Boards is becoming a Ghost Town

Tilly

Maireadio wrote: »

I wish people would stop bringing personal grievances onto this feedback thread. It's tedious to read.

This x 10000000

DeadHand

Bambi wrote: »

Another fine example of an AH mod pulling the ould strokethat a certain former AH mod had made their signature move

Put on your mod hat to shut down an differing view on utterly spurious grounds safe in the knowledge that if anyone calls you on your bull**** in the thread you can just ban them

Some pair of balls on this cowboy:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99993589&postcount=98

A bizarre intervention indicative of the censorious, biased nature of moderation on AH.

I mean, the poster made an innocuous, truthful statement and the mod in question almost falls off his/her white horse in his/her haste to shut him down. A case of virtue signalling being more important than fairness.

Transexuals are one of board's great sacred cows: discuss them in any less than fawning terms and expect to be persecuted.

DeadHand

DeadHand wrote: »

A bizarre intervention indicative of the censorious, biased nature of moderation on AH.

I mean, the poster made an innocuous, truthful statement and the mod in question almost falls off his/her white horse in his/her haste to shut him down. A case of virtue signalling being more important than fairness.

Transexuals are one of board's great sacred cows: discuss them in any less than fawning terms and expect to be persecuted.

Being asked not to colour all transexuals as fraudsters is persecution?

I don't think the problem there is the mods.

ibarelycare

Candie wrote: »

Being asked not to colour all transexuals as fraudsters is persecution?

I don't think the problem there is the mods.

The poster didn't colour all transsexuals as fraudsters.

DeadHand

jackofalltrades wrote: »

immigration, Islam, travellers or transgender issues seem to be particularly bad.
Whether they continue to stay open or get closed seems to depend on which side of the argument is winning

This is the thing.

In the case of immigration threads, while posters pretending they were willing to put up dozens of Syrian in their house and trying to be the most devastated over the dead boy on the beach (slain by no one but his odious father) the threads were perfectly fine.

Then the ragged misfortunes (who mostly look better fed, dressed and healthier than the average Irish person) started rampaging over European borders with literal battering rams. Than the mass rapes came to light. Then the murders.

Ongoing events and the reality on the ground proved the anti side right all along. The prevailing sentiment on AH began to reflect this truth. Suddenly, AH became a strictly "lighthearted" forum. Right wing posters are hastily purged, threads on the issue are strangled at birth. Up jumps Dav in righteous fury to tell us Rightwing opinion is "dangerous". Far more dangerous than the people actually murdering and raping Europeans at a wildly disproportionate rate, apparently.

Quite simply, the admins and moderators (who are almost uniformly left wing) saw their side losing so took their ball and went home. Contentious threads in AH were fine as long as their side was "winning". When the tide turned the monopoly table was kicked over.

As a result of this sterilisation AH is now a forum primarily for unfunny, predictable thanks whores and mods. The quality of threads has degenerated from interesting debate to "how do you wipe your arse" and other such puerile nonsense which, while always present, was at least mixed in with some stimulating stuff.

This politically motivated cleansing of AH has been one of the factors contributing to making boards a "ghost town".

DeadHand

Candie wrote: »

Being asked not to colour all transexuals as fraudsters is persecution?

I don't think the problem there is the mods.

As mentioned, the poster made no such assertion. Therefore, he was unfairly singled out.

Maybe have an auld read of the posts in questions before wading in.

RDM_83 again

Candie wrote: »

Being asked not to colour all transexuals as fraudsters is persecution?

I don't think the problem there is the mods.

Actually this post points to one of the problems about the way moderation has gone/is increasingly going on AH (and other forums), a person makes a statement.

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Misrepresenting yourself in such a manner in order to obtain consent for sex is deception. Using force, fear or fraud to obtain sex is rape.

The statement itself is not inflammatory and as far as I know from the legal cases that have came up in the UK is arguably factually correct (well the latter part definitely is).

A poster replies with, "how dare you say that all X's are like that".
Said post gets actioned or that line of discussion is closed by mod warning because Boards at the minute has a hard-on for clamping down on what is perceived to be intolerance.
Because this only seems to operate in one direction it seems like 20 or so actively engaged users can dictate the tone and to some extent the moderation of the busiest forums on site.

