Boards is becoming a Ghost Town

mzungu

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I know. I wasn't trying to imply that. In my discussion with Maireadio, I was using your post (and thread) as an example of the benefits of light touch modding in TGC that welcomes opposing viewpoints without fear of warnings etc. My point was that if mod action was taken early in the chivalry thread to suppress the opposing side, it would have lead to an echo chamber. Instead, both sides got their say and the thread was all the better for it.

In hindsight, maybe I should have just linked the thread instead!

Maireadio

mzungu wrote: »

In hindsight, maybe I should have just linked the thread instead!

Ooh, ooh, could you?

mzungu

Maireadio wrote: »

Ooh, ooh, could you?

:P

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057604714

And they say chivalry is dead! :pac::pac::pac::pac:

Maireadio

mzungu wrote: »

:P

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057604714

And they say chivalry is dead! :pac::pac::pac::pac:

Tanx luv. xoxoxoxo

Outlaw Pete

Maireadio wrote: »

That's not when it started happening. That thread was, what, a good three years ago? Open to correction there, but the hemorraging of users from AH is far more recent than that.

With respect, that is completely untrue. The threads I referred to were started in June 2011 and here is a thread from that very month citing an increase in account closures:

thebullkf wrote: »

Hi Folks,

I assume this is the correct place for this?
I've noticed that quite a few people have requested that their accounts be closed, seasoned poaters some of them as well
Is this a regular thing (and i just never noticed it before) or a recent phenomenon?

And if I recall, there was a misogynistic undercurrent running though AH at that time.

Certain users claimed there was, yes, but that doesn't mean that there was one. Or lets say a significant one a least. The word misogyny, imo, was just used as a battering ram to shut certain users up. I know as I was one of those users. Not to say that there wasn't some arsehats that occasionally posted some God awful nasty crap about women in AH, tLL and tGC, there was (and no doubt is) for sure. I quite often reported them in fact. However, there were some users who didn't just want genuine misogyny moderated, they wanted certain viewpoints moderated and when mods refused to accommodate them, they would turn on those users and 'misogynist' was generally their insult of choice. On the now infamous 'Kevin Myers is not happy with feminists' thread in AH it was suggested I was misogynist many times for example.

As for your post as a whole, I wish people would stop bringing personal grievances onto this feedback thread. It's tedious to read.

What users are posting might be just 'grievances' to you but that doesn't mean they should just be dismissed off as so. Too often that has happened on Boards and it is totally unfair. It's only natural for people to give their own personal experiences when giving feedback on where it is that they think Boards has gone wrong (when it comes to it's moderation). If you were in M&S tomorrow shopping and asked for your feedback on how they were doing wouldn't you cite your own personal experiences of shopping in that store? Of course you would. I wasn't the only user dismissively mislabeled off as a misogynist either and so while you might see what I am saying as me just wanting to air a grievance, that is far from the case I can assure you. I attempting (perhaps in vain) to get Boards' admin to see that how they treated a group of users back then (of which I was one) was nothing short of a disgrace. Opinions were ascribed to us which we did not hold and that were then used to as justification for going on to effectively muzzle us. It was not a coincidence that the FB charter was changed the following week so that we were kept muzzled. A rule that should be reversed in my view, if transparency is at all something admin are interested. If not, no bother.

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.

Absolutely but they never would. tGC moderation has always been spot on in that regard, as recent examples cited are a clear testament to. I appreciate that tLL needs to be somewhat stricter perhaps but not to the degree that it had got to, at one point at least.

Maireadio wrote: »

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.

I'm pretty sure a hell of a lot of people would put their hands on a bible (the non heathens I mean) and say that I and that the two users that started the FB threads at the time (donfers and Jimmy Garlic) were of the belief that tLL should not exist. Indeed I wouldn't blame them a bit as it was (and still is.. as you can see) repeated so much.. but there is not a single shred of truth to it. Not one. Again, it was something that was said to shut people up. If I was Dav, and I read that, I would have believed it too. Why would he think mods were exaggerating? Here is it being said about me one point:

K-9 wrote: »

Pete was on a crusade against the Ladies Lounge very existence...

