Boards is becoming a Ghost Town

KERSPLAT!

Legal Action wrote: »

No you've been completely on point. There are posters who want the opposing side shut down in the guise of 'fighting racism' or God knows what.

Who?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Hateful should be shut down. Different opinions should absolutely not. Boards wouldn't be here if we all agreed or if only one side was heard.

Here we go.
We are on the same page. The non rambling version.

RDM_83 again

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I haven't seen (recently at least) boards shutting the "wrong" opinion down, I'm merely stating it wouldn't be much craic as a discussion board if the only discussion that was welcome was one sided.

Rachel Dozail thread last year is really obvious example but its a bit old.

The way threads with an OP that was "positive" to the refugee/migration crisis stayed open in AH while those with a "negative" OP got locked or moved quickly (see here)

Closure and cleanse of the Politics Cafe is another very recent one
edit: the politics cafe thing was basically unprecedented for a busy forum AFAIK

tomwaterford

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Hateful should be shut down. Different opinions should absolutely not. Boards wouldn't be here if we all agreed or if only one side was heard.

As I said, stay within the charter and there should* be no issues.

*I say should because sometimes mistakes are made, we're all human.

I do think possibly where this view that differing opinions are closed down comes from when people who are banned and re regged are quickly banned again but people reading the posts wouldn't know that they are re regs and would just see someone banned for not that extreme a view and ordinary posters wouldn't know it's a re reg???



Though I do think the online dating forum could do worse than warn people of that doxxing website as you used see usernames the same on dating sites as on boards a word to the wise wouldn't go astray

RDM_83 again

tomwaterford wrote: »

I do think possibly where this view that differing opinions are closed down comes from when people who are banned and re regged are quickly banned again but people reading the posts wouldn't know that they are re regs and would just see someone banned for not that extreme a view and ordinary posters wouldn't know it's a re reg???

What about the examples I list though?

tomwaterford

RDM_83 again wrote: »

What about the examples I list though?

Not going to lie...didn't read all those links (my internet is terrible atm-can't even snapchat)

But I do think all views/opionons on this should be taken on board but racism/bigotry can't be accepted

DeadHand

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Who?

Off the top of my head I can think of at least five posters who quit these boards citing the "racism" and "bigotry" or "hate speech" rampant on the boards. Now, we all know genuine cases of such are not tolerated so for "racism" and "bigotry" and "hate speech" read differing opinion.

They were upset that their demands to have their opponents banned were not accepted. Some have returned and have many fellow travellers on the boards.

When ongoing events and reality proved the "anti" side right, any immigration threads were moved from AH to the Siberia that is humanities in a fairly transparent attempt to to shut down the discussion- an attempt that only came when the discussion started going the "wrong" way. About the same time Dav let the mask not so much slip as fall off by telling us right wing opinion was "dangerous".

A great many of what could broadly be termed "right wing" commentators have been purged, some quite rightly but many unfairly while certain Leftist trolls are allowed to post the same, tired rubbish ad nauseam without intervention.

Simply put, I think most users would agree that you need to thread much more softly on the boards if you happen to fall on one side of certain debates than you do if you fall on the other.

My name is URL

DeadHand wrote: »

I did not claim the type of discussion that goes on there is acceptable here or anywhere else; it's repellent. My point, which you missed in your hast to attack me, was that nasty sites like that are a reaction.

I don't think I did miss your point. Nor did I attack you.

Are you not suggesting that because Boards is terrible in many ways; and people have opinions silenced etc, that it's either understandable or legitimate to attack regular posters because of that?

Honestly, why are you arguing in support of the people that do that? I've never actually said that I live in X, (and I don't live there), yet some spineless shit-fiddler was bothered enough to go through everything I have posted on Boards over the course of 8 years and felt confident enough to say that's where I live.

I have family and friends that live there still. Is it my fault if some nutjob who disagrees with me on issues, shows up at their door some night after reading a thing because someone on that site has cataloged everything I've ever said from thousands of discussions I've had here?

Boards is a discussion forum, people on that other site want to be able to discuss things openly, right?

Then why the hell are they targeting people who openly discuss things here? And why all the underhandedness for that matter? Surely those arguing for more freedom to say stuff should also be more prepared to stand by it in a more open fashion.

Attack Boards if you want to attack anything... not the users.

