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

Going Forward

Phoebas wrote: »

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.

I noticed that too.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102488642&postcount=331

Phoebas

jackofalltrades wrote: »

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.

My understanding is that the Café was supposed to be like discussing politics with friends down the pub - some friendly banter, a bit of gentle ribbing maybe and a free flowing conversation that sometimes wanders off topic.

But its just not possible to recreate that in an online forum. For one, the nuance of a face to face conversation with someone you know isn't possible here - one person's 'banter' is another person's insult, and anyway, people feel freer to say things on an online forum that they wouldn't say face to face in a million years. If real life conversations went the way I've seen some conversations go in the Café, it'd end up in a fist fight.

I get what you say about a more casual light, but I still think that that could be accommodated in more casual threads in the main forum.

Stheno

This is what the cafe forum states:

This forum is for discussion of Politics in a less formal manner than in the Politics Forum. A certain amount of light hearted banter is allowed but this is not to be confused with derogatory comments. Light discussion though does not mean light moderation, the site rules, FAQ and charter all still apply and should posters breach those rules they must accept that the mods can and will action as appropriate.

I'd agree with you that an online discussion is different as you outline, you can't replicate a conversation in a pub/cafe.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Stheno

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd agree and disagree with you on that, certainly as a cafe mod, we've gotten to the point with certain threads that we now have thread specific rules looking for links etc, as the politics forum does.

In fact, today I mistook what forum I was in and spent five minutes trying to figure out why I couldn't close a thread until I realised it was in the politics forum

I'd disagree on the basis that many politics contributors do not post in the cafe and vice versa for cafe posters, knowing the top 50 posters in the cafe, I can name at least ten of those who do not post in politics or do so rarely, it would be interesting to see a breakdown of the top 50 in each which would give better insight into the need for both forums, if that makes sense?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Stheno

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah it happens to me a bit, it was only today I tried to moderate a post in politics

That's interesting... But wouldn't all of the above post in a hypothetical merged forum?

I genuinely don't think so tbh, the ethos of both is different. Yes the cafe has gotten more strict, but posters in the cafe tend to have far more entrenched views than those in politics.

To give you an example, there was a thread last year sometimes where someone in politics was asking what FG had achieved and I replied, and got something like 80 thanks for pointing out what they had achieved.

Given that the cafe tends to be for posters with more entrenched views, if I'd posted the same there e.g. in the "what have FG done to be so disliked" thread, I'd have been inundated with posts taking all of my points and arguing them.

There's a clear distinction for the two imo, but that's just imo

They are getting closer I agree, but still the ethos is different. As an example of them getting closer, I was trying to figure out how filibusters work and asked that in the Trump thread in the cafe yesterday and got very informative replies.

A year ago I'd have posted a thread in politics asking that.

blanch152

Stheno wrote: »

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.

The Irish Water thread has only calmed down because most sane posters have abandoned it. All that remains are those who believe the conspiracy theory that Irish Water was designed to be privatised.

It will be interesting for future historians to look back at threads like the Irish Water one to see how the post-factual society evolved.

Stheno

blanch152 wrote: »

The Irish Water thread has only calmed down because most sane posters have abandoned it. All that remains are those who believe the conspiracy theory that Irish Water was designed to be privatised.

It will be interesting for future historians to look back at threads like the Irish Water one to see how the post-factual society evolved.

Given that you have outed yourself as a rereg with specific views, I'd disagree tbh

blanch152

Stheno wrote: »

Given that you have outed yourself as a rereg with specific views, I'd disagree tbh

That is your prerogative, and your opinion, which doesn't prevent me from having my own opinion on the car crash that is the Irish Water thread, where only one type of opinion is tolerated and any other opinion is relentlessly harassed and unprotected.

As for being a re-reg, there are plenty of those.

Stheno

blanch152 wrote: »

That is your prerogative, and your opinion, which doesn't prevent me from having my own opinion on the car crash that is the Irish Water thread, where only one type of opinion is tolerated and any other opinion is relentlessly harassed and unprotected.

As for being a re-reg, there are plenty of those.