Yet I defy anyone to find a single post of mine (you have 16,000 to choose from) were I was expressing anything close to the view that the tLL shouldn't exist. You won't find one though, as it is absurd. In fact just the week before I had been telling Wibbs that the tLL mods should all have tLL banners in their sigs and offer to make them so that whenever they posted elsewhere on Boards, other women who perhaps weren't aware that the forum existed, would see them and could click them. Now don't get me wrong, I didn't like much of the opinions posted there, often made fun of the place, I won't pretend otherwise, but to say that I or any other user (that was prominent in the debate at that time) were 'against the very existence of the forum' was a lie. A lie quite clearly designed, and oft repeated, so that it would result in us all getting muzzled and muzzled we were. In fact it was said so often that in donfers' opening post in FB (which was very respectful of tLL) he went out of his way to point out:

donfers wrote: »

I don't in any way question tll's right to exist

But yet despite donfers well thought out and respectful OP one of the first replies in that thread by a moderator of that forum was "[/i]FFS. That is all. [/i]"

Why though? The user was quite clearly respectful of the ethos of the forum, showed that they understood why it existed, why it needed to exist, but just that they felt a discussion was needed regarding male input given that in the few previous few weeks a number of accusations of derailment and whataboutery were directed at men which he felt were unfair. I was one of those users. Now you might suggest that the moderator in question that posted the reply I just cited did not believe that the accusations of derailment by his fellow mods were misplaced, that the moderation of men in the forum was fine but what was so frustrating back then about that and also about us all getting dismissed off as nothing but trouble making misogynists with axes to grind who didn't get what tLL was for..... was that the very moderator who posted that reply and who kept telling us that we were wrong and 'the clue is in the title of the forum folks', just three months previously had said the very same things we were saying in FB. Here are those comments:

Wibbs wrote: »

..it would also be nice to be able to have a discussion without being accused of derailing the thread because that's the easy option, or the poster is male, or because it deflects from other points they want to avoid acknowledging in their argument. IMHO it's the same intent and effect as calling "troll" on someone and its common enough to see here.

Wibbs wrote: »

I've been accused of derailment on this thread already (which I still call cobblers on), I'll leave ye to it

Wibbs wrote: »

We need to be even handed too though and the defence of "male opinion that disagrees with mine = derailler" should also be marked down.

And so as you can see, far from believing that what we were saying was incorrect, that we were all just axe grinding and didn't 'get' the purpose of that forum, that moderator actually agreed with us, as they themselves had pointed out the very same issues with the overzealous moderation of men just a mere four weeks before we had. Yet, when they posted on the two main FB threads (where other users were expressing the same views they recently just had) all of a sudden they had an entirely different opinion altogether and labelled us axe grinding misogynists for saying what we did.

This is what I am talking about when I say that moderators on Boards can say things which are patently untrue and despite that, they come to be accepted as fact nevertheless. It didn't just happen in this particular instance, it has happened with quite a few others down the years also and which is what is responsible for Boards having the reputation that it does. I feel if issues are raised in the feedback forum by users they should be respected, not dismissed out of hand. Some are obviously nonsense of course, that's inevitable, but they're easily shown to be just that. Moderators, and certain feedback regulars, should not be let shout down users the way we were at that time. I feel it should be a rule of the FB charter that if a mod, or anyone else for that matter, wishes to cite something as an example of why a user is wrongheaded about an issue they raise, then they should have to support that view with links to backup whatever it is that they are suggesting about the user. It's been all too easy for users to gang up on members here and claim that hold opinions which they do not, that the issue they have raised has no merit and that they are really just trouble makers. I feel if there was something in the charter which meant that those contributing to threads (mods or otherwise) had to substantiate what they posted about users then quite a lot of threads over the years would not have descended into the car crashes which they invariably did.

It's said that Boards is a community well quite often it appears that most members of admin, many mods and a large slice of the userbase only see certain types of users as truly belonging to that community. Users that hold certain opinions which they share and which they perhaps feel they'd like to see as having prominence on Boards. It seems as if there has been a concerted drive to demonize users which do not agree with the generally accepted consensus on many issues. To make them feel as uncomfortable as possible to the point where they are almost unable to express themselves without ended up moderated at the very least. I am not talking about overt racism, personal abuse or anything close to it. That stuff has always been well moderated on Boards. There was no need for all the clampdowns on 'misogyny' 'racism' 'sexism' or any 'ism'. Certain elements just used that to shut people up that they did not agree with and shut them up they did... and some it's clear have never logged back in. Some did of course, which is cool but I think they tended to be the thicker skinned among us. There were lots though who were just not of that persuasion, had enough of walking on egg shells, of certain topics not being given a platform, and being told they likely never would be. So they went elsewhere to talk about whatever the hell it is that the wanted to talk about. It's crazy that an Irish discussion forum is pretty much renowned for preventing people from discussing things... and it is, it very much is. A touch unfair as that may be.