KomradeBishop

Personally, I think a lot of what leads to discussion being over-moderated, is if the discussion is particularly controversial and leads to extremely heated arguments - as I'd imagine this is a pain in the hole to moderate, leading to shortcuts being taken.

In these debates, this can lead to legitimate viewpoints being moderated out of discussion. However, moderation can also be on-target when there is a minority trying to shoehorn in discussion of a topic in an extremely uncivil way.

This can lead to 1 of 2 situations:
1: Illegitimate uncivil/racist etc. discussion, where the standard of debate is so low as to be irrecoverable, is successfully removed from the forum.

2: Legitimate discussion, where the standard of debate is destroyed by those opposing discussion of said topic, is removed from the forum by mods aiming at the "common denominator" (the minority bringing up the topic in a civil way, but being brow-beaten by an uncivil response, then responding in kind), instead of at the uncivil response it gets - legitimate discussion is moderated-out of the forum.

I don't shy away from controversial debate - in fact, I bee-line towards it as it usually leads to the most interesting discussions - and I've seen both sides of this (and been the latter side in particular...).

No. 2 there, is what leads to certain topics being all but banned off of Boards - if enough posters can group up and be uncivil enough on certain topics, that a small enough minority holds, they can successfully browbeat discussion of it off of the forum almost entirely.
This is something that very rarely comes up, but when it does, it's something that mods need to be extremely sensitive to, because otherwise it can lead to mods participating in censoring extremely controversial/important topics off of the forum.

FA Hayek

Lurkio wrote: »

O I don't care what they think, this side of having to listen to their "thoughts".

Ah come on. Your casting yourself as some saintly figure who alone is striving for truth and justice in a cruel comic book world. The truth is a tad more complicated and people who are around the block are not stupid enough to swallow your percieved reality.

I will not be alone in being puzzled at why you spend countless hours in fact days/weeks nit picking tediously over another posters opinion. The more cynical minded could make up their minds maybe, perhaps unfairly but the evidence does not help.

Take for example, you have at last count 118 posts in an AH thread about multiculturalism over a one month period, many of them are little more than a few words like 'comedy gold' or 'still waiting for a link' or 'spare us'.

Casting yourself as some purveyor of enlightenment while having such an abrasive posting style in my opinion deliberately inflames rather then tries to actually cut through the bull and debate with reason, wins no friends in the long run. You give out about these topics and the way boards.ie have left them go but are more than happy to jump into the ring and act accordingly.

This is of course not even mentioning the fact that you are anything but liberal when it suits, like when a group were violently attacked in Dublin for their political beliefs, you found it so hilarious that you had to make fun of it over and over again (until the mods stepped in and told you to cut it out) or your support for the Provos 30 year campaign of violence among a few examples.

This flip-floping does not ear well in convincing people of your stated points of view. If anything it just makes people annoyed of the hypocritical flip flopping.

I dont want to get too personal here. If you want an example to follow of good posting style, look at Wibbs as one example. He/She? will cut to the chase and will put effort into their posts while dismantling many preconceived notions with debate, not cheap pot shots with smart one line answers or a holier than thou attitude that frankly turns people off.

As I said in another post, boards.ie never tolerated overt racist posts. You are doing a disservice to the entire website, its history, its mods and admins as if boards.ie resembles something like stromfront when its anything but. Boards.ie is one of the most PC websites in Ireland, yet this is still not good enough for some. It is clear in the past few posts you want people and their ideas shut down.

Migration or immigration is a hot topic lately due to geo-political current events over the past number of years. People rightly or wrongly will want to discuss it. With the perception that the mainstream national media really only giving one side of the story its natural people will want a platform in where to dish out ideas, issues, concerns without having to be labeled a white supremacist Nazi at every turn for the audacity to even question perceived notions.

I am rambling now, not my intention but it irks me to see posters try and shut down other posters points of view by the use of a banning stick and the crude dog whistle of ad hominem name calling when debate fails.

Lurkio

FA Hayek wrote: »

Ah come (...........)debate fails.

I made my position clear. If you want to engage in personal attacks I don't think this is the place for it.

FA Hayek

Its not at all personal and I am sorry you see it that way. Its not my intention but its a legitimate point of view that I see others share. The holier than thou you we see here does not match the poster we see elsewhere. I want boards.ie to be a better place than it is now where people can debate freely and opening within set guidelines of course. That is my primary and only motivation here.

DeadHand

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't think I did miss your point. Nor did I attack you.