Wibbs

DeadHand wrote: »

Quite simply, the admins and moderators (who are almost uniformly left wing) saw their side losing so took their ball and went home. Contentious threads in AH were fine as long as their side was "winning". When the tide turned the monopoly table was kicked over.

Ehh there's an immigration thread on AH as we speak and there are shedloads of posters, including myself calling shenanigans on the top down push in welcoming these "refugees". I'm a "right wing poster" and I"m still there. I can think of a fair number of others too. If anything the numbers of same are growing rather than dropping, certainly on the issue that occupies your thoughts in your post.

AH became a strictly "lighthearted" forum.

It used to be the lighthearted forum. The banter at the pub forum. Go back through the pages to even five years ago and compare and contrast the thread subjects. It's far more "serious" these days.

TBH D, while yes there most certainly can be sacred cows on AH and yes it trends towards the right on(I personally thought Dav's "right wing" statement was painfully naive) and yes it grinds my gears at times too, but what I'm coming away with more is that in this particular case your worldview wants there to be more censorship by the lefties than there actually is. From my reading of the forum it's better than it was a year ago.

KomradeBishop

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The statement itself is not inflammatory and as far as I know from the legal cases that have came up in the UK is arguably factually correct (well the latter part definitely is).

A poster replies with, "how dare you say that all X's are like that".
Said post gets actioned or that line of discussion is closed by mod warning because Boards at the minute has a hard-on for clamping down on what is perceived to be intolerance.
Because this only seems to operate in one direction it seems like 20 or so actively engaged users can dictate the tone and to some extent the moderation of the busiest forums on site.

You know, the subtle thing there, is that the mod-warned post was actually straw-manned, as what he was accused of was not actually what was said. So this brings up a good point/subtlety about the mod process.

I've seen posters try to repetitively straw-man people in the past, as stating or doing something infractionable, in order to try and generate a consensus and bring mod action down upon them (and even cases where admins have thanked this) - but the same thing can happen in a non-deliberate/unconscious way too (any 'consensus' that develops through this kind of straw-manning, will mostly be unconscious for example) - and so I suspect this is a very subtle/notable way that mod bias is generated (and that it can happen in background mod/admin discussion too - a small number of admins/cmods/mods are not immune to having e.g. extreme condescending attitudes to people, which is a big indicator of how things can be coloured behind the scenes).

This is why, earlier, I was pointing out the lack of transparency in e.g. private mod discussion of posters histories and stuff - I get a very strong feeling that similar stuff happens 'in the background', which can colour a posters history, without that poster having the opportunity to contest that (contest any inaccuracies) and defend themselves - without getting a proper right of reply.

It is not possible for DRP/Prison to deal with this type of bias - because it's not visible there, and the CMod/Admin dealing with the DRP/Prison case, is going to be influenced by this bias in their review of the case - and when they 'lay down the law' when they finish reviewing and finally post in DRP, the bias will already be factored into the decision (the 'poisoning of the well' will already have happened), and the poster has no opportunity to contest that, as they can't contest what they don't see.

Boom_Bap

Oh hi there, I see my mod note has picked up some steam here. In the spirit of transparency I'll explain, perhaps my wording was not clear enough on the thread, if so, apologies for that.

I am not trying to stop the discussion from either side. I am merely pointing out that there are some posts that thread that can be interpreted ambiguously.

I opted to go for a thread note rather than a card or a ban to keep the discussion going but to keep in mind that what may be written in the discussion, although written in the spirit of the discussion with no malice intended, can be misconstrued on the other side of the argument and be read as being offensive. There have been plenty of times in AH where threads on similar subjects have taken a turn due to a misplaced phrase, so I'm using my experience to try prevent that from happening again.

The post I picked from the thread can be painted in the light that all trans people as all sorts of criminal (3 counts) if they don't disclose their past. I don't believe it's what the poster was saying, but how it can be understood from the other side of argument can be something different.
The post in question along with other posts in the thread with similar ambiguity were reported for the same reason.

