Over zealous, and inconsistent modding on the politics cafe forum.

K-9

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Sorry lads, but I had to start this thread.

Its becoming I increasingly confusing and mysterious as to how the modding works on the site, in particular forums, and what might get you carded or banned.

Now I am no angel, I've had a few bans or cards in my time that were totally justified (even if ii didnt think so at the time) I can assure you, most have been for pretty trivial offences in the grand scheme of things.

Any, of late I seem to have upset a few mods in the cafe or something because that's where my cards usually originate in.

Tonight I received an infraction, an infraction because I posted about my intention of buying a poster a flash light for Christmas, because that poster mentions shining a light into dark corners in about one in every five posts he ever makes on the site.

Off topic, personal dig I was told.

I firstly would like to point out that I post in the cafe as I take an interest in politics, but I do not care much for the high brow, stuffy atmosphere of the more serious politics forum, hence why I post in the cafe.

Now, I know the cafe isn't AH, but it is somewhere where you're encouraged to wonder slightly off topic, and discuss politics in a light hearted manner.

If you want to discuss something political in AH it gets shunted to the caf, if you have a laugh there you oftimes find yourself on the wrong end of a card/ban, despite posting in the manner you assumed the forum was intended.


A few of the cards I received where totally over the top.

I received a yellow for telling someone "they were careless with the truth" which they were being.

A yellow for "digging through a persons posting history" because I linked to something they had posted a few days previous.

But I suppose the jewel in the crown would have to be when I got a perma - ban (which was quickly overturned I should add) for something which I am not prepared to post about in public, but lets just say the mods made a complete and utter haimes of something, and completely jumped the gun after repeated offences against my account.

If there's a concentrated effort in pushing me out, I say just say so and go for it and do it.

Been on the site since 2006, Over three accounts, not sure if I'd bother with a fourth one if I'm totally honest.

That is all.

Just for clarification, the permaban was reduced to a few days, not scrapped. It was a perfectly understandable ban that was down to how some posters get way too personal every so often in the cafe, not mod error.

K-9

Going Forward wrote: »

It may well lead to chaos, but it doesn't really answer the question as to whether it's a legitimate stock means of describing one's impression.

Surely rabid FF supporters would dislike the deliberate FF/FG moniker but, like, tough?

Can't be pandering too much to the perpetually politically offended IMO.

And if one combination isn't permitted you'd almost have to prohibit any combination.

Current affairs wise SF/IRA is too contentious and leads to threads getting derailed with pointless arguments.

Referring to SF/IRA in the 70's or 80's would be fine and applying context in a reasonable manner.

Alf Stewart.

K-9 wrote: »

Just for clarification, the permaban was reduced to a few days, not scrapped. It was a perfectly understandable ban that was down to how some posters get way too personal every so often in the cafe, not mod error.

It was absolutely a mod error, and I was under the impression the ban was overturned.

There's no reason why I should have had a ban record, when (i reckon) 6/7 got yellows for the persistent, and repeated same offence against my account.

I didn't go DRP to overturn the ban for reasons i stated in our pm exchange.

I would never have known why I was in the receiving end of a perma ban, but for info disclosed during those discussions.

The mods messed up. Plain and simple.

Though I suspect that'll never be admitted.

blanch152

It is good to have had clarity on the use of the SF/IRA abbreviation.

The main reason I closed my previous account was because of the clampdown on its use.

Whether some people like it or not, there is still a sizeable minority of people in this country who believe that the IRA have not gone away and that there are still active links between SF and the IRA. It isn't confined to conspiracy theorists, there are newspaper articles in the mainstream media from time to time who mention it, let alone what the tabloids say. There was an official report from the PSNI last year that stated that former IRA members believed that the IRA still controlled Sinn Fein. With the appointment of Michelle O'Neill as leader without a vote or selection process, there has been guarded references to backroom Belfast decisions. Unfortunately I cannot post links.

The clampdown on the use of SF/IRA by the moderators in the Cafe, while it may be denied that it is politically motivated, it appears to have been driven by the volume of reported posts, which are politically motivated.

It is a legitimate political view that the IRA is still controlling SF with evidence to support it as I have outlined above. Clamping down on its use is therefore a political move to suppress certain points of view. It isn't anywhere near as controversial as some of the views expressed on immigration.

Neither is it as unsubstantiated as other views allowed in the Cafe. For example, we have had numerous threads on Irish Water where the view that it was always intended to privatise Irish Water is reliant on one paragraph from one letter from Eurostat taken out of context.

Alf Stewart.

I am among a group of posters who was genuinely sorry to see your account was closed, and i stated so publicly.