Yes, you did and continue to do so. I'd call it an attack- complete with emotive language, rolly eyed faces and a sneaky insinuation that I'm some how involved in the other site.

Are you not suggesting that because Boards is terrible in many ways; and people have opinions silenced etc, that it's either understandable or legitimate to attack regular posters because of that?

It's not legitimate, I made no claim that what they do is right or justified- it isn't. I don't find some of what they do understandable- again if you'd do me the kindness of reading my posts before mounting another attack on me you'd find I openly ask why certain people carry on with this "doxxing" thing. I do, however, find the existence of a place where bitter people gather to decry the boards and its users in a venomous fashion some way understandable- it is partly a reaction to the biased and schoolteacherish way in which the boards has been moderated.

Understanding does not equal agreeing or subscribing. I understand why Islamic State does what it does. Yet, I obviously do not agree with it or run around in a black headband.

Honestly, why are you arguing in support of the people that do that?

Again, you're painting me as something I am not. I've referred to that site as "repellent" and "nasty" and referred to the people involved as "Socially inadequate". Is that the language of a person who admires them? Are you even reading my posts?

I think you're badly rattled by all this and are unfairly lashing out at me- for lack of a more apt target.

Attack Boards if you want to attack anything... not the users.

Stating that they (the users) should take personal responsibility for the information they post knowingly and willingly online is commonsense- not an attack.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

_Tombstone_

If we have only been able to choose our own Avatars...green fields man...green fields.



And been able to post pics where we want...more green fields.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

JT26 wrote: »

I find myself using boards less and less these days,mainly down to the fact places like Reddit tailor to my interests far more these days.
Also to answer the comments regarding politics cafe I can only speak for myself as an individual mod within that forum the major issue was the light touch moderation for both i and posters,with no direct guidelines and ambiguity became a nightmare for everyone,so thankfully that has changed somewhat as most posters understand what direction the forum should be.
Regarding the most contentious threads such as Immigration in the previous format it became very toxic and almost like an echo chamber between personal abuse levied at persons with a differing opinion to the countless reported posts it generated,it now seems to be working far better in my opinion as we all know for the most part how to interact on the forum.

A few regulars taking a little holiday seems to have worked wonders for the forum. It's still light touch moderation, just harder on those few who consistently cause bother.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

weisses

K-9 wrote: »

A few regulars taking a little holiday seems to have worked wonders for the forum. It's still light touch moderation, just harder on those few who consistently cause bother.

The utter inconsistency of moderating is what led to the nuking of that forum.

You can adopt a light touch of moderating, as long as it is done consistent.

For instance, the racist and bigoted posters/posts could and should have been tackled, even with that "light touch" approach.

I can somehow understand the mods cmods and admins would want to leave the forums buried, they only display how not to moderate.

I doubt the absence of a few regulars are responsible for how the forum runs ..

Myrddin

Morning all, so a brief update on where we are as a result of all of this:

1) Absent AFK Mods - So far, thirteen absent mods have been demodded, and discussions are happening with Cmods to replace those demodded with more active, invested users of the affected forums. It can take time to identify the right replacement candidates, and even then not everyone says yes to becoming a mod, so bear with us on this. We will keep an ongoing eye on inactive mods also.

2) Category/Forum Bloat - Discussions with Cmods and Mods are ongoing, with regard to identifying and managing inactive/dead forums. We've identified quite a few by now, & some categories have more bloat than others. Once discussions are complete, these dead/inactive forums will be retired, & their content moved to a more fitting forum. If none exists, it'll be visibly archived, so nothing will be lost. It's important that everyone recognises this is a very time consuming process, and it's paramount that it's handled thoughtfully and considerately. This will likely be in process for several weeks/months. It is our hope though at the end of it, the structure of each category will be less bloated, more intuitive to navigate, and ultimately, easier to use.

