Who killed AH?

Calhoun

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So you want to have a pub where the patrons can't talk about certain topics of the day?

I've personally talked about pretty much everything in the pub; in all tones from the irreverant to the highly formal. It seems to me that AH is currently as it was intended to be.

Not at all but you don't spent most of the time in pub chat getting into serious debates about political issues that if it was the equivilant of a pub would last for weeks. You also don't repeat the same topic a short time after you have finished the original debate.

Also i think in a pub you would get pretty annoyed if advocates for certain political/morale viewpoints rocked up at your table and proceeded to explain to you the right outlook on life.

nesf

Calhoun wrote: »

True true, i 100% agree with this especially the point about people with a cause, as we have already discussed there are many and varied attempts to show people what the right opinion on a subject is. I suppose i was just pointing out that there are attempts to discuss morale subjects but no code of practice or quality is applied to what is discussed.

People may say that this is ok as it is AH but i get the distinct impression that the uninformed are being led on a merry dance by the user with a cause.

Sure, I'd agree with that. When boards was smaller it was less of a problem because soap boxers were shot down faster and it was more obvious that they were grinding their axe on their pet topic. Now with the constant flux of users it's not so simple to see, especially if you're new to this aspect of the internet and haven't seen a hundred soapboxers and trolls before. There's also the problem with the greater anonymity that a bigger crowd brings that it's very easy to forget that there's a person behind that username and there's more to them than the text you see in the post in front of you.

LuckyLloyd

nesf wrote: »

No, not really. Most of what you see in AH is soapboxers shouting at each other combined with people making trite points. I'm thinking of actual debate where points are made, conceded and withdrawn. Not necessarily people agreeing with each other but at the very least respect for the others position. Most of the "debate" on AH is either under-informed or as I said people with a cause. Reading economic, political and moral threads on there really does make me question the wisdom of universal franchise most of the time to be blunt about it.

That's what real people do though in workplaces, pubs, cafes, buses, houses, etc up and down the country every minute of every hour of every day. They talk about things they barely understand; rehash what they overheard a couple of days before; and don't really bother properly listening to the reponses they receive. And within all that are those with agendas and superior grasps of issues trying to influence opinion. That's life. AH is a representation of normal everyday discourse in its normal everyday way.

People are flawed, they talk ****, and the puiblic is underinformed and pumped full of biased / incorrect information that they regurgitate badly. Hence AH is what it is.

LuckyLloyd

Calhoun wrote: »

Not at all but you don't spent most of the time in pub chat getting into serious debates about political issues that if it was the equivilant of a pub would last for weeks. You also don't repeat the same topic a short time after you have finished the original debate.

Also i think in a pub you would get pretty annoyed if advocates for certain political/morale viewpoints rocked up at your table and proceeded to explain to you the right outlook on life.

People who are passionate about particular issues and insert themselves into every conversation their friends have on it / push their agenda on them exist. Believe me.

nesf

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

The whole pub analogy hasn't been true for a long while or probably never was true.

Please, do tell us about the site for the 8 years before you joined it, I'm sure your insights are fascinating.

nesf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That's what real people do though in workplaces, pubs, cafes, buses, houses, etc up and down the country every minute of every hour of every day. They talk about things they barely understand; rehash what they overheard a couple of days before; and don't really bother properly listening to the reponses they receive. And within all that are those with agendas and superior grasps of issues trying to influence opinion. That's life. AH is a representation of normal everyday discourse in its normal everyday way.

People are flawed, they talk ****, and the puiblic is underinformed and pumped full of biased / incorrect information that they regurgitate badly. Hence AH is what it is.

I know. Boards in the old days didn't reflect normal everyday people.

Also, "real people?" What?

Calhoun

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

People who are passionate about particular issues and insert themselves into every conversation their friends have on it / push their agenda on them exist. Believe me.

I don't think its the same thing as we aren't talking about a small group of people we are talking about a forum that reaches quite a few so you can see the obvious attempt at pushing an agenda in a certain direction.