Can you please post examples of only one type of opinion being tolerated?Personally I'd be a big fan of water charges.

blanch152

Stheno wrote: »

Can you please post examples of only one type of opinion being tolerated?Personally I'd be a big fan of water charges.

Just wander into the Irish Water thread for a few pages and you will find the same posters just quoting themselves and congratulating each other on their latest nugget of information that twisted appropriately confirms their conspiracy
theory. Anyone with any sense or perspective has abandoned the thread.

If you go back through the earlier Irish Water threads, you will find many people that support the introduction of water charges (and still continue to do so) but you will struggle to find any of them that still engage with the nonsense promulgated in the thread.

Is that the fault of the posters or the mods? A good question, for which there is no simple answer. Personally, I think the mods were in a very difficult position. Any attempt to crack down on the extreme nonsense of the anti-water charges position would have been met with sustained opposition, so it was easier to let it go. It has resulted in a sterile discussion that doesn't educate or even entertain.

Satriale

blanch152 wrote: »

The Irish Water thread has only calmed down because most sane posters have abandoned it. All that remains are those who believe the conspiracy theory that Irish Water was designed to be privatised.

It will be interesting for future historians to look back at threads like the Irish Water one to see how the post-factual society evolved.

Seeing as you were one of the most prolific posters up until your departure where does that leave you?

The real reasons its quiet in there is that the pros have all headed off quietly in defeat so the antis have no one to argue with, and there is Shag all happening news wise with IW in the real world.

If Coveney announced metering and billing were back on full swing tomorrow you'd see the lights brightening at boards HQ as the generators kicked in on the thread.

Going Forward

blanch152 wrote: »

Just wander into the Irish Water thread for a few pages and you will find the same posters just quoting themselves and congratulating each other on their latest nugget of information that twisted appropriately confirms their conspiracy
theory. Anyone with any sense or perspective has abandoned the thread.

If you go back through the earlier Irish Water threads, you will find many people that support the introduction of water charges (and still continue to do so) but you will struggle to find any of them that still engage with the nonsense promulgated in the thread.

Is that the fault of the posters or the mods? A good question, for which there is no simple answer. Personally, I think the mods were in a very difficult position. Any attempt to crack down on the extreme nonsense of the anti-water charges position would have been met with sustained opposition, so it was easier to let it go. It has resulted in a sterile discussion that doesn't educate or even entertain.

The threads, particularly the current and previous one are the place to go to delve deeper than the fake news headlines and u-turns because boards set the bar higher in terms of the previous threads during the "cleansing phase" which occurred right bang in the middle of negotiations to form the current government and right as the future of water charges became a political hot potato.

You'll also see some of the best examples of twisting and turning, lying, posturing and amnesia there, along with a complete refusal to answer the most basic of questions.

Those who engaged in that style of debate did leave the debate, and boards itself, that is true, and that is why it is quiet there now.

And later you'll get those who are unhappy with the thread trying to post analyse why they didn't take up the mantle to debate there themselves.

The door is still open.

Going Forward

Satriale wrote: »

Seeing as you were one of the most prolific posters up until your departure where does that leave you?

The real reasons its quiet in there is that the pros have all headed off quietly in defeat so the antis have no one to argue with, and there is Shag all happening news wise with IW in the real world.

If Coveney announced metering and billing were back on full swing tomorrow you'd see the lights brightening at boards HQ as the generators kicked in on the thread.

Yes the site traffic would definitely rack up.

And the hamsters getting worn out again.

That can't be a bad thing?

Look at the view stats alone for the Mega Threads. In the millions I'd guess.

Or maybe it is a bad thing. The wrong sort of traffic being attracted.
Incompatible with something.

Little CuChulainn

The Irish Water thread dried up because there's nothing really substantial to talk about that hasn't been talked about. There's nothing really new to discuss until there is some decision made on the future of metering or Irish Water.

Beasty

If Irish Water does dry up I think we'll all have bigger problems to worry about....

blanch152

Stheno wrote: »

Can you please post examples of only one type of opinion being tolerated?Personally I'd be a big fan of water charges.

