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

gallag

Am done with it, it's beyond obvious this sight has a left wing agenda, remember the "management" telling us that right wing opinion is dangerous and the simple fact that 99% of the mods are left wing, yet they will come now and tell you how those two facts actually mean nothing.

Who remembers at the beginning of the refugee crisis people predicted that having mass migration from third world cultures who actively despise the west would cause havoc? We were told we were wrong, then the evidence came flooding in, video after video, attack after attack, rape after rape! What was then the response from the mods to this deluge of evidence?

"No news dumping"

Think about that! No posting of evidence that supports your argument, also you must post links to support your argument!!!!

I see people getting red cards for voicing the simple premise that if the women in the refugee camps are living in constant fear of attack then that must men it is the men in them camps causing the attacks!?!?!?!

I suppose one must accept that boards.ie is a private company and arguing against the current system is akin to peeing into the wind, if you want though provoking and frank debate your only option is to go to one of the many online discussion boards who facilitate this.

Wibbs

gallag wrote: »

Think about that! No posting of evidence that supports your argument, also you must post links to support your argument!!!!

TBH I'm no fan of news dumping. Voice a personal argument, throw in links great, copypasta of large tracts of off site stuff nope.

I see people getting red cards for voicing the simple premise that if the women in the refugee camps are living in constant fear of attack then that must men it is the men in them camps causing the attacks!?!?!?!

Have you any examples of that G. If so that's bloody ridiculous.

I suppose one must accept that boards.ie is a private company and arguing against the current system is akin to peeing into the wind, if you want though provoking and frank debate your only option is to go to one of the many online discussion boards who facilitate this.

Which are often far worse echo chambers. Reddit a good example. The "acceptable" echo of whichever forum you care to mention gets up voted and any opposing view falls off the bottom. Goes for right/left/whatever you're having yourself.

gallag

An example of posts that have been red carded in the last day.

#1
"So The women in these camps fear the men and rightly so. Yet we are taking in 16 year old men... So which is it Believe the women in the camps or the ones virtue signalling ?"

#2
"More than likely you get.....
who the camp decides to give you. Whether that's people that have paid off the camp personnel or people that are acting the **** in the camp grounds.

Irish offals assess. lol.
I wouldn't trust the useless jacka$$es to assess a pi$$ up in a brewery.
And you expect them to assess refugees."

#3
"Maybe she was chancing her arm.

Why not take more women from those camps instead of violent lads from Calais.

The story about the 14 year old with cystic fibrosis is awful. It can hardly get any worse for her, since she's getting no help already. Cutting more childrens funds seems like a terrible idea."

#4
"There is stuff on Zappone's Twitter about sexual abuse in the camps. I've heard about it from volunteers too. It's an eye opener."

#5
"One must have missed the Nut job at the leavers in the children's ministers office. Statement of "All of the children" It's like your woman has not seen Ms Merkals mistake. Or has some ridiculous notion of It will be fine it's Ireland. How do we know it will be different. Well for a start we have Calais Illegal immigrants coming. 16-17 year olds, I wager very hair and will be shepherded away from the Media. These leftist Idealist are very dangerous people. Oddly enough, Women in the migrant camps are in fear.. From whom “The Men” in the camps. But sure when they get to Ireland it will be grand the men will Immediately become Feminised in the Eyes of these Idealists."

Stheno

gallag wrote: »

An example of posts that have been red carded in the last day.

#1
"So The women in these camps fear the men and rightly so. Yet we are taking in 16 year old men... So which is it Believe the women in the camps or the ones virtue signalling ?"

#2
"More than likely you get.....
who the camp decides to give you. Whether that's people that have paid off the camp personnel or people that are acting the **** in the camp grounds.

Irish offals assess. lol.
I wouldn't trust the useless jacka$$es to assess a pi$$ up in a brewery.
And you expect them to assess refugees."

#3
"Maybe she was chancing her arm.