3) Consistency of Moderation - Once we get a handle on 1 & 2 above, we can move on to this task (it's simply far too important to not be given full attention, so it's better if we clear the decks and handle this point as a separate task in itself). There are obviously a very large amount of mods spread across the site, and it's going to take a very structured and thought-out approach on how to bring moderation across the site closer together in consistency. I think it's fair to say there will always be some variation between forums/categories, some forums have higher standards than others, some have wildly different tones, and bringing moderation closer in consistency while maintaining the individuality of each forum is not an insignificant task. We do accept the point that things can be better though, and we agree

That's the gist of the agenda/timeline for now. There are other points discussed for far, that Dav has addressed (the Search function being overhauled as a matter of priority for example). The above three points in themselves have a lot involved in handling them, and I don't think they're a bad place to start in terms of digesting all of the feedback obtained on this thread so far

Winterlong

I am a rereg of a former 10k+ poster on here. The 'other site' was not the reason for me closing my account but I have been aware of them for months.
That site had very little traffic until the last 4 weeks or so and suddenly they have a lot more posts. They thrive on the attention, helps distract them from the quest to lose their virginity.
When you sign up for boards you get a welcome to boards PM. Why not put a guideline in there about posting personal pictures? And a one time PM warning existing posters of the perils of posting personal pictures along with permission to delete any historic posts would not go amiss.

Boards for me is mostly After Hours. The place seems bereft of those types of posters that used to frequent the place. People who had a bit of spark, were interesting and had a funny outlook on life. Probably a large variety of reasons why they dont post anymore and hopefully it is a phase.

The only criticism I would have about moderation is that it seems to happen behind a thick dark cloak. It needs to be more open and transparent and the concept of 'community' needs to be embraced more. Not 'them and us'.

Lurkio

K-9 wrote: »

A few regulars taking a little holiday seems to have worked wonders for the forum. It's still light touch moderation, just harder on those few who consistently cause bother.

Its a hard core of six or seven, half of them serial re-reggers banned before the café was there.

gallag

Lurkio wrote: »

Its a hard core of six or seven, half of them serial re-reggers banned before the café was there.

Says the re-regger banned from the politics cafe, couldn't make it up.

ibarelycare

DeadHand wrote: »

Off the top of my head I can think of at least five posters who quit these boards citing the "racism" and "bigotry" or "hate speech" rampant on the boards. Now, we all know genuine cases of such are not tolerated so for "racism" and "bigotry" and "hate speech" read differing opinion.

They were upset that their demands to have their opponents banned were not accepted. Some have returned and have many fellow travellers on the boards.

When ongoing events and reality proved the "anti" side right, any immigration threads were moved from AH to the Siberia that is humanities in a fairly transparent attempt to to shut down the discussion- an attempt that only came when the discussion started going the "wrong" way. About the same time Dav let the mask not so much slip as fall off by telling us right wing opinion was "dangerous".

A great many of what could broadly be termed "right wing" commentators have been purged, some quite rightly but many unfairly while certain Leftist trolls are allowed to post the same, tired rubbish ad nauseam without intervention.

Simply put, I think most users would agree that you need to thread much more softly on the boards if you happen to fall on one side of certain debates than you do if you fall on the other.

I've seen a few people refer to Dav saying that right wing opinion is dangerous...where was this?

Lurkio

gallag wrote: »

Says the re-regger banned from the politics cafe, couldn't make it up.

I'm not banned from anywhere, nor am I a re-reg. I merely closed an old a/c and opened a new one.

Lurkio

weisses wrote: »

The utter inconsistency of moderating is what led to the nuking of that forum.

You can adopt a light touch of moderating, as long as it is done consistent.

For instance, the racist and bigoted posters/posts could and should have been tackled, even with that "light touch" approach.

..

What added to the confusion was on-thread mod instructions. Posts violating them were ignored, which would after a time lead to another mod instruction, which, like the other, would never enforced and ignored, seemingly on and on ad infinitum.

gallag

Lurkio wrote: »

What added to the confusion was on-thread mod instructions. Posts violating them were ignored, which would after a time lead to another mod instruction, which, like the other, would never enforced and ignored, seemingly on and on ad infinitum.

Completely agree, you even had some posters calling others bigots even after being warned for attacking the poster! Thankfully it lead to their ban but even though the mods tried, some posters would not listen!!!

Dav

ibarelycare wrote: »

I've seen a few people refer to Dav saying that right wing opinion is dangerous...where was this?

It's not even close to what I said, but never let the truth get in the way of a good rant

ancapailldorcha

Legal Action wrote: »

No you've been completely on point. There are posters who want the opposing side shut down in the guise of 'fighting racism' or God knows what.

And there are posters who'll gang up and shut down any liberal opinion under the guise of "PC gone mad".

TherapyBoy

ibarelycare wrote: »

I've seen a few people refer to Dav saying that right wing opinion is dangerous...where was this?

Might be this?