Boards is becoming a Ghost Town

K-9

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:




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.



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.



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.



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:



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:



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:







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.

Where did you get that quote from me pete? Certainly wasn't this thread.

Two Tone

Carnacalla wrote: »

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

Not on that Philip Cairns case thread about the woman who it looks very likely was an abuse victim of that DJ Cooke anyway. Good Christ.

On top of the despicable posts about her, "Jimmy Savile's victims helped his reign of abuse continue because they didn't report him" and "his victims only spoke out when the media outlets started waving their chequebooks."

I don't think moderating is too strict, I think it's inconsistent, and this can include being too strict at times but also being too lenient at other times.

The low-level trolls (and sometimes they're not that low-level) really spoil discussion - people will know who I mean, particularly on Northern Ireland, Irish language and public sector/semi state body threads. I wish people wouldn't rise to their bait but most of the blame lies with the wind-up merchants, and they're clever in their baiting techniques.

The impunity they seem to enjoy is baffling. Whereas much more innocuous stuff can get actioned.

intheclouds

Ive just gotten an infraction on that thread for saying that some people are ignorant morons.

An infraction for personal abuse no less - despite the fact that I abused no one.

You couldnt make it up.

Two Tone

intheclouds wrote: »

Ive just gotten an infraction on that thread for saying that some people are ignorant morons.

An infraction for personal abuse no less - despite the fact that I abused no one.

You couldnt make it up.

Perfect example. To be fair, I guess it is personal abuse because you're referring to specific posters, but it's like your comment was an easy target to reprimand - the comments about that woman and Jimmy Savile's victims though... seems like they're too much hassle.

intheclouds

Two Tone wrote: »

Perfect example. To be fair, I guess it is personal abuse because you're referring to specific posters, but it's like your comment was an easy target to reprimand - the comments about that woman and Jimmy Savile's victims though... seems like they're too much hassle.

I didnt refer to anyone specifically!!

In fact, I made a considered decision to use the term "some people" so that I wasnt specifically referencing anyone!!

Its absolute nonsense.

_Tombstone_

K-9 wrote: »

Where did you get that quote from me pete? Certainly wasn't this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80140610#post80140610

Anther gender war thread, jaysus.

_Tombstone_

Two Tone wrote: »

Not on that Philip Cairns case thread about the woman who it looks very likely was an abuse victim of that DJ Cooke anyway. Good Christ.

On top of the despicable posts about her, "Jimmy Savile's victims helped his reign of abuse continue because they didn't report him" and "his victims only spoke out when the media outlets started waving their chequebooks."

I don't think moderating is too strict, I think it's inconsistent, and this can include being too strict at times but also being too lenient at other times.

The low-level trolls (and sometimes they're not that low-level) really spoil discussion - people will know who I mean, particularly on Northern Ireland, Irish language and public sector/semi state body threads. I wish people wouldn't rise to their bait but most of the blame lies with the wind-up merchants, and they're clever in their baiting techniques.

The impunity they seem to enjoy is baffling. Whereas much more innocuous stuff can get actioned.

What's wrong with those posts?

Is that what you call trolling?

K-9

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80140610#post80140610

Anther gender war thread, jaysus.

4 years ago. Another thread from 5 years ago brought up, I can see why people might close accounts in a huff over stuff like that.

Just to clear up the cafe, it has been said a few times but the café was closed because it had become toxic far too often. The immigration threads didn't particularly help but the problems were there before that. The current immigration thread is still lightly moderated as are the others so the vast majority of people still post away with no bothers. The main problem wasn't immigration threads at all.

I have to say there is an element of "I'm oppressed" from certain right wing types and it will always be there no matter what mods do. A few Irish Republicans share that as well, there's a bit of playing the martyr there and that's understandable given both groups background and history they've read.

Wibbs is right though, there are other problems that have nothing to do with politics and gender war stuff which have got forgotten over the last dozen pages here.

KomradeBishop

The dismissal of the constructive points that people have been making, through caricaturing them as "I'm oppressed" type whining (which itself isn't constructive at all), doesn't really bode well for the thought of constructive criticism being taken on board by mods/cmods/admins.

The concerns brought up aren't at all limited to one side of any ideological spectrum - I find myself partially agreeing in areas, with people who are my opposite when it comes to the left/right divide.

K-9

Sorry kb, you misinterpreted what I posted.

I certainly did not dismiss any constructive points, just pointed out a characteristic from certain right wing types.