Maireadio

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

With respect, that is completely untrue. The threads I referred to were started in June 2011 and here is a thread from that very month citing an increase in account closures:

At the time, people had to request to close their accounts so even a handful of accounts closing was notable. It was a much bigger deal for someone to close their account then, and not very common at all. Any increase was still a tiny number of posters. It is absolutely not when boards.ie started to lose a lot of users, not even close. You're out by at least three years.

RDM_83 again

Maireadio wrote: »

I think everyone is inclined to be biased towards certain others, it's a very human condition so I'm not sure this kind of thing can ever really be eradicated. And I just don't believe this is what's causing boards.ie's problems. These popular posters have been there for years and the site's problems are pretty recent.

Ok I don't think they are the sole cause of Boards problems, I do think they a contributing factor though and one that could be fairly easily fixed without costing money
You talk about how these posters and this dynamic isn't new, thats true, however with the way previously more relaxed forums on here have had a harder moderation line instead of like in the "good old days" where one of those posters would have made a snarky mildly insulting reply post and got a bunch of thanks its turned into a situation where there a reply will get you carded and topics being forbidden and threads moved to graveyard forums.
Statements by the staff and the way the Politics Cafe was treated show how 'conservative/right/' opinion is not desired.

Maybe before this wouldn't be such a big deal but the alt-right is on the rise and is made up of people raised with the politics of the liberal left and the internet as is very much aware of how subtle censorship, identity politics, circlejerks and strawmanning is used, the site is in decline in general and its facing increased competition for sites that left users find the spaces they like.

The issue for the site is, at the minute they seem they would rather loose 50 users with the "wrong" opinions to keep 20 with the right views.

Anyway I am probably posting to much on this thread but biases in moderation and attitudes on sites to users are always brought up on these threads but never actually even properly engaged with.
For example Niamh (I think it was) instead of referencing concerns about moderation mentioned inconsistency between forums moderation, which at that stage as the LL and tGC conversation hadn't came up had not been mentioned as a concern by any users.

Wibbs

Maireadio wrote: »

As boards has always been much more male-heavy, it's especially helpful to have a female-heavy forum, I think.

That was the general take on tLL and I assume it still is and one I would agree with myself.

Having modded both tLL and tGC I can tell you there are some broad differences. IMHO/generally/all that caveat stuff. For one there is a different approach to debate(and one I have found is generally applicable to "real life" gender approaches too). tGC is more "combative" in debate for want of a better word, while tLL is more "supportive" again for the want… This is reflected in the number of reported posts when an opposing angle comes in. In recently referenced tGC threads where a more #importedfromtheUSfeminist opinion came in, I don't think we got one reported post. Maybe one? When broadly the same kinda thing happened in tLL we'd be awash with reported posts. And I don't mean from the permanently offended, must report people either. Everyday members.

Plus because as M notes the site is more male orientated, there is more of a "bias" towards that and having just one forum where that bias goes the other way, well I don't see that as a problem and didn't see it as one back in the day. Even when I didn't and don't agree with some of the stuff posted in say the feminism thread, then and now. I am perfectly fine with stating publicly that I am not a feminist, as far as what that represents today and I held that view when I was one of the mods on tLL. I don't agree with some of the stuff posted in the sexism thread in tGC either BTW. Doesn't matter, my role is not to put my opinion on how the place operates. That's what I try to avoid anyway. And I have fcuked up often enough on that score too.

EG Outlawpete who has arisen. Looking back, where you excessively hounded, set out as an "example" and the mob escalated you to public enemy number one beyond reasonable? Yep IMHO you were in a helluva lot of ways and yes I was part of that mob and I was wrong and FWIW I apologise for my part in it.

