums, and I understand that it's frustrating for the mods, who are just trying to keep discussion clean/constructive, but if the problem/ambiguity of the topic isn't acknowledged, it just leads to shutting-down of and a chilling effect on certain topics of discussion, with the cop-out of saying it's still valid for discussion, even though mod actions (mod warnings, censuring based on inconsistent rules, and eventual banning) speak the exact opposite.

That kind of inconsistency/ambiguity in rules has gotten me banned off other sub forums, because moderators weren't willing to address the inconsistency in rules, just pretend it was a personal issue instead, as a cop-out for dealing with a real and difficult-to-address inconsistency in rules; that is not what is happening here though, but there does seem to be a (slowly resolving) divide in opinions between posters and mods.

So yes, I'd say the easiest solution for all would be a new forum (in this category, but not under this forum) like mentioned above, for all such related issues.

KyussBishop

awec wrote: »

I certainly don't see it as a consistent viewpoint. Certainly I have never deleted a post purely because it mentioned or discussed feminism.

Can you provide examples?

I don't know if you do it, but an on-topic post of mine was deleted from the mens rights thread by another moderator, which I posted about here:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86469384&postcount=45

Here is my original post (Firefox's 'Lazarus' plugin is quite handy sometimes):

KyussBishop wrote:

This is going to sound like an odd question at first, but give it a moment for clarification: Why is there any separation at all, between the feminist movement and mens rights (why are they not the same movement)?

Feminism is, at its core, about equality between genders, and this means it has to go both ways: If it is about equality between genders, it is also about correcting unjust societal advantages women may have over men too.
In other words, it inherently (by definition - despite being called feminism) can't be all about womens rights, it has to equally incorporate mens rights too.


I have noticed myself, as others have pointed out, some of the truly weird/bizarre double standards in Guardian articles regarding feminism lately; I don't have a lot of knowledge of the feminist movement and related issues (it's actually hard to find good sources to read up on), but this weird double standard and apparent warped ideology that affects some (certainly not all) feminist views, has made me a lot more interested in figuring out just wtf is going on there.

What groups are there that are promoting this strange (sometimes bordering on misandrist) divide in the feminist movement, and what are their motives for doing this?


I really don't see the need at all for womens rights and mens rights movements to be separate; they should be one and the same, since it is (at its core) all about gender equality, and it seems to me that there is heavy promotion for keeping them divided, and promoting whataboutery and ideological 'Us vs Them' type thinking (which is something that always seems really suspect, wherever I see those tactics being used).

The Corinthian

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I can't quote examples but I have seen it happen so much on this forum - someone reasonably questioning something and being ganged up on. No, there isn't outright personal abuse but there is still very full-on hostility and sneering dismissiveness. And the person is viewed as a whatabouter or pushing an agenda, when all they are doing is questioning, seeking clarification.

You probably do need to give at least one example though. One thing that you'll occasionally see is someone jumping in mid-thread and essentially dismissing the idea that men are in any way discriminated against in society (or they may concede that father's are, but everywhere else is hunky dory).

Naturally you're going to get a negative reaction to 'questioning' like that as, for a start they'll not have bothered to read through the thread to see that numerous examples have already been given - what do you think the reaction would be on a simelar thread on tLL if someone parachuted in and claimed that women suffer no discrimination any more?

There's been a lot of claims about bullying on one side and over-moderation on the other in this thread. I would like to point out that I don't think a single example of the former has yet to be given.

Ach, I don't know how or if such a thing could be enforced, but I'm just saying: the reason it gets women's backs up when feminism across the board is aggressively condemned, is because there are women who are simply the female equivalent of moderate men's rights activists under attack.

Again, happens elsewhere when more pro-feminist posters discuss the men's rights movement. You'll end up with some nonsensical claims, some tarring of the entire movement with the the extremists and, of course, some valid criticisms too.

From the male (rights) perspective, unfortunately, feminism has developed into a fundamentally sexist movement. One can try to blame 'extremists' for this, but when policies such as quotas start becoming mainstream, it's difficult to claim that it's just a couple of nutjobs on the fringes. Even if a 'moderate' feminist opposes such views, the same 'moderate' feminist will still be happy to sit under the same banner, and campaign along side those who support them - which does erode their moral high-ground a fair bit.