This type of nit picking is very tiresome.

markupmales

K-9 wrote: »

I have to say there is an element of "I'm oppressed" from certain right wing types and it will always be there no matter what mods do. A few Irish Republicans share that as well, there's a bit of playing the martyr there and that's understandable given both groups background and history they've read.

Nailing boards' colours to the mast there with that diatribe. As if confirmation was necessary.

Edit: Talk of left and right misses the point here also. You can be socially left and economically right.

intheclouds

intheclouds wrote: »

Ive just gotten an infraction on that thread for saying that some people are ignorant morons.

An infraction for personal abuse no less - despite the fact that I abused no one.

You couldnt make it up.

And yet someone else has made a very similar comment but no infraction for them.

K-9

markupmales wrote: »

Nailing boards' colours to the mast there with that diatribe. As if confirmation was necessary.

Edit: Talk of left and right misses the point here also. You can be socially left and economically right.

Strange how my comment about some Irish Republicans wasn't picked up on at all so.

Saying certain right wing types want to be feel oppressed is hardly earth shattering news folks, same as certain lefties see racism or whatever everywhere.

This looking to be offended/oppressed is a common trait between both.

RDM_83 again

K-9 wrote: »

Strange how my comment about some Irish Republicans wasn't picked up on at all so.

Saying certain right wing types want to be feel oppressed is hardly earth shattering news folks, same as certain lefties see racism or whatever everywhere.

This looking to be offended/oppressed is a common trait between both.

I'm mildly Republican and also (on Boards anyway) apparently now socially right, I'm very offended by both !
Honestly I have raised it and I do think its pretty unfair to say all the Republican/Nationalist persecution complex on Boards has always been imagined, its very rare for a senior mod/admin to stop moderating a forum because of Feedback threads but this is what happened RE politics a fair few years back.

Honestly though this thread needs less of the feedback regulars like me, I am curious what the consensus would be if we drew in more users from the big forums.

markupmales

K-9 wrote: »

This looking to be offended/oppressed is a common trait between both.

It's common among LBGTs, race carders, traveller supporters and feminists too. But I guess they can't be mentioned as only groups X and Y you selected are on the official boards wanted list.
If this is you defending "objectivity" in moderating left v right opinion it's absolutely laughable. No wonder everybody's saying bias is a huge problem driving people (oh sorry, I mean Nazis and bigots) away from boards.

K-9

I never said all RMD, I said a few, expected better of you tbh.

RDM_83 again

K-9 wrote: »

I never said all RMD, I said a few, expected better of you tbh.

I know I am a complainer its what I do and why I use boards , I am serious that this thread would benefit greatly though from a increase in visibility to a wider bases of users its composed of posters with a bit of a grudge/persecution complex and mods/admins.


I will add though (and this is what I mean about the "right" learning from the left), discrimination is not something noticed by those that do not suffer from it (I don't think personally I do but I see posters who are actually Right wing/conservative rather than my bastard mix of philosophies receive a much harder time than those on the other end of the spectrum), somebody who is broadly in agreement with the socio-political views of DeVore etc has that unnoticed privilege

Two Tone

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

What's wrong with those posts?

Is that what you call trolling?

What's wrong with those posts. Ok, attacking the woman whose coming forward to the AGS has opened new lines of inquiry relating to the Philip Cairns disappearance - just jumping to the conclusion that she did not come forward until May of this year because she was a cold, callous "bitch" and "as bad as" the abuser, with no information as to who she is, and no information as to why she stayed silent... without even thinking for a moment that she could have been a survivor of the convicted abuser in question (and in her 30s/40s now) - a moderator request to rein the vitriol presented as fact without evidence or consideration given to her possible circumstances, when she could be reading, would hardly be unreasonable.

Ok so these might be just people's "opinions", but surely an opinion is something that is formed with a basis, rather than with nothing other than just a determination to think the worst. Had people wondered why she took so long or said she deserves penalty if she had the power to do something, that would be a totally different matter - but drowning out that reasonable commentary was just attack dog mode, baying for blood.

The comments about Jimmy Savile's victims ("They are to blame for his abuse campaign continuing as they did not come forward", "They only came out of the woodwork when media outlets started waving cheque-books") show brutal disregard for abuse victims, and the second one is just based on assumption and discounts the likelihood of them coming forward because now that he was dead, he could not punish them, and when one person comes forward it gives others the encouragement to do so.