Why not take more women from those camps instead of violent lads from Calais.

The story about the 14 year old with cystic fibrosis is awful. It can hardly get any worse for her, since she's getting no help already. Cutting more childrens funds seems like a terrible idea."

#4
"There is stuff on Zappone's Twitter about sexual abuse in the camps. I've heard about it from volunteers too. It's an eye opener."

#5
"One must have missed the Nut job at the leavers in the children's ministers office. Statement of "All of the children" It's like your woman has not seen Ms Merkals mistake. Or has some ridiculous notion of It will be fine it's Ireland. How do we know it will be different. Well for a start we have Calais Illegal immigrants coming. 16-17 year olds, I wager very hair and will be shepherded away from the Media. These leftist Idealist are very dangerous people. Oddly enough, Women in the migrant camps are in fear.. From whom “The Men” in the camps. But sure when they get to Ireland it will be grand the men will Immediately become Feminised in the Eyes of these Idealists."

Those were all carded for generalising and failing to back up the statements being made

gallag

Setho, you have removed your post, the one were you picked one post that got red carded and then assumed that one post was what I was talking about, why did that happen? It was 17 mins before my post.

gallag

Stheno wrote: »

Those were all carded for generalising and failing to back up the statements being made

OK, so can you point out the generalisation in this for example.

#4
"There is stuff on Zappone's Twitter about sexual abuse in the camps. I've heard about it from volunteers too. It's an eye opener."

Face it, this new "generalisation" rule is a tool to remove non left wing, anti-immigration views. Everyone can see it.

Stheno

gallag wrote: »

Setho, you have removed your post, the one were you picked one post that got red carded and then assumed that one post was what I was talking about, why did that happen? It was 17 mins before my post.

I removed it as you posted the same one with your other examples.
Did you see my post explaining why those posts were red carded?

gallag

Stheno wrote: »

I removed it as you posted the same one with your other examples.
Did you see my post explaining why those posts were red carded?

You removed it because it made your post where you picked the one post closest to the line and ignored all the other examples that single day look ridiculous, if you put your post back it would actually show the exact reason this thread was created, a perfect example.

Stheno

gallag wrote: »

You removed it because it made your post where you picked the one post closest to the line and ignored all the other examples that single day look ridiculous, if you put your post back it would actually show the exact reason this thread was created, a perfect example.

No I removed it because you clearly quoted it, why is that difficult to understand?

Stheno

gallag wrote: »

OK, so can you point out the generalisation in this for example.

#4
"There is stuff on Zappone's Twitter about sexual abuse in the camps. I've heard about it from volunteers too. It's an eye opener."

Face it, this new "generalisation" rule is a tool to remove non left wing, anti-immigration views. Everyone can see it.

Where's the link to back up what the poster is saying? Without any backup that's a generalisation. It's clearly called out as not being acceptable in that thread.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gallag

Stheno wrote: »

Where's the link to back up what the poster is saying? Without any backup that's a generalisation. It's clearly called out as not being acceptable in that thread.

It's nonsense and you know it, if I was to say "I wouldn't want to drive an truck through Calais as they get attacked" do I also need to post links to back that up?

What yous are doing is manipulating the rules to cut out certain opinions, like yous were all crying about Trump doing with the EPA etc.

gallag

"We need to get the people out of the camps, they are a dangerous place for women!"

Fine.......


"There is stuff on Zappone's Twitter about sexual abuse in the camps. I've heard about it from volunteers too. It's an eye opener."


Red card.........

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lovely Bloke

gallag wrote: »

"We need to get the people out of the camps, they are a dangerous place for women!"

Fine.......


"There is stuff on Zappone's Twitter about sexual abuse in the camps. I've heard about it from volunteers too. It's an eye opener."


Red card.........