However, in hindsight your account closure appeared to be a knee jerk reaction for being asked to cease using a term or phrase that could appear inflammatory to others.

Personally, I wouldn't even bother being annoyed at a phrase, even paisley himself stopped using, but this is the internet, full of all kind of folk who take exception over many things.

In saying that, popping back with a brand spanking new account, and using the same phrase in your opening posts, and stating that you closed account because of it smacks of an.agenda, and a refusal to move on from a twenty something year old cliche.

Little CuChulainn

What point is there in referring to present day SF as IRA? What does it accomplish in the discussion? I don't think there should be massive clamp down on labels and abbreviations themselves but when they are used simply to shut down a discussion or negate a posters position they definitely should be acted on in my opinion. If a person happens to support Sinn Fein and someone in an unrelated thread says something like "Typical SF/IRA position" then that adds nothing to the discussion in my view and only serves to reduce the chance of that poster taking part constructively. The current trend of trying to force everyone into a left/right wing pigeon hole is just as bad. Calling people liberals or fascists based on a single topic is the same. Their view on that topic might fall into a particular ideology but that doesn't mean they believe in that ideology.

blanch152

I think you misunderstand my point Alf.

My account closure wasn't a knee-jerk reaction to being asked to stop using a certain phrase. That was just the final catalyst, I had already reduced the amount of posting I was doing in the Cafe and had moved on elsewhere.

I fully accept that my political views are controversial and are a minority viewpoint in respect of SF. However, they are genuinely held and rooted both in personal experience and evidence. I have always provided links to other public sources with similar views about the continued existence of the IRA command structure.

It is a pity that it is not possible for my views to be accommodated in the Cafe because others take offence to them, however that is the nature of the post-factual society we now live in. If you are pro-Trump (which I am not) expect to be insulted, if you are anti-SF, expect to be insulted, and if you are pro-FG (again, which I am not, though I doubt you believe that), expect to be insulted. Not only will you be insulted, but there will be constant work for the mods monitoring your every post as there will be constant reports. Inevitably, you will be carded more than everyone else and become more trouble than its worth for the mods. That essentially leads the mods down the road of censorship of views.

You can spend your life in DRP (though I have never challenged a mod action in DRP as it would create too much work for them), or you can just walk away and go elsewhere. I have chosen to do the latter, just popping back once in a while for a read.

Once again, to be clear, I am not generally accusing the mods of politically motivated action, just that their responses are understandable in relation to the pressure created by politically motivated action by groups of posters.

The Backwards Man

I'd be guilty of using the SF/IRA one myself and I'll hold my hands up and say it adds nothing to the discussion, it's a point scoring tactic and nothing else, and banning the use of such phrases is fair enough in my opinion.

On saying that, the cafe, and all other discussion arenas are facing a much bigger problem, extremist and entrenched views are becoming normalised, more and more people want echo chambers instead of debate, and I can't think of any mod action that can counteract this.

For Reals

I start using FF/FG when they went into cahoots.
But it's a fair comment on the similarities.
We hear alphabet soup often enough, which is more extreme as it doesn't even list any party.
Again, it's about following charter not political view.

As regard the EU immigration; it ticks along nicely when people stick to discussing policy and their agreement or disapproval of it. Getting into debates, generalising on the validity of certain religions or their followers or reporting crimes with reference to skin colour suggesting their parents or grandparents may have been foreign with often no direct links or quotes to topic, suggesting crimes should be visited upon politicians you disagree with, properties should be burnt out etc., are often not acceptable forms of political debate.

Icemancometh

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What point is there in referring to present day SF as IRA? What does it accomplish in the discussion? I don't think there should be massive clamp down on labels and abbreviations themselves but when they are used simply to shut down a discussion or negate a posters position they definitely should be acted on in my opinion. If a person happens to support Sinn Fein and someone in an unrelated thread says something like "Typical SF/IRA position" then that adds nothing to the discussion in my view and only serves to reduce the chance of that poster taking part constructively. The current trend of trying to force everyone into a left/right wing pigeon hole is just as bad. Calling people liberals or fascists based on a single topic is the same. Their view on that topic might fall into a particular ideology but that doesn't mean they believe in that ideology.

The Blueshirts haven't been around in a few years too, but you still see that mentioned the odd time

Stheno

Icemancometh wrote: »

The Blueshirts haven't been around in a few years too, but you still see that mentioned the odd time

That can be added to the list

The mods are finalising their discussion on this, but it's likely that this rule will be explicitly called out in the charter for the Cafe in the next 48 hours.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion, it was a pleasure to see people contribute and ask questions/seek clarification, and hopefully it will be something that will cut down some of the vitriol that can be seen in the cafe.

Thanks again

Alf Stewart.