I'd like to remind that I didn't ban anyone, I made a note to keep the discussion rolling. I wasn't painting the user who made the post as being a bad guy, I was using the content of the most recent post as an example. To the person whos post I'm quoting is reading, I was not singling you out..again, apologies if you think that was the case.

As for falling from my 'white horse' to use my mod powers to sway a side of discussion........I don't even know where I stand on the topic so I'm not sure how I could do that.

I'd rather not drag this thread into discussion of my mod note, so if you want to discuss this further, drop me a PM and I can get back to you.

Alf Stewart.

As for falling from my 'white horse' to use my mod powers to sway a side of discussion........I don't even know where I stand on the topic so I'm not sure how I could do that.

Hard to argue with that tbh.

Oafley Jones

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Oh hi there, I see my mod note has picked up some steam here. In the spirit of transparency I'll explain, perhaps my wording was not clear enough on the thread, if so, apologies for that.

I am not trying to stop the discussion from either side. I am merely pointing out that there are some posts that thread that can be interpreted ambiguously.

I opted to go for a thread note rather than a card or a ban to keep the discussion going but to keep in mind that what may be written in the discussion, although written in the spirit of the discussion with no malice intended, can be misconstrued on the other side of the argument and be read as being offensive. There have been plenty of times in AH where threads on similar subjects have taken a turn due to a misplaced phrase, so I'm using my experience to try prevent that from happening again.

The post I picked from the thread can be painted in the light that all trans people as all sorts of criminal (3 counts) if they don't disclose their past. I don't believe it's what the poster was saying, but how it can be understood from the other side of argument can be something different.
The post in question along with other posts in the thread with similar ambiguity were reported for the same reason.

I'd like to remind that I didn't ban anyone, I made a note to keep the discussion rolling. I wasn't painting the user who made the post as being a bad guy, I was using the content of the most recent post as an example. To the person whos post I'm quoting is reading, I was not singling you out..again, apologies if you think that was the case.

As for falling from my 'white horse' to use my mod powers to sway a side of discussion........I don't even know where I stand on the topic so I'm not sure how I could do that.

I'd rather not drag this thread into discussion of my mod note, so if you want to discuss this further, drop me a PM and I can get back to you.

I don't have a dog in this fight either, but I thought your note showed extraordinaryly bad judgement. I think this is an issue that's totally on topic and at the heart of a rot that has set into boards lately.

So let's see, if I can parse what you've just said....

If there's the potential for offence in a post, even if there's literally nothing that supports that in the text, that is grounds for a warning? Have you not made a value judgement in that instance?

Have you amended your post to clarify your position, because as it stands you've completely misrepresented the quoted post.

Taltos

Oafley Jones wrote: »

I don't have a dog in this fight either, but I though your note showed extraordinary bad judgement. I think this is an issue that's totally on topic and at the heart of a rot that's set into boards lately.

Have to disagree with you sorry.

Looking at the post

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Misrepresenting yourself in such a manner in order to obtain consent for sex is deception. Using force, fear or fraud to obtain sex is rape.

As the mod called out this is open to interpretation, and as many who reported it interpreted it they read it as openly stating that all transsexuals who don't declare that they are trans are guilty of rape. Reading it above it's a statement and all encompassing. Personally I'd have read it precisely in this manner and actioned it cause I'm a git that way. The mod here though didn't, knowing AH and the style of posting and trying to dance the line to keep the discussion (key word here, I hate arguments) flowing made what I now view as the right call.

Now, had the poster said "Look I don't know but were someone to..." Or "in my opinion some trans who misrepresent..." But even then who knows. It's a fine line and what's key I guess not knowing too much about it, is that for a trans person they might have been born a man for example but in their hearts view themselves as a woman. So with that in mind, is it reasonable to expect a woman to state when getting intimate that through a curse of genetics or chromosome volleyball that they were actually born with a males body?

It's a tough one. One that I don't get. But what I do try to do is whatever my own feelings on it are I do try to place myself in the head of the other side of the story here to see is it reasonable for action to be needed on a reported post.

I know not everyone will agree with my take, and that's OK. Hell, having a discussion is part of what Boards is here for. Having an argument though, where one side shouts down the other either overtly or through other means isn't.