My cards on the table P? Objectively speaking you were a cool member around the place and anyone who says otherwise is just judging your value on one thing/event, you added a helluva lot to the community. TBH I was actually surprised at the time. But, on this point, yes mods and Boards went OTT, but you went full retard on the subject at the time and even years later you're still grinding that axe P. At this stage you've ground it away to the point where you're left with a wooden handle. Yes you went OTT and yes Boards kicked back too much for all sorts of reasons, but FFS P let it go man. We've all got our hobby horses(and FB threads bring out the jockeys). Hell I have a stable of the buggers, but this one IMH is beneath you at this stage P. It really is.

Wibbs

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ok I don't think they are the sole cause of Boards problems, I do think they a contributing factor though.

Just my take, but the problem is a bastard with many fathers.

Site category rejig.

Now it looks like the community is a tiny part of the site and that's frankly a stupid way to do things and forums and communities within communities have died because of it. Weird thought; sometimes, more than sometimes, people actually want complexity. It's called choice. It hasn't hurt Reddit, which makes the Northwest passage, in winter, in AD 1400, look easy to navigate by comparison.

Moderation.

Too much, too little, depending on forum, but the perception of the place being Mods.ie is strong. Though it always has been, even at the crest of the wave. What may be missed here is that the vast bulk of Board's forums are specialised forums where moderation is much less an issue. Look at the forums we've been discussing here. They're generalist forums. The folks in Farming couldn't give a tramps toss about the "gender war" or "SJWs".

Competition from Facebook and the like.

Not much can be done with that really. Though those platforms have serious limitations too and people will want an alternative. Give them one.

The "corporate" feel to the place.

This can make people feel less connected. Another aspect of this is the age demographic of many "in charge". Your middle aged don't like loud noises and all too often forget they were once callow youths and such themselves. So you can get that "down with that sort of thing" and "these debates are beneath me" ballsology coming in. The sneer surrounding After Hours a good example. And yes it does exist, though TBH much lesser than it was from what I observe anyway.

Solutions? To quote Liam of the javelin with palsy; aye there's the rub. But unlike the "responsive site's" menu it is navigable. We just have to engage the people who make up this community. Not the mods or the axe grinders(often both at the same time) who are more like to show up in Feedback and the like. That's actually the "rub" IMH. How do we ask them?

donfers

There are many reasons this place is losing users but one of the key reasons is the simple realisation that moderators forgot who the forum was for. It was for the users, it was not for them to seek to espouse their political views while simultaneously manufacturing some spurious justification for silencing those who

a) offered an alternate view

and more worryingly

b) called them on their biases

Once that stuff starts happening in any walk of life, once the power-holders forget about what the "power" is based on and instead focus on exploiting it for their own ends...well you are on a downward spiral.

Forgive me if this sounds melodramatic for this is just a simple discussion forum but it used to carry some weight. It doesn't anymore because it went to a lot of peoples' heads in that they consciously or unconsciously thought it was a forum for "them" and not "us".

You reap what you sow, a forum should reflect its users NOT its moderators and Boards.ie made the possibly terminal mistake of going down the latter route.

As a result, I and many others either stopped posting entirely or post a lot less here. And golly darn it folks we were your lifeblood!!!!

_Tombstone_

misogynists, SJWs (I had to look up these to see what they were first time I saw them) and gender wars.

Only on Boards does this crap come up all over the place daily. I don't know whats wrong with ye.

KomradeBishop

Maireadio wrote: »

Yes, there is a non-mod long-standing poster (may be a former mod, I'm not sure) who slavishly toes the party line and has made a few dubious comments (not in this thread) that have been heavily mod-thanked, and there is another long-standing poster who is a former mod and I actually consider him to be a low-level troll. Pretty much all posts of his is a smart answer of some kind or another. So I know what you mean.

There was another poster who was very long-standing. He was heavy on the snark but was very popular on the site. He closed his account for whatever reason and then created a new one. (it was very obvious to me that it was the same poster) It was interesting to see him in his new guise not be anywhere near as popular and his snarkiness not anywhere near as well-received, perhaps because people didn't recognise it was him. So yes, some user names to seem to carry a certain cachet.

I think everyone is inclined to be biased towards certain others, it's a very human condition so I'm not sure this kind of thing can ever really be eradicated. And I just don't believe this is what's causing boards.ie's problems. These popular posters have been there for years and the site's problems are pretty recent.