Icemancometh wrote: »

The Blueshirts haven't been around in a few years too, but you still see that mentioned the odd time

I will hold my hands up to using this occasionally.

In the name of fairness, (and for clarification) if they're gonna start outlawing the likes of "SF/IRA" it would be pretty unfair and hypocritical if "blueshirts" could be used with immunity.

(I would assume "shinner" will still be an acceptable term?) Its merely a nickname/abbreviation?

Stheno

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

I will hold my hands up to using this occasionally.

In the name of fairness, (and for clarification) if they're gonna start outlawing the likes of "SF/IRA" it would be pretty unfair and hypocritical if "blueshirts" could be used with immunity.

(I would assume "shinner" will still be an acceptable term?) Its merely a nickname/abbreviation?

No, blueshirts will not be acceptable tbh.

Shinner would be a term I'd consider equally offensive, it just lowers the standard of debate tbh.

I don't think despite my dislike of SF that I've ever resorted to it.

You could argue all of the derogatory terms we have discussed are merely nicknames, such as Barry, Gurry, Noddy etc.

Going Forward

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Who are you suggesting is paying for it that would have an issue with government criticism?

The government is currently funding a social media channel here.

You don't need me to tell you what it is.

I didn't suggest that whoever is funding it would have an issue with government criticism, I said boards comes across at certain times as being in the awkward situation of hosting proven facts counter to government statements and policies.

I have been assured that is not the case.

Going Forward

For Reals wrote: »

I start using FF/FG when they went into cahoots.
But it's a fair comment on the similarities.

It is, and is widely acknowledged:

"It may be the silly season but the front page article in the Irish Daily Mail on Sunday suggested that a number of disaffected Fine Gael politicians were secretly discussing a type of merger with Fianna Fail after the next election as they do not want to go into coalition with those dastardly left wingers in the Labour party."

"Fianna Gael? The grand coalition and a lesson from the history books" 2010

https://politicalreform.ie/2010/08/23/fianna-gael-the-grand-coalition-and-a-lesson-from-the-history-books/


http://m.herald.ie/news/oherlihy-to-call-for-alliance-between-fg-and-ff-29513937.html 2013




https://books.google.nl/books?id=P5FFlUzZ9ugC&pg=PA220&lpg=PA220&dq=%22fianna+gael%22&source=bl&ots=INCJx9gsA6&sig=ZFihaQNclnEWGkZau8-nkrAyplE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw2pO5gvTRAhXG2RoKHSCzBEA4KBDoAQgfMAI#v=onepage&q=%22fianna%20gael%22&f=false

2009

For Reals

I think if you reference the name you're good. Shinners is generally derogatory as is blueshirts. I think Fianna Fail is insult enough

Going Forward wrote: »

The government is currently funding a social media channel here.

You don't need me to tell you what it is.

I didn't suggest that whoever is funding it would have an issue with government criticism, I said boards comes across at certain times as being in the awkward situation of hosting proven facts counter to government statements and policies.

I have been assured that is not the case.

I believe the Leader Is Good. The Leader Is Great. We Surrender Our Will As Of This Date...however I have not been inside the forbidden barn

_Kaiser_

With all respect, I think this focus on whether SF/IRA or FF/FG is "offensive" is trivial and besides the point, which is the way threads are derailed by posters deliberately baiting others either directly or through posting style/language, deflecting rather than responding to the points that are raised (my person favourite being the demand for a "link" for something that they just disagree with), and of course dragging in a poster's previous history into an unrelated thread

It's this sort of stuff that cause issues in PC in my opinion... not what acronyms are used.

Satriale

Sticks and stones will break my bones, lads, who cares about names? Everyone is getting too sensitive. Leave the serious stuff in the main forum and just use the dont be a dick rule.

Phoebas

Why not just merge the 'main' Politics forum and the Café?

You could have a few 'banter' threads for some of the more casual/toxic stuff and people could enter those at their peril.
There isn't much difference between a good thread in the Café and a good thread in the main forum anyway.

Stheno

Phoebas wrote: »

Why not just merge the 'main' Politics forum and the Café?

You could have a few 'banter' threads for some of the more casual/toxic stuff and people could enter those at their peril.
There isn't much difference between a good thread in the Café and a good thread in the main forum anyway.

That point has been raised. I'd imagine it's something the admins are discussing

Going Forward

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

With all respect, I think this focus on whether SF/IRA or FF/FG is "offensive" is trivial and besides the point, which is the way threads are derailed by posters deliberately baiting others either directly or through posting style/language, deflecting rather than responding to the points that are raised (my person favourite being the demand for a "link" for something that they just disagree with), and of course dragging in a poster's previous history into an unrelated thread

It's this sort of stuff that cause issues in PC in my opinion... not what acronyms are used.