The second part of my post relates to people just being on a wind-up to get a rise - that is what is deemed trolling (not the stuff on the Philip Cairns thread - although the Jimmy Savile related posts look like they're veering in that direction).

intheclouds

Two Tone wrote: »

The second part of my post relates to people just being on a wind-up to get a rise - that is what is deemed trolling (not the stuff on the Philip Cairns thread - although the Jimmy Savile related posts look like they're veering in that direction).

Lots of people on that thread only posting to get a wind up.

Disgusting attitudes and attack on the character of abuse victims.

But none of that carded!!

Mr E

intheclouds wrote: »

Lots of people on that thread only posting to get a wind up.

Disgusting attitudes and attack on the character of abuse victims.

But none of that carded!!

With respect, you only reported 2 posts this year so far and your last reported post was on May 11th. If a post is offensive, please report it. Mods don't see every single post in every single thread.

intheclouds

Mr E wrote: »

With respect, you only reported 2 posts this year so far and your last reported post was on May 11th. If a post is offensive, please report it. Mods don't see every single post in every single thread.

Ive already posted here as to why I have largely given up reporting posts.

Im certainly not going to report posts in a threat that I was infracted in because I would be accused of sour grapes. The mod who infracted me hadnt even the decency to respond to my pm on it so I know how well it would go for me if I reported other posts there. Similarly there is no point in me raising it in dispute resolution as that is only lip service.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that me even posting here was possibly a reason for me to be targeted as a result - perhaps thats whats happening - you yourself have already looked at something in my background to know how many posts Ive reported this year.

IvyTheTerrible

You can hardly complain about things not being carded if you haven't bothered to report them.

Two Tone

Reported two posts on that thread meself.

It's also plain as day when a thread is really heated.

Tell me how

intheclouds wrote:

I mentioned earlier in this thread that me even posting here was possibly a reason for me to be targeted as a result - perhaps thats whats happening - you yourself have already looked at something in my background to know how many posts Ive reported this year.

Sounds like something out of "Homeland".
If things are that bad even posting might lead for someone to be targeted, we might as well plug out the servers.

intheclouds

Tell me how wrote: »

Sounds like something out of "Homeland".
If things are that bad even posting might lead for someone to be targeted, we might as well plug out the servers.

Youve never been targeted for raising your head above the parapet here? I have - details further back on the thread.

It happens. Other posters here have reported the same.

Mr E

intheclouds wrote: »

You yourself have already looked at something in my background to know how many posts Ive reported this year.

Nothing so sinister, sorry.

I just searched the reported posts forum to see what posts you found so offensive and couldn't find any recent reports.

intheclouds

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

You can hardly complain about things not being carded if you haven't bothered to report them.

This makes me laugh. It has absolutely nothing to do with not being bothered. But go ahead and try and discredit me why dont you?

If you had bothered to read my previous post you would understand why I havent reported them.

intheclouds

Mr E wrote: »

Nothing so sinister, sorry.

I just searched the reported posts forum to see what posts you found so offensive and couldn't find any recent reports.

Besides the multitude of offensive posts that have not been actioned on that thread, I received an infraction for a comment and another poster made a very similar comment and was not infracted. So there is plenty wrong with the moderation on it.

Seems like youd rather waste time searching my history to see if you can make me look bad rather than take the feedback on board which is typical of the attitude round here when posters give legitimate feedback.

IvyTheTerrible

intheclouds wrote: »

This makes me laugh. It has absolutely nothing to do with not being bothered. But go ahead and try and discredit me why dont you?

If you had bothered to read my previous post you would understand why I havent reported them.

I have read your previous post but I don't think they are legitimate reasons for not reporting posts. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I wasn't trying to discredit you. But if people are complaining about moderation, and things being dealt with, why don't they use the procedures that are in place? How do you know the moderators are even aware a dodgy post has been made, particularly in a very busy forum like AH?

Two Tone

intheclouds wrote: »

Ive already posted here as to why I have largely given up reporting posts.

Im certainly not going to report posts in a threat that I was infracted in because I would be accused of sour grapes. The mod who infracted me hadnt even the decency to respond to my pm on it so I know how well it would go for me if I reported other posts there. Similarly there is no point in me raising it in dispute resolution as that is only lip service.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that me even posting here was possibly a reason for me to be targeted as a result - perhaps thats whats happening - you yourself have already looked at something in my background to know how many posts Ive reported this year.

I don't think that's the case but I do agree "you didn't bother reporting posts" in relation to a busy, heated thread on the most prominent forum comes across as a bit dismissive and obtuse.