Yea that kind of snark/condescension should really lose people any mod/cmod/admin influence super-fast - it's a pretty poisonous attitude.

It's also the style of attitude/posting among regular posters that can drag down the quality of debate in a topic, and have people enter the trenches of their respective 'side', thus destroying any worthwhile debate - in other words, it helps promote groupthink and an 'Us vs Them' divide - exactly what you don't want among mods/cmods/admins.

RDM_83 again

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

misogynists, SJWs (I had to look up these to see what they were first time I saw them) and gender wars.

Only on Boards does this crap come up all over the place daily. I don't know whats wrong with ye.

Seriously do you not use any other sites apart from here, maybe more Irish/UK sites would have gone on about Lefties or the PC's but its basically interchangeable.

Consume any left wing media and you will have daily articles about Misogyny.
While back chatting to a middle aged ex Mod who lives in a small town who was laughing at his Japanese Tattoo's being "cultural appropriation".

This is mainstream now and the thing is the powers that be on Boards have a side, the thing they don't realize is though there is a small minority of very vocal posters who like this the Kickback against "PC culture" is actually more popular on here (and in real life).

donfers

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Seriously do you not use any other sites apart from here, maybe more Irish/UK sites would have gone on about Lefties or the PC's but its basically interchangeable.

Consume any left wing media and you will have daily articles about Misogyny.
While back chatting to a middle aged ex Mod who lives in a small town who was laughing at his Japanese Tattoo's being "cultural appropriation".

This is mainstream now and the thing is the powers that be on Boards have a side, the thing they don't realize is though there is a small minority of very vocal posters who like this the Kickback against "PC culture" is actually more popular on here (and in real life).

I personally think the kickback is not so much against PC values or liberal political ideology or whatever you want to call it because I, at least, share the vast majority of those worldviews.

Rather it's a growing discontent with the paradoxical liberal fascist who claims s/he is a right-on do-godding live and let live lover of all people and sees no contradiction with claiming to be that utopian person while at the same time slamming in the most derogatory and offensive of ways those who may not be so "enlightened". And all the while they seem to be blissfully unaware of any inherent hypocrisy with having the cool liberal badge while adopting fascist tactics with the non-believers, promoting censorship, denying free speech and exploiting the bandwagon they roll on to smear those who question them.

Wonzy

Some forums are fun, most forums are destroyed by high horses who act like their **** don't stink.

But boards kind of gets to a stage where your wasting time talking to randomers reading through pages of crap and you realize what the he'll am I doing wasting all these hours and it's time to close your account.

Esel

donfers wrote: »

I personally think the kickback is not so much against PC values or liberal political ideology or whatever you want to call it because I, at least, share the vast majority of those worldviews.

Rather it's a growing discontent with the paradoxical liberal fascist who claims s/he is a right-on do-godding live and let live lover of all people and sees no contradiction with claiming to be that utopian person while at the same time slamming in the most derogatory and offensive of ways those who may not be so "enlightened" and not at all saying any inherent hypocrisy with having the cool liberal badge while adopting fascist tactics with the non-believers, promoting censorship, denying free speech and exploiting the bandwagon they roll on to smear those who question them.

Paragraphs: Yes

Short sentences: No

Point made: Yes

Hard to read: Yes (second paragraph/sentence).

Likelihood to be appreciated by 'the powers that be' here: Slim to none

Relevance to the issue under discussion: Major

Chance of engaging new users: Mu?

_________________________________

tl/dr Good point.

Wibbs

donfers wrote: »

Rather it's a growing discontent with the paradoxical liberal fascist who claims s/he is a right-on do-godding live and let live lover of all people and sees no contradiction with claiming to be that utopian person while at the same time slamming in the most derogatory and offensive of ways those who may not be so "enlightened" and not at all saying any inherent hypocrisy with having the cool liberal badge while adopting fascist tactics with the non-believers, promoting censorship, denying free speech and exploiting the bandwagon they roll on to smear those who question them.

And that would be all grand D save for the fact that the vast majority of forums on the website have zero to do with politics of any kind and they're dying off. The Food forum gives not a toss. Are cakes political? Nope. Does the US presidential race affect the Giving up smoking forum? Nope.