As I keep reminding myself. This isn't real life, it's an escape, somewhere to come and have fun or open myself to new ideas (or in my case new games). We're not always going to agree with each other, but it should be enough to go accept that we disagree and move on. Somewhere over the last while we seem to have moved from having that fun and robust discussions to outright war and shouting matches, hopefully this thread can show us all a way back to the fun.

Edward Hopper

Absolutely no need to quote any post with that mod warning, particularly one that does nothing wrong.

So now a mod can say they don't want a particular type of post even if it breaks no rules of forum or boards.

Oafley Jones

Edward Hopper wrote: »

Absolutely no need to quote any post with that mod warning, particularly one that does nothing wrong.

So now a mod can say they don't want a particular type of post even if it breaks no rules of forum or boards.

Thats the the nub of the issue. Enforcement based on interpretation rather than content sets a monstrously bad precedent. How is someone supposed to contribute in that context. Why is there that mod warning on that post and the apology in this thread? There needs to be clarification. What are the rules. Hiding behind subtle warnings of "discussing mod decisions" and refusing to engage "take it to PM" is simply not good enough.

I agree with a good degree of modding btw, otherwise you'll end with a toxic wasteland like the PROC, but this particular example has shown very poor form.


edit: I see Boom-bap hasn't issued an update on that post/warning despite what they've said here.

LuckyLloyd

Honestly think this general perception of political bias in the site's moderation and indeed criticism of moderation practices in general is the kind of topic that would have been excellently suited to the Feed Forward process. As Baldy Concience noted to me many year's ago in a debate 'perception is reality' when it comes to moderation on the site.

Debates about how to fix moderation amongst the moderation / Admin groups run the risk of missing the point.

I personally find this thread problematic:

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057582374/1

because I'd ask what affect a protected...thread like that creates if a discussion of the topic or related topics take place on AH or any general discussion area of the site.

I mean a lot of these issues around misogyny / feminism / immigration and the general perception of an anti right wing stance have generally passed me by as I don't engage in those conversations on here. But some of the links and posts on this thread demonstrate that there is some review and soul searching required. Of course, the outcome of a proper review might very well be 'we're on the right path'.

IvyTheTerrible

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Honestly think this general perception of political bias in the site's moderation and indeed criticism of moderation practices in general is the kind of topic that would have been excellently suited to the Feed Forward process. As Baldy Concience noted to me many year's ago in a debate 'perception is reality' when it comes to moderation on the site.

Debates about how to fix moderation amongst the moderation / Admin groups run the risk of missing the point.

I personally find this thread problematic:

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057582374/1

because I'd ask what affect a protected...thread like that creates if a discussion of the topic or related topics take place on AH or any general discussion area of the site.

I mean a lot of these issues around misogyny / feminism / immigration and the general perception of an anti right wing stance have generally passed me by as I don't engage in those conversations on here. But some of the links and posts on this thread demonstrate that there is some review and soul searching required. Of course, the outcome of a proper review might very well be 'we're on the right path'.

Sorry LuckyLloyd, I'm not sure I follow your point about what effect a thread in TheLadiesLounge has on a discussion elsewhere on the site?

LuckyLloyd

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Sorry LuckyLloyd, I'm not sure I follow your point about what effect a thread in TheLadiesLounge has on a discussion elsewhere on the site?

A thread moderated so heavily so as to promote only one side / perception of issues that are generally contentious (and universal) could carryover to place expectations on moderation of such issues in general areas of the site. Or not. But I'd question the existence of heavily biased enclaves in corners of the site for any topic which holds a general interest level and is not solved - i.e. is not a scientific matter.

Like I can understand incredibly strict moderation practices in health or personal issues forums; and I am fine if data based subject forums cut out attempts to question proven wisdom - i.e. if a gambling forum calls time on some punter proclaiming a 'system' that will ensure long term profitability on roulette.

Now, I'm sure you'll counter that tLL is a forum for women to talk to each other about female issues and / or general issues from a female perspective, that thread is modded in accordance to the charter and what is being clamped down on are posts that are off topic because they are trying to twist the subject to a male perspective. And maybe you're correct on that, but I can most definitely understand why such a thread would be perceived negatively.