"some posts fall through the cracks"

"mods can't read every post"

the usual that gets trotted out when you find a perfect example of what you are feeding back.

jameorahiely

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

"some posts fall through the cracks"

"mods can't read every post"

the usual that gets trotted out when you find a perfect example of what you are feeding back.

Even the reported posts of outright personal abuse seem to "fall through the cracks"

Stheno

jameorahiely wrote: »

Even the reported posts of outright personal abuse seem to "fall through the cracks"

In the cafe? Or are you talking about another forum?

Wibbs

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah. Kinda iffy alright. Bit of balance on that score would be beneficial alright. I have certainly seen "left" leaning posters get far more leeway and not just in the politics forum(s).

Stheno

Wibbs wrote: »

Yeah. Kinda iffy alright. Bit of balance on that score would be beneficial alright. I have certainly seen "left" leaning posters get far more leeway and not just in the politics forum(s).

Bizarrely Wibbs it was a left leaning poster who started this thread! Anti IW, Anti FG etc.

So it appears both right and left leaning posters feel aggrieved with moderation on both their sides

Alf Stewart.

Stheno wrote: »

Bizarrely Wibbs it was a left leaning poster who started this thread! Anti IW, Anti FG etc.

My political leanings or persuasions had absolutely no influence on my decision to start the thread, and i certainly never insinuated there was any biases coming from the mods due to posters being left/right.

I stated the moderation was at times over zealous and inconsistent.

The whole left/right thing is a complete red herring.

Stheno

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

My political leanings or persuasions had absolutely no influence on my decision to start the thread, and i certainly never insinuated there was any biases coming from the mods due to posters being left/right.

I stated the moderation was at times over zealous and inconsistent.

The whole left/right thing is a complete red herring.

My post was in response to those claiming left wing bias from the mods. Its a constant issue in the cafe that each side claims the other is being favoured

Alf Stewart.

Stheno wrote: »

My post was in response to those claiming left wing bias from the mods. Its a constant issue in the cafe that each side claims the other is being favoured

Yeah I know that, I never would claim there's a biased agenda going on in the caf, I see posters from polar opposite political outlooks getting sanctions pretty much on par.

I will add though, the only times I see any hint of "mod bias" accusations on the forum, are usually (and fairly regularly) aimed at a specific mod who would seem to be left leaning.

Stheno

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Yeah I know that, I never would claim there's a biased agenda going on in the caf, I see posters from polar opposite political outlooks getting sanctions pretty much on par.

That's at odds with other posters on this thread though Alf, if I've read you correctly you are saying that there is no political bias in most of the moderation in the cafe?

I've excluded the latter half of your post as it's not for me to comment on individual mod actions, whoever they may be.

Alf Stewart.

Stheno wrote: »

That's at odds with other posters on this thread though Alf, if I've read you correctly you are saying that there is no political bias in most of the moderation in the cafe?

I would stand over that, pretty much.

Yeah.

jackofalltrades

WOW!
I knew the moderation of migration threads was always a bit one sided, but it's got plain ridiculous since the last "reboot" of the EU Immigration thread.
I haven't really been following it over the last few days but the amount of yellow/red cards handed out is ridiculous.
The MODs really seem to be making up rules just so that they can infract users with "unacceptable" views.
In a hope that they leave the thread and that they can quietly close it.
I think it's got to the stage that the thread needs to be moved back to AH.
Or Boards.ie needs to just come out and be honest that they don't want these threads due to perceived reputational damage.

Gavinz

jackofalltrades wrote: »

WOW!
I knew the moderation of migration threads was always a bit one sided, but it's got plain ridiculous since the last "reboot" of the EU Immigration thread.
I haven't really been following it over the last few days but the amount of yellow/red cards handed out is ridiculous.
The MODs really seem to be making up rules just so that they can infract users with "unacceptable" views.
In a hope that they leave the thread and that they can quietly close it.
I think it's got to the stage that the thread needs to be moved back to AH.
Or Boards.ie needs to just come out and be honest that they don't want these threads due to perceived reputational damage.