All this political liberal/right wing/gender sheeeite affects only a few forums. After Hours(which is the most popular forum on the website and is growing), Politics which is largely dead. Even before the Cafe it was dying. A room full of crusties being smug. Humanities. One post a month. tGC/tLL. Even there it's minimal enough traffic wise. And Feedback, where a few axe grinders on all sides are sure to rock up claiming they're right on or oppressed or both. There may be others like Economics, but overall it's a tiny number of forums that give a damn what your stated politics are.

Suryavarman

After a hive of activity over the last 24 hours the mods have decided to close the US presidential race thread over in politics. The shooting in Orlando yesterday was a major topic of discussion among the presidential candidates and naturally that spilled over into the presidential race thread.

It could be argued that such discussion was off topic and therefore didn't belong in the thread. I would think the sensible decision there would be to remove all off topic posts and put them into their own thread. Or maybe even leave the discussion run its course as it will naturally do.

The politics forum and the lack of activity on it has come in for a lot of criticism on this thread. So to see mods shut down the most active thread on the forum when there was a lot of activity on it really does beggar belief. This activity could have kept the thread, and the forum in turn, on the Boards homepage for a prolonged period of time and attracted new posters. Instead the thread has been killed until the mods decide what to do with it. I'll make the assumption that thread won't be permanently closed, in which case, what was the point of closing the thread? If the current discussion is actually a problem then get posters back on topic after the mods have their little chat about what to do. If the thread is closed permanently than what do we do? Will discussion of the US presidential election be banned from the politics forum?

It seems like some mods are actually afraid that some discussion might occur on a discussion forum. Another great example of the over-moderation that's killing the website

ancapailldorcha

Suryavarman wrote: »

After a hive of activity over the last 24 hours the mods have decided to close the US presidential race thread over in politics. The shooting in Orlando yesterday was a major topic of discussion among the presidential candidates and naturally that spilled over into the presidential race thread.

While I didn't close the thread, it is being discussed by the Politics mods at the moment. Rest assured the topic will be up for discussion once we analyse the thread.

Wibbs

TBH I think closing active threads so the mods can have a wee chat is usually a mistake. A simple on thread "let's get back on the topic at hand" should suffice.

Suryavarman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

While I didn't close the thread, it is being discussed by the Politics mods at the moment. Rest assured the topic will be up for discussion once we analyse the thread.

Admittedly it wasn't you didn't leave the note in thread. A couple of mods could have been discussing closure of the thread before it was actually closed for all I knew. In that case I didn't want to be mean and single out JohnnySkeleton :P

Apologies if my original post was overly critical. But the politics forum is the main reason I visit Boards and it's frustrating to see discussion like this shut down, even if it is only temporary.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH I think closing active threads so the mods can have a wee chat is usually a mistake. A simple on thread "let's get back on the topic at hand" should suffice.

I have more "back on topic please" posts in that thread than actual contributions to the subject.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Admittedly it wasn't you didn't leave the note in thread. A couple of mods could have been discussing closure of the thread before it was actually closed for all I knew. In that case I didn't want to be mean and single out JohnnySkeleton :P

Apologies if my original post was overly critical. But the politics forum is the main reason I visit Boards and it's frustrating to see discussion like this shut down, even if it is only temporary.

It was a little. I wasn't involved in closing it but it's important for me to say that it's veered off topic a huge number of times which is why Johnnyskeleton closed it. We're hoping to either open it soon or start a new thread given that both parties' nominations have been decided. As I said, we're talking about it now.

I want to note that none of us want to kill discussion or stifle debate. I suspect that a few strong contributors to that thread have left given how many times it has been hijacked with certain individuals grinding their axes. I don't want to derail the thread here so I think I will leave it there.

Wibbs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I have more "back on topic please" posts in that thread than actual contributions to the subject.

Oh sure ACD and it was rapidly circling the drain with all sorts of out there bro science nonsense in the last pages. I meant generally mods closing threads, rather than that specific one.

KomradeBishop

As another said, if things go sufficiently off topic from a thread, the right course really should be to just move it all to a new thread or more appropriate one - if things have run off topic, there is obviously a lively discussion to be had about the new topic that has come up, and it can stimulate discussion on the forum if managed properly (moved to a new thread), rather than shutdown.