The SF thread just closed by you is another example of only one opinion being tolerated. I know we are not supposed to reference particular posters and situations but you asked for an example. Here is how this looks to someone who wasn't posting in that thread.

One poster (maryishere) was systematically baited. She (I presume it is a she) got a card for dragging in material from other threads, when in fact she was replying to another poster (maccored) who had deliberately baited her by referencing a comment she made in another thread in a disparaging way.

That original poster (maccored) wasn't carded despite referencing another thread and making a personal attack. The fact that the original baiting by him/her was let go meant that the laissez-faire approach was noted and later in the thread maryishere was personally targetted again (Alf Stewart), where she was accused of having skin in the game.

Once again, it reinforces the perception that being anti-SF is a short cut to getting carded and eventually banned.

Again, to be clear, I am not blaming the mods, but I am certain that maryishere's posts were reported en masse, resulting in her being carded. It demonstrates once again that the tolerance for other opinions does not exist on the pro-SF side. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Stheno

blanch152 wrote: »

The SF thread just closed by you is another example of only one opinion being tolerated. I know we are not supposed to reference particular posters and situations but you asked for an example. Here is how this looks to someone who wasn't posting in that thread.

One poster (maryishere) was systematically baited. She (I presume it is a she) got a card for dragging in material from other threads, when in fact she was replying to another poster (maccored) who had deliberately baited her by referencing a comment she made in another thread in a disparaging way.

That original poster (maccored) wasn't carded despite referencing another thread and making a personal attack. The fact that the original baiting by him/her was let go meant that the laissez-faire approach was noted and later in the thread maryishere was personally targetted again (Alf Stewart), where she was accused of having skin in the game.

Once again, it reinforces the perception that being anti-SF is a short cut to getting carded and eventually banned.

Again, to be clear, I am not blaming the mods, but I am certain that maryishere's posts were reported en masse, resulting in her being carded. It demonstrates once again that the tolerance for other opinions does not exist on the pro-SF side. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I closed that thread as both "sides" are having a pop at each other.

So I'd like to review it and hopefully reopen it with some guidelines.

I don't believe maryishere's posts have been carded, the thread was shut for review, she may have been carded yesterday for ignoring a warning.

As you yourself have posted you have a very specific opinion based on nothing factual in relation to SF and the IRA. We have had some very positive threads in the cafe recently discussing affairs in the North, which didn't go down the traditional "the ira/sf are murdering bastards/the DUP/Unionists are in cahoots with the PSNI" rabbithole.

It's led to better debate, more posters have contributed, and as seen on here some of those who used post in that manner have admitted that they did so to make a point rather than contribute to debate.

I note you've started posting in the cafe again.

Please be aware that having a new account, does not expunge your previous record.

blanch152

Stheno wrote: »

I note you've started posting in the cafe again.

Please be aware that having a new account, does not expunge your previous record.

I fully accept that and while my record may be poor, you will also note that I have always respected mod decisions.

Stheno

blanch152 wrote: »

I fully accept that and while my record may be poor, you will also note that I have always respected mod decisions.

Yes absolutely you have and for that you have to be given credit, and I will also note that you have always been very courteous in any dealings I have had with you which is appreciated.

However you do hold very entrenched views, particularly in relation to SF and the IRA and your posting in relation to them is often seen as inflammatory by those who disagree with you and threads then descend into mudflinging.

One of the reasons I closed the thread you referenced for review, is because the exact same is going on in relation to unionists.

It will most likely be opened quite shortly asking people to focus on the present and not the past.

blanch152

Stheno wrote: »

As you yourself have posted you have a very specific opinion based on nothing factual in relation to SF and the IRA.

Except it is based on something factual.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/main-points-from-northern-ireland-paramilitary-groups-report-1.2400012

From October 2015, "PAC oversees both PIRA and Sinn Féin with an overreaching strategy."

Don't worry, I fully accept that this different opinion won't be tolerated and won't be posting in the SF threads. It just remains an inconvenient truth.