IMO, there appears to be very little real introspective examination of feminism by feminists themselves. A few have done so (Warren Farrell is one example, and he ended up becoming persona non grata as a result) and so instead the fundamental 'truths' behind the feminist movement seem to have become sacred cows. TBH, questioning these fundamental 'truths' "across the board" is a good thing, not bad.

I agree with someone who said an egalitarian movement would be the ideal though.

In an ideal World, yes; and certainly there are those who would have the maturity to deal with the issue objectively.

I simply think that you'd start getting problems with this very quickly because the two sides of the gender rights equation often have conflicting priorities - one represents men and the other women - and unfortunately equality dictates that sometimes we need sacrifice our own rights for the greater good, something that neither side is in much of a mood to do presently, from what I can see.

Maguined

awec wrote: »

Posts do not disappear without explanation. I'm not sure why you think they do?

Because the explanation loses all meaning when the posts are deleted. If I go into a thread I have never seen before and see a poster saying "XYZ" and then a mod posts later saying post number blah is infracted because "XYZ" break whatever rule then I learn "XYZ" is bad. If I go into a thread and see "off topic posts deleted" I don't know what was deleted and more importantly why.

awec wrote: »

So are we in agreement now that it's not posts being actioned that is the issue (like it was at the start of the thread) - but now it's that they're being deleted and posters warned / infracted rather than quoted and posters warned / infracted?

I think they are two separate issues.

1. Some people (myself included) think the moderation is too strict in men's rights threads, criticism of feminism.
2. Whem moderation is applied by deleting posts its not good.

Rev Hellfire

Panthro wrote: »

I think we should give this thread a closing date. I'm thinking 9pm tomorrow night.
Until then, please feel free to air all grievances, all items on the agenda (serious threads/non serious etc etc.)
Any other topics you would like to see/or not, housekeeping etc etc.

Then we will close the feedback, chat among ourselves (it's been ongoing but nothing concrete has been formed) make a few decisions, update the Charter, dot a few "I"'s and hopefully the world will be all well again.

Continued thank you.

While I agree with closing the thread after a set amount of time, perhaps it would be better for you guys to chat amongst yourselves and then come back with your proposed changes. Then allow us to comment on them, otherwise its just the moderators dictating how the forum should be run.

BonsaiKitten

^^ Absolutely. I see no need for the thread to be closed immediately.

Sleepy

Honestly, I see no reason for deleting posts or forbidding topics that aren't illegal or abusive at all. If the topics being brought up by the community aren't ones the mods want to moderate, they need to accept that the community has changed and, if they're no longer interested in modding that community, step aside and let someone else do it.

Just to clarify, I'm not having a go at the existing mods or suggesting that something like sharing PUA techniques or misogynistic rants belong in this forum but discussion of those topics e.g. what do other men think of PUA or whether the feminist movement has a role to play in our current society, I don't think it should be prevented. Moderated in a transparent manner, sure, but deleting posts or closing threads should be a last resort, not a common occurence.

Panthro

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

While I agree with closing the thread after a set amount of time, perhaps it would be better for you guys to chat amongst yourselves and then come back with your proposed changes. Then allow us to comment on them, otherwise its just the moderators dictating how the forum should be run.

We could close it tonight at 9pm as stated, finalise our decisions (as I've said, discussions have been ongoing since day 1 of the Charter) then re-open this feedback (give us a chance to have everything ready) with the proposals?

Zombienosh

I propose more cake and casual pipe smoking. Also curly moustaches.

Maguined

Panthro wrote: »

We could close it tonight at 9pm as stated, finalise our decisions (as I've said, discussions have been ongoing since day 1 of the Charter) then re-open this feedback (give us a chance to have everything ready) with the proposals?

Sure closing the thread is not really necessary, I would suggest leaving it open so people can offer up more suggestions while the mods go off and finalise their proposed changes, once done throw them up here and let the feedback continue on the proposed changes.

No real need or gain for locking the thread.

Rev Hellfire

Zombienosh wrote: »

I propose more cake and casual pipe smoking. Also curly moustaches.

There better be smoking jackets.

Zombienosh

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

There better be smoking jackets.

You couldn't smoke without one old son.

P_1

Panthro wrote: »

We could close it tonight at 9pm as stated, finalise our decisions (as I've said, discussions have been ongoing since day 1 of the Charter) then re-open this feedback (give us a chance to have everything ready) with the proposals?

That sounds reasonable enough, have to say it does seem a bit less like an East German election than the first idea of just closing the thread and announcing your findings.