Something to experiment with.

donfers

Esel wrote: »

Paragraphs: Yes

Short sentences: No

Point made: Yes

Hard to read: Yes (second paragraph/sentence).

Likelihood to be appreciated by 'the powers that be' here: Slim to none

Relevance to the issue under discussion: Major

Chance of engaging new users: Mu?

_________________________________

tl/dr Good point.

Fair point sir, I tend to ramble a little at times, post edited for clarity

donfers

Wibbs wrote: »

And that would be all grand D save for the fact that the vast majority of forums on the website have zero to do with politics of any kind and they're dying off. The Food forum gives not a toss. Are cakes political? Nope. Does the US presidential race affect the Giving up smoking forum? Nope.

All this political liberal/right wing/gender sheeeite affects only a few forums. After Hours(which is the most popular forum on the website and is growing), Politics which is largely dead. Even before the Cafe it was dying. A room full of crusties being smug. Humanities. One post a month. tGC/tLL. Even there it's minimal enough traffic wise. And Feedback, where a few axe grinders on all sides are sure to rock up claiming they're right on or oppressed or both. There may be others like Economics, but overall it's a tiny number of forums that give a damn what your stated politics are.

My post you are quoting was not specifically related to boards.ie but instead refers to a kind of general backlash against the PC fascists we see everywhere in the media and online these days.

donfers

The off topic one always amuses me - that old chestnut "we must keep on topic". Discussions must be linear, they may not be tangential. If only all our great civilizations had this attitude we'd still be living in caves.

Ah but it's a discussion forum you say and we must focus on what exactly- who decides when the topic goes "off" then, define what off topic means. How off does off topic have to be before it is called off. This reminds me of the whole safe place/causing offense nonsense. Certain people with certain entrenched beliefs creating these arbitrary lines for debate/discussion to be censored, modified, moderated so that their views hold forth and cannot be questioned (are their beliefs so brittle?). It's all bs, let the users use the forum.

No, I am not advocating some kind of free-for-all anarchy but I am suggesting the users are trusted more, and that real discussion is allowed to take place, flow, and develop and that those who opine be interrogated. This is what discussion is supposed to be about. It's more bs when I hear "ah but there are those who are more suited to that kind of debate and those who prefer a more supportive environment". Absolute hogwash - all these excuses are attempted time and again here to justify the groupthink propoganda thing and with moderators rowing in behind it then is it any wonder people eventually just tire of the non-debate. Is this a discussion forum or is it just a series of special interest sub-strata preaching to the ever-dwindling already converted, aka a cult?

Michael D Not Higgins

donfers wrote: »

The off topic one always amuses me - that old chestut "we must keep on topic". Discussions must be linear, they may not be tangential. If only all our great civilizations had this attitude we'd still be living in caves.

I think the problem is the linear nature of the forum. Tangential discussions tend to disrupt the topic at hand. For an alternative method, see Reddit's grouping. You can have several tangential discussions not affecting the main topic at all within the heading of a separate comments discussion to the main one.

This isn't possible in the current vBulletin format and it causes disruption to threads when things go too far off course. There are many topics that tend to veer in a particular direction if they go unchecked and there's already threads available for that.

For example, a thread on, say, the government's new proposals for health. One poster can come in and say "More wastage and tax, just like the water fiasco". Cue a ten page argument on the pros and cons of water charges. This is allowable in other formats as they can contain the water discussion to an area that doesn't affect others from discussing the health system. No one wants to click into a thread about topic A where everyone's arguing about topic B.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh sure ACD and it was rapidly circling the drain with all sorts of out there bro science nonsense in the last pages. I meant generally mods closing threads, rather than that specific one.

Cheers Wibbs. A former mod of the forum even contacted me to thank me for letting it run. I try to employ a laissez-faire attitude to modding and only get involved when necessary.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

As another said, if things go sufficiently off topic from a thread, the right course really should be to just move it all to a new thread or more appropriate one - if things have run off topic, there is obviously a lively discussion to be had about the new topic that has come up, and it can stimulate discussion on the forum if managed properly (moved to a new thread), rather than shutdown.

Something to experiment with.

Good idea. Don't think it would have applied in this instance.

JCX BXC

Is it me or has moderation been increased a little more lately?