IvyTheTerrible

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

A thread moderated so heavily so as to promote only one side / perception of issues that are generally contentious (and universal) could carryover to place expectations on moderation of such issues in general areas of the site. Or not. But I'd question the existence of heavily biased enclaves in corners of the site for any topic which holds a general interest level and is not solved - i.e. is not a scientific matter.

Like I can understand incredibly strict moderation practices in health or personal issues forums; and I am fine if data based subject forums cut out attempts to question proven wisdom - i.e. if a gambling forum calls time on some punter proclaiming a 'system' that will ensure long term profitability on roulette.

Now, I'm sure you'll counter that tLL is a forum for women to talk to each other about female issues and / or general issues from a female perspective, that thread is modded in accordance to the charter and what is being clamped down on are posts that are off topic because they are trying to twist the subject to a male perspective. And maybe you're correct on that, but I can most definitely understand why such a thread would be perceived negatively.

Your last paragraph sums up what TLL is about. It's meant to be a place where women can discuss topics that concern them, and not about "avoiding" a male perspective. I could understand the forum being perceived negatively if it was the only place on boards where such topics can be discussed. But it's not. There's After Hours, there's Humanities etc etc.
Do you have similar concerns about The Gentlemen's Club?

LuckyLloyd

I haven't looked in tGC in a long time, but if they're heavily moderating discussions on general social topics so as to promote a single perspective my position would be the exact same.

KomradeBishop

Ya modding based on interpretation of posts is not right. If the interpretation of a post is ambiguous, a mod should ask - not assume - what a poster meant; and can use a mod note to ask+force the poster to answer, if it's something particularly egregious.

I think on A&A, this more subtle modding approach is taken sometimes - and it's a lot more effective.

intheclouds

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya modding based on interpretation of posts is not right. If the interpretation of a post is ambiguous, a mod should ask - not assume - what a poster meant; and can use a mod note to ask+force the poster to answer, if it's something particularly egregious.

I think on A&A, this more subtle modding approach is taken sometimes - and it's a lot more effective.

I don't even think that post is ambiguous!

mzungu

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I haven't looked in tGC in a long time, but if they're heavily moderating discussions on general social topics so as to promote a single perspective my position would be the exact same.

Definitely not the case with tGC. I have found the moderation there hits the right balance for having free flowing discussion. From what I see differing opinions are welcomed with open arms and this makes for a great debate. Most recently the Milo Yiannopoulos and sexism threads, some great input by both sides putting forward their views. Threads there don't seem to get derailed, or go off down rabbit holes that much either. Always a plus.

Maireadio

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I haven't looked in tGC in a long time, but if they're heavily moderating discussions on general social topics so as to promote a single perspective my position would be the exact same.

I look at both forums and both have low tolerance for members of the opposite sex parachuting in to present "the other side". The two forums are quite honest in the fact that they are places to foster intra-gender not inter-gender debate. All the topics discussed can be discussed elsewhere on the site too.

Maireadio

mzungu wrote: »

Definitely not the case with tGC. I have found the moderation there hits the right balance for having free flowing discussion. From what I see differing opinions are welcomed with open arms and this makes for a great debate. Most recently the Milo Yiannopoulos and sexism threads, some great input by both sides putting forward their views. Threads there don't seem to get derailed, or go off down rabbit holes that much either. Always a plus.

I think historically, tLL has had to be stricter because there have been bigger problems there than in tGC. I think about 5 years ago now, there was a huge thread in Feedback about the forum and so many posters had a huge problem with the forum even existing. I'll see if I can find it.

DeadHand

mzungu wrote: »

Definitely not the case with tGC. I have found the moderation there hits the right balance for having free flowing discussion. From what I see differing opinions are welcomed with open arms and this makes for a great debate

That's because Wibbs runs it.

FriendComputer

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Thats the the nub of the issue. Enforcement based on interpretation rather than content sets a monstrously bad precedent.

The thing is, a long running problem on the site are low-level trolls: the kind of people who know how to skirt just within the rules so they can't be carded.