In smaller social groups this type of thing would be tolerated to an extent for a little while then generally the group gets tired of the person and either don't talk about it or move on.

As Mickey has said after hours doesn't or has probably never represented pub chat, i thought it was always a more light hearted banter to a certain extent.

LuckyLloyd

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't think its the same thing as we aren't talking about a small group of people

You're right, we aren't. Boards is huge and growing ever bigger, and there are people reminiscing about what AH used to be when boards had a much smaller and less diverse userbase. AH has changes because boards has changed.

Soccer / Politics / Motors / Commuting / Feedback / Everything has changed massively over the years. Trying to artificially turn the clock back to 2006 seems a bit pointless to me.

Calhoun

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You're right, we aren't. Boards is huge and growing ever bigger, and there are people reminiscing about what AH used to be when boards had a much smaller and less diverse userbase. AH has changes because boards has changed.

Soccer / Politics / Motors / Commuting / Feedback / Everything has changed massively over the years. Trying to artificially turn the clock back to 2006 seems a bit pointless to me.

I don't think anyone is arguing that, maybe the original poster started off a discussion in that fashion but the conversation has changed since then.

I personally was asking what is AH today, is it soft politics, a platform for political change for vested interests, or a light hearted forum. Others were pointing out that left unchecked it can turn into a beast and such the life out of other forums.

All valid question's or things to ponder on because as you say things are changing all the time, its no harm to do a sanity check on the direction of where that growth/change is going.

LuckyLloyd

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't think anyone is arguing that, maybe the original poster started off a discussion in that fashion but the conversation has changed since then.

I personally was asking what is AH today, is it soft politics, a platform for political change for vested interests, or a light hearted forum. Others were pointing out that left unchecked it can turn into a beast and such the life out of other forums.

All valid question's or things to ponder on because as you say things are changing all the time, its no harm to do a sanity check on the direction of where that growth/change is going.

AH is simple what people want to talk about today.

nesf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Trying to artificially turn the clock back to 2006 seems a bit pointless to me.

No one wants that, or at least those that did gave up and left quite some time ago. The clock can never be turned back because the traffic in the old days could not ever pay the wages of people who work on this site.

Micky Dolenz

nesf wrote: »

Please, do tell us about the site for the 8 years before you joined it, I'm sure your insights are fascinating.

You assume this is my first account.

One thing I do know about is AH. It is a different animal then it was in the early days of low traffic.

nesf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

AH is simple what people want to talk about today.

And I think people are arguing that is was different rather than it should be different or could be different.

Calhoun

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

AH is simple what people want to talk about today.

That maybe your opinion and if i was to simply, glance at the forum i might believe it but from browsing it from sometime its a little bit more complex than that and their are a couple of themes going on.

nesf

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

You assume this is my first account.

One thing I do know about is AH. It is a different animal then it was in the early days of low traffic.

Yes, it was very different and it was far more like a pub because it was a very small group of users most of whom knew each other for years from the gaming scene. It looked nothing like the site does today, Christ, people with 200-300 posts were considered old timers.

LuckyLloyd

nesf wrote: »

And I think people are arguing that is was different rather than it should be different or could be different.

'Should be'

What people 'should' generally talk about. Interesting.

Calhoun wrote: »

That maybe your opinion and if i was to simply, glance at the forum i might believe it but from browsing it from sometime its a little bit more complex than that and their are a couple of themes going on.

To be honest, your issue is a more nuanced problem of how to deal with soapboxers imo. Banning political discussion on the forum because some posters try and push certain political ideas into multiple threads is akin to using a sledgehammer to put a small nail into a wall shelf.

Calhoun

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

To be honest, your issue is a more nuanced problem of how to deal with soapboxers imo. Banning political discussion on the forum because some posters try and push certain political ideas into multiple threads is akin to using a sledgehammer to put a small nail into a wall shelf.