"unacceptable views" being of course, right-wing views. The evidence of which is plain to see for anyone with an unbiased and honest view.

Which, on a supposed discussion board, is bloody laughable.

Wibbs

Stheno wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"left" and "right" have increasingly become troublesome labels, for me anyway, though I would still stand by my opinion that some social/political views are seen as more "acceptable" and are accordingly given more leeway.

Id Est:

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Never mind that "general, unsubstantiated statements" makes up the bulk of posters opinions in many forums and especially so on political matters, where ever one finds them.

Stheno wrote: »

Those were all carded for generalising and failing to back up the statements being made

I'm quite sure if I was to trawl through various threads on different subjects I would find plenty of generalising posts with little to no backup or links that have remained card free.

For the record I find both so called "left" and "right" simplistic opinions daft and the extremes of either risible. What really winds me up is the increasing rise of echo chambers on both sides and would be more "protective" of Boards not going down that route and IMH it generally hasn't. As you point out tthe fact that both left/right posters can see "bias" shows this. So long as the "don't be a dick" rule is observed one can express an opinion contrary or not to the group. That said I am seeing a most definite lean towards opinions seen as more "acceptable" getting more traction and this is not good IMH.

Special Circumstances

Wibbs wrote: »

"left" and "right" have increasingly become troublesome labels, for me anyway, though I would still stand by my opinion that some social/political views are seen as more "acceptable" and are accordingly given more leeway.

Id Est:



Never mind that "general, unsubstantiated statements" makes up the bulk of posters opinions in many forums and especially so on political matters, where ever one finds them.

I'm quite sure if I was to trawl through various threads on different subjects I would find plenty of generalising posts with little to no backup or links that have remained card free.

For the record I find both so called "left" and "right" simplistic opinions daft and the extremes of either risible. What really winds me up is the increasing rise of echo chambers on both sides and would be more "protective" of Boards not going down that route and IMH it generally hasn't. As you point out tthe fact that both left/right posters can see "bias" shows this. So long as the "don't be a dick" rule is observed one can express an opinion contrary or not to the group. That said I am seeing a most definite lean towards opinions seen as more "acceptable" getting more traction and this is not good IMH.

For this we really need people not to be site banned for revealing mod PMs. There is this invisible warning system that you cannot challenge and it is used to swing things for the boards.ie favoured POV.

UserA makes a two sentence post.
UserB consistently and repeatedly over the next 3 pages takes one sentence out of context and refuses to acknowledge that there is another sentence in the post.
UserA suggests UserB is not capable of an adult level reading comprehension.

Does the mod say on thread - your pushing userA but userB... you need to stop derailing this thread with your deliberate misrepresentation of UserA.

Or does the mod warn UserA to let UserB win the argument.


The answer of course depends on which side of the Boards.ie sanctioned message the posters fall, doesn't it?

robindch

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's not a bad way of putting it - most of the posters in A+A, having rejected the irrationality of religion, can probably see the same irrationality, hypocrisy, social engineering and so on taking place elsewhere. Also, in A+A, being able to defend an idea against criticism is seen as a strength, whereas people who self-identify as "right-wing" often seem to respond as though anything other than respect for the view presented is offensive. It's perhaps just another kind of filter bubble.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can certainly think of a few posters who no longer post in A+A because they believe the moderator team is biased. However, it's always seemed to me that the posters concerned were simply unfamiliar with, or unable to, defend their views peacefully, rationally or humorously.

In that case, as above, A+A really isn't the best forum for these posters and I'd imagine that they'd enjoy themselves more in the many places on the internet where right-wing views can be put forward without needing to defend them in any way. The same goes for people who self-describe as "left-wing" who behave in the same way.

gallag

Considering all mods in politics are left wing, yes there is a left wing bias in politics, here is my prediction, next new mod in politics will be a left wing, anti trump, anti brexit, pro European and pro-immagration.