I don't see anything wrong with referencing something said in another thread.

If a poster is saying one thing in one place and saying something else somewhere else why not highlight it?

Phoebas

Going Forward wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with referencing something said in another thread.

If a poster is saying one thing in one place and saying something else somewhere else why not highlight it?

I don't see a problem with that either.

What I have seen is in the Café, where there was a good deal of leeway in allowing a thread to veer off topic, you sometimes got an argument that was started in one thread carrying over into another one.
If the rules on keeping threads on topic were tightened up, then I'd think you'd see less leakage between them.

Now, some threads are very general purpose - there's a FG thread for general kicking the shíte out of FG, and a similar one for SF, and the Irish Water thread(s), which at one point used to be about Irish Water but has since turned into a thread for people to kick the shíte out of each other - and I think that's grand because people can choose to go down that road or stay out, but in other threads where people want to discuss a particular topic, I'd like to see thread topics being enforced more strictly.

Stheno

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't see a problem with that either.

What I have seen is in the Café, where there was a good deal of leeway in allowing a thread to veer off topic, you sometimes got an argument that was started in one thread carrying over into another one.
If the rules on keeping threads on topic were tightened up, then I'd think you'd see less leakage between them.

Now, some threads are very general purpose - there's a FG thread for general kicking the shíte out of FG, and a similar one for SF, and the Irish Water thread(s), which at one point used to be about Irish Water but has since turned into a thread for people to kick the shíte out of each other - and I think that's grand because people can choose to go down that road or stay out, but in other threads where people want to discuss a particular topic, I'd like to see thread topics being enforced more strictly.

That's all under discussion at the moment, including referencing posts in other threads, using deflection to "deflect", not having what I call "thread creep" where one topic keeps being posted in threads where it's irrelevant etc.

None of the threads btw are there for "kicking the ****e" out of anyone/group

Brendan Bendar

Heh heh

At the rate this is going the rules in the PC will make the rules of American Football seem like kindergarten.

Even Gene Steratore would struggle.

Given the stuff posted here over the past few days, I wouldn't touch that forum with a forty foot pole.

Phoebas

Stheno wrote: »

None of the threads btw are there for "kicking the ****e" out of anyone/group

I know that's not the intended purpose, but some of them have descended into that. The IW thread in particular - and I haven't been following it for a good while now, so I may be out of date - became very toxic, often veered way of topic and was full of bad tempered insults, goading and petty point scoring.

I had assumed that this was deliberately allowed by the moderating team, because it seemed to me that some threads are allowed to be a good bit more 'wild west' than others.

Stheno

Phoebas wrote: »

I know that's not the intended purpose, but some of them have descended into that. The IW thread in particular - and I haven't been following it for a good while now, so I may be out of date - became very toxic, often veered way of topic and was full of bad tempered insults, goading and petty point scoring.

I had assumed that this was deliberately allowed by the moderating team, because it seemed to me that some threads are allowed to be a good bit more 'wild west' than others.

There's been a fair few sanctions including bans handed out on that thread.
It needs fairly constant monitoring. It's calmed down at the moment the last bans on it were around Christmas.

Phoebas

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Given the stuff posted here over the past few days, I wouldn't touch that forum with a forty foot pole.

It'd be interesting if there were site stats on it because I'd say a lot of posters, active on other forums, stay well away from the Café.

Brendan Bendar

Phoebas wrote: »

It'd be interesting if there were site stats on it because I'd say a lot of posters, active on other forums, stay well away from the Café.

Have to agree.

Going Forward

Phoebas wrote: »

Now, some threads are very general purpose - there's a FG thread for general kicking the shíte out of FG, and a similar one for SF, and the Irish Water thread(s), which at one point used to be about Irish Water but has since turned into a thread for people to kick the shíte out of each other - and I think that's grand because people can choose to go down that road or stay out, but in other threads where people want to discuss a particular topic, I'd like to see thread topics being enforced more strictly.

I'd agree, you'd get a lot of people wandering in firing off a few insults and wandering off again, with no intention of actually taking part in discussing anything.

jackofalltrades

Phoebas wrote: »

Why not just merge the 'main' Politics forum and the Café?

You could have a few 'banter' threads for some of the more casual/toxic stuff and people could enter those at their peril.
There isn't much difference between a good thread in the Café and a good thread in the main forum anyway.

If you get rid of the Cafe users have nowhere to go to discuss politics in a more casual light.
A lot of posters are deliberately choosing not to discuss politics in the main Politics forum.
Given that there are political threads in the Cafe, AH and A&A.
There are reasons for this and I think a merger would be unfair to these posters.