I never said ban political discussion, it was Dav who suggested moving threads originally. I was advocating that an element of ground rules be put in place so you don't have the discussion rat holing or being taken over by people with political causes.

There could be merit in moving political discussion once it reaches a certain post count or frequency on certain issues, its a question worth pondering.

All these discussions right now are questions about how possibly things could be made better, maybe allot of what is being said is BS but in the spirit of the feedback discussion there is no harm talking about them as its not like anything discussed will be implemented.

nesf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

'Should be'

What people 'should' generally talk about. Interesting.

I think you misread my post.

LuckyLloyd

Calhoun wrote: »

All these discussions right now are questions about how possibly things could be made better, maybe allot of what is being said is BS but in the spirit of the feedback discussion there is no harm talking about them as its not like anything discussed will be implemented.

When the Community Manager and current mod of AH are for making a change I'd say there is a very high possibilty it will be implemented.

nesf wrote: »

I think you misread my post.

No, I was being smart. :)There is more than a mere reminisce session going on here talking about how things used to be. There is talk about changing things on the basis that the way they used to be in AH is more like they should be.

Micky Dolenz

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

When the Community Manager and current mod of AH are for making a change I'd say there is a very high possibilty it will be implemented.
.

Not necessarily.It really is just at the "Thinking out loud" stage. Personally I am open to I find the feedback extremely interesting,

nesf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

No, I was being smart. :)There is more than a mere reminisce session going on here talking about how things used to be. There is talk about changing things on the basis that the way they used to be in AH is more like they should be.

Not really, you're twisting words somewhat here. Given the site has rules and isn't anarchic there has always been a should be and always will (and needs to, at a minimum just for legal reasons). The site by splitting the conversations into different forums does this. Really, "should be" implies some kind of micromanaging of conversations when all's that's being discussed is what boundaries should be around the "free discussion area."

Calhoun

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Not necessarily.It really is just at the "Thinking out loud" stage. Personally I am open to I find the feedback extremely interesting,

Just to add to Mickey is only one ah mod , others have contributed and do not hold the same view

I would also point out that there is a very fine line between wanting to go back 5 years and not wanting to discuss something because you fear something will change. Change is something I thing we all agree is constantly happening if you ignore it you end up in a similar position to the op.

Nodin

Every forum I've been on has had a general discussion area, where the vast majority of subjects are on the table. This does tend to a cyclical flow of certain subjects coming up, but that seems to reflect the public mood.

Czarcasm

For a while now, even though a point of it has been made in the charter, the spelling and grammar pedants have continued unabated to disrupt the flow of threads and turn people off reading or even contributing in some cases for fear of falling foul of the spelling and grammar obsessed precious posters.

If a person can't be arsed to make an effort with their spelling and grammar, it's one thing, report the post and let the Moderators deal with it, but if someone makes a genuine error in their spelling or grammar but the point of the post is a good one, it's a pain in the hole when another poster completely overlooks the point because the poster didn't spell a word correctly or missed a punctuation mark.

It's pointless nit-picking and it's killing the flow of discussion.

K-9

I'd thought grammar nazism was dealt with harshly, maybe some posts don't get reported or get missed.

KyussBishop

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

How would you like to see things and how would you like to see them come about?

Genuine question.



Good points as always Wibbs. Maybe AH has moved away from what it was originally intended for and is a lot more general now than in the past. Maybe removing some topics from AH would be a good thing. Politics and religion spring to mind.

Problem with restricting political topics, is that on AH you can highlight and counter someone who uses fallacious/deceptive and deliberately personal/highly-condescending methods of argument quite effectively, but on Politics the same people can toe the line and collectively (in numbers) troll/browbeat with far greater success - and mods can't really do anything about it, because there's no defining line that gets crossed.