Stheno

blanch152 wrote: »

Except it is based on something factual.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/main-points-from-northern-ireland-paramilitary-groups-report-1.2400012

From October 2015, "PAC oversees both PIRA and Sinn Féin with an overreaching strategy."

Don't worry, I fully accept that this different opinion won't be tolerated and won't be posting in the SF threads. It just remains an inconvenient truth.

I can't see that as it's behind a paywall

Your posting on this issue in the past has led to thread closures due to your posting.

If you are going to refrain from posting in such an inflammatory manner then that would be appreciated.

Alf Stewart.

That original poster (maccored) wasn't carded despite referencing another thread and making a personal attack. The fact that the original baiting by him/her was let go meant that the laissez-faire approach was noted and later in the thread maryishere was personally targetted again (Alf Stewart), where she was accused of having skin in the game.

Well that's a blatant lie, and you know it

Here is what I posted

Mary if you don't mind me asking, have you skin in the game, or is there another reason your so pro loyalist/anti republican?

"Have you" followed by a question mark is a question, not an accusation.

blanch152

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Well that's a blatant lie, and you know it

Here is what I posted



"Have you" followed by a question mark is a question, not an accusation.

Look I am not a mod, so I can't make a decision on what was right or wrong, but from my own perspective, your post was overly personal and attacked the poster rather than the post.

jackofalltrades

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Personally I probably wouldn't, I'd say others might feel the same.
I think the popularity of the Cafe has a lot to do with the unpopularity of the main Politics forum.
I wouldn't be a bad idea to start a thread on it and put up a poll before any decisions are made.
As others have said they're different forums, with different users, group-think and Modding styles.
The role of After Hours in accommodating breaking news stories would have to be taken into account as well.

Alf Stewart.

blanch152 wrote: »

Look I am not a mod, so I can't make a decision on what was right or wrong, but from my own perspective, your post was overly personal and attacked the poster rather than the post.

You should report it so.

But just to be abundantly clear, the poster made a false claim, one of many actually on the thread where they state something and resist calls to back their claim up with a link.

So I called them out on their claims, provided a link and quoted text that countered it, then asked a very, very rhetorical question.

It was in no way shape or form an accusation, nor a personal attack, and I would like you to demonstrate to me, how you "perceived it" to be otherwise.

Just because I countered a false claim with a link towards something the poster may have liked to have been true isnt grounds to accuse me of doing something i clearly didn't do, no matter how much you wish it to be.

Stheno

Alright guys, getting back on topic, and considering the feedback from here, I posted the following warning on the Donald Trump thread last night.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102509974&postcount=1555

Ok I'm reopening the thread, with a reminder of the posts above.

Secondly a reminder of the charter, in particular the areas highlighted in bold.

Ah have already permanently closed discussion on Trump, if this goes the same way it will be the Politics forum only.

Post within those rules, or there will be sanctions.

• Personal abuse is not acceptable here.
• Subjects discussed here will be contentious. That is understood. While you are discussing these subjects here we require you to do so in a civil and polite manner.
• Having a strong point of view is fine but expressing it in an aggressive or rude tone is not acceptable.
• Disagree with respect for those who have a contrary view.
• Personal abuse is not acceptable here.
• Vilification of groups will not be tolerated. If you are incapable of having a discussion without resorting to defaming others then maybe this forum, or site, is not for you.
• News dumps are not welcome. While you may link to other sites, do so only with context and as a part of a discussion.
• Personal abuse is not acceptable here.
• Repetitive or Flip Flop debating is not allowed. Nobody wants to wade through pages of the same posts being repeated ad nauseam. If your point was not heeded on the second posting why would it be on the tenth? Carrying personal disagreements or spats over to other threads is frowned on.
• Do not respond to provocation. If it’s in breach of the charter or site rules then report the post.

Would ye agree with this as a basis for the PC in the future?

Phoebas

Do you have skin in the game?

It's a fairly common tactic in the Café and in other forums on the site.

Stheno

Phoebas wrote: »

Do you have skin in the game?

It's a fairly common tactic in the Café and in other forums on the site.

And one that is being cracked down upon in the cafe tbh.