Now, since we're (mostly) adults here, I'd hope people would be able to understand subtext and such when they see it. Of course, people are going to watch how they talk on that kind of thread but that doesn't mean they won't still say what they'd really like to. Just not in so many words.

More generally it goes back to an issue that became very clear during the SSM debate: what happens when the subject in question involves users on the site? What happens when people want to be (for want of a better word) abusive or insulting in their descriptions of said people when said people make up some of the people on those threads?

Because that's what it comes down to - we're not talking about some distant "other", we're talking about (and in some cases to) the very people who are members of the site. And while yes, people should be able to handle debate, no one should have to put up with being insulted in such brazen and oftentimes ****ty ways.

It's probably the biggest reason I don't bother with AH any more.

RDM_83 again

Taltos wrote: »

Have to disagree with you sorry.
I know not everyone will agree with my take, and that's OK. Hell, having a discussion is part of what Boards is here for. Having an argument though, where one side shouts down the other either overtly or through other means isn't

---

As I keep reminding myself. This isn't real life, it's an escape, somewhere to come and have fun or open myself to new ideas (or in my case new games). We're not always going to agree with each other, but it should be enough to go accept that we disagree and move on. Somewhere over the last while we seem to have moved from having that fun and robust discussions to outright war and shouting matches, hopefully this thread can show us all a way back to the fun.

Isn't that exactly what that mod warning does though, it shuts down a valid line of debate (because as has been pointed out there is legal precedent for rape by deception in the UK), now its very arguable if thats a correct interpretation but its not necessarily hateful.

Its a classic example of the issues with AH and the site as a hole, moderation is very prescriptive and restrictive.

You say if you were a mod you might have carded the post, think about it for a minute, why would somebody bother posting on AH when they will just attract cards for something thats a difference of opinion.

The trend of moderation as I have stated before is probably driven by less than 20 posters (and the boards establishment)
Why are a very small group of offense seeking posters considered so important?

Instead of always saying if you have a problem with moderation leave to one side why not point out occasionally to that group if they want an SRS style place SRS is right there for them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

Maireadio wrote: »

I look at both forums and both have low tolerance for members of the opposite sex parachuting in to present "the other side". The two forums are quite honest in the fact that they are places to foster intra-gender not inter-gender debate. All the topics discussed can be discussed elsewhere on the site too.

Nah its not really true, there has been a few controversial threads on the Gentlemans club that have been dominated by parachute posters and they don't get actioned.

For the record I am a bad poster in terms of I have violated the charter on the new "need feminism" thread (incidentally the old thread seemed to allow for a little more response but AFAIK moderation has changed on the forum)

I did it because I took issue with this post.

Catari Jaguar wrote: »

Because of many comments I read alone writing women off because of their so called "feminist agenda"

So you're not a feminist then? You don't believe women are equal to men and should have equal rights, equal say over their body, equal opportunity, equal education and equal pay?

Male proud to be a chauvinist oppressor = good.

Women who dare threaten that by speaking out, questioning the status quo or not being "lady like" or "hysterical" are silenced at every turn and accused of a "feminist agenda" as if that's a bad thing???

Because of terms like "bitch" and "bossy" being used when women are assertive and demand what is rightfully theirs TOO.

**** right off. Feminist and proud, and if you're threatened by that well tough luck. Grow up.

I don't see how thats anything more than an angry rant (rather than an actual personal experience or constructive example) which paints anybody that disagrees with modern feminism as a misogynist (must be loads of self hating women about) in a place where they can't be called up on it. There just isn't the equivalent in tGC, "sexism you have personally experienced" restricts itself to just personal experience and allows replies for political or opinion based statements.

As an aside its important to note the language used, Women and Males, not women and men, ironically this is a post thats agreed with/thanked by people who will point out posters on other threads for using female(s).
I know that sounds like a petty thing to point out but it neatly illustrates how posters will excuse behavior for those they perceive as on their side but will leap at identical stuff for those they disagree with.
Some level of hypocrisy is understandable, we all do it, but at the same time its got important to consider as labeling somebody as Misogynist creates a lot of impact in the same way other disagreements don't.

TLDR: Note how identical language thats an indicator of misogyny on AH is supported by the same people who have a problem with said language.