It creates a situation where on more controversial/minority-opinion topics, it's pretty easy to get brow-beaten, and find yourself in a situation where you either have to:
1: Drop standards of argument, and give back what you get, while still deconstructing opposing arguments - leads to toe-ing line on both sides, with mods doling out punishment evenly - but since there's greater amounts of people brow-beating, they get away with it and it leads to the minority opinion accumulating a history of mod actions. Makes brow-beating very successful at dampening minority opinion.

2: The other alternative is to completely self-censor; which of course, isn't good for an open discussion forum.


Doing '1' on AH is extremely effective at countering people trying to silence your views, but isn't really possible on Politics - the general problem, is that some debates just need to be very messy, because there are posters that (grouping up in numbers) just try to, to put it plainly, control what is acceptable to talk about (and I say this as probably the most frequent debator of economic topics on boards), and use a very personal unpleasant/condescending style of argument to do that (but subtle enough to evade any real mod action).

This type of messy debate doesn't fly on Politics though, but the end result is that it leads to some topics getting pushed out of the forum, due to successful brow-beating - some amount of messy debate would need to be acceptable, since it's (in my view) impossible for mods to really do anything about such brow-beating.

KyussBishop

Wibbs wrote: »

Specialty forums can also impose a local culture that has already decided the "correct answer", so it can sometimes come across as intellectual one man handball. Nothing new, nothing sideways comes up and even in some rare cases anything from a different angle can get actioned.

That's a very good way of putting it, yes, and this can sometimes lead to the type of brow-beating issues I mention in my previous post.

KyussBishop

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't think its the same thing as we aren't talking about a small group of people we are talking about a forum that reaches quite a few so you can see the obvious attempt at pushing an agenda in a certain direction.

In smaller social groups this type of thing would be tolerated to an extent for a little while then generally the group gets tired of the person and either don't talk about it or move on.

As Mickey has said after hours doesn't or has probably never represented pub chat, i thought it was always a more light hearted banter to a certain extent.

The trouble is, the practice and public debate about politics, in the Dail, in newspapers, on TV - all of that is about one side or another pushing an agenda, and trying to influence public opinion to suit their agenda - that's what politics is, and by extension, that's what all political discussion contains.

The organizations/groups/people who try to control public opinion in newspapers/news, almost certainly try to do this online now, and that includes Boards.ie - it'd be naive to think otherwise at this stage, because there is ample past precedent of paid soapboxers/shills all over the world, trying to influence opinion in online discussions (just have to google 'hasbara' for one of the more obvious examples).

This is impossible to stop. I've had many debates with people, where I just can't get my head around both their content and style of argument, and wonder what their motives are - and I make a point, of highlighting it in debate - but I can never say with certainty, that even one person I've ever debated with was actually a shill, because it is impossible to tell.


This is a very big problem with online debate, because it's very easy for a large number of people to promote a certain viewpoint and gain legitimacy/credibility in numbers, and use that to literally 'define' the consensus opinion about a topic, and use that to control what is credible and what is not credible to debate.

When it happens on such a large scale, that it is spread through media and news, it can affect public opinion on a pretty large scale, and 'define' the public consensus over a topic as well - also putting a limit on what is credible and not credible to debate, but on a much wider scale.


So the problem is, that this is utterly impossible to stop, and there needs to be a way of challenging consensus views like this when they can be demonstrated as wrong and untruthful - it is very easy for this kind of adversarial debate to get stamped out completely, because people mistake consensus opinion as truth, or mistake minority/outsider opinion as seeking an agenda - the risk is letting views which are not factual, which are untruthful, to dominate those which are factual and truthful.

A few people holding strong views gets seen as an 'agenda', many people holding strong views gets seen as 'consensus'.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

I'd thought grammar nazism was dealt with harshly, maybe some posts don't get reported or get missed.

....that being said, there's a few that are deliberately misspelling "muslim" who need a smack.

Annasopra

Calhoun wrote: »

You could also break them out into LGBT and mental health social politics, as they seem to pop up now and again.

I'm not sure lgbt politics is broad enough. I do think as stated previously some discussions on marriage equality could be and should be moved to the referendum forum.