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

WinnyThePoo

The find it weird the op complaining about the moderation. I think the moderators on the cafe are extremely kind to him..

Little CuChulainn

gallag wrote: »

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

That's just nonsense. The mods have stated numerous times in that thread that if you make a claim you back it up. See all those blue links in my posts? They are called hyperlinks. They link to news reports and documents which back up what I am saying. The mods have said at least three times in that thread that you must back up your claims yet posters against asylum seekers seem unable to do so. How are we supposed to have any kind of reasonable discussion if one side of the argument can just make up any claim they want? The odd time one of you post a link it is completely unrelated to the claim. If you just want to rant then a blog is probably the best thing for you instead of a discussion forum.

ancapailldorcha

We can't win. I remember being hounded out of the Immigration threads in the old Café when I voiced my views. No fault of the mods there but they all become echo chambers where people share links about how horrible immigrants there. If we do nothing, we're told we can't be bothered. If we act at all, we''re biased. That word has now lost all meaning to me. It shouldn't be that was as moderators should be as unbiased as possible but it's thrown around so casually whenever someone just fancies a whinge or a rant.

Alf Stewart.

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

The find it weird the op complaining about the moderation. I think the moderators on the cafe are extremely kind to him..

I'm not sure this is a road you really want to go down, as you could not possibly be privy to what exchanges go on between myself and mods.

However, would you please elaborate on what has led you to form the above conclusion?

jackofalltrades

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That's just nonsense. The mods have stated numerous times in that thread that if you make a claim you back it up. See all those blue links in my posts? They are called hyperlinks. They link to news reports and documents which back up what I am saying. The mods have said at least three times in that thread that you must back up your claims yet posters against asylum seekers seem unable to do so. How are we supposed to have any kind of reasonable discussion if one side of the argument can just make up any claim they want? The odd time one of you post a link it is completely unrelated to the claim. If you just want to rant then a blog is probably the best thing for you instead of a discussion forum.

And from the very thread that you are talking about.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102384037&postcount=406

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Statisitcs say otherwise. Churches are still full every Sunday. Pubs are still closed on Easter and Christmas. The law, constitution and government is still ingrained with catholicism. Our education and health system is the same. I'm just judging the people of Ireland the same way the immigrants are being judged. What's wrong with that? You're not suggesting we should treat people as individuals are you?

And yet this post hasn't been infracted, even though it is clearly breaking the rules.
And then even if you provided a link under the new rules you can be infracted for not providing a "reputable" source.
And no the Mods haven't defined what this is, I asked for clarification and it was ignored.
You also didn't provide a link to pubs being closed on Easter or Christmas.
Which is on the same level of obviousness as claiming the camp in Calais was dangerous for women.

It's strange that there is a new push to provide sources, where ironically the thread was closed in the past after a poster provided a source.

Little CuChulainn

jackofalltrades wrote: »

And from the very thread that you are talking about.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102384037&postcount=406

And yet this post hasn't been infracted, even though it is clearly breaking the rules.
And then even if you provided a link under the new rules you can be infracted for not providing a "reputable" source.
And no the Mods haven't defined what this is, I asked for clarification and it was ignored.
You also didn't provide a link to pubs being closed on Easter or Christmas.
Which is on the same level of obviousness as claiming the camp in Calais was dangerous for women.

It's strange that there is a new push to provide sources, where ironically the thread was closed in the past after a poster provided a source.

If anyone had asked for a source for the mass attendance I would have given one. I actually thought I had done that hyperlink in that post. Pub closing times are in statute but similarly if I had been asked I would have given one. It's a fact set out in law. Saying women are in danger in the camp is an opinion. There's nothing wrong with having that opinion but if you are going to present it as a fact then you should be able to back it up.

Now look at all the times I asked for sources for opinions presented as fact. Nothing more than insults and deflection.

jackofalltrades

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If anyone had asked for a source for the mass attendance I would have given one. I actually thought I had done that hyperlink in that post. Pub closing times are in statute but similarly if I had been asked I would have given one. It's a fact set out in law. Saying women are in danger in the camp is an opinion. There's nothing wrong with having that opinion but if you are going to present it as a fact then you should be able to back it up.

No that's not how it works.
The posters who were given red cards were not given a chance to provide sources retrospectively.
It's seems quite clear that you have to provide sources with your post.
Which you didn't, but remarkably didn't receive an infraction for.
But then your opinions are "acceptable" on this forum.

Quin_Dub

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.

It's got nothing to do with "unacceptable views" and everything to do with "unacceptable ways of expressing their views"

Bottom line , if you can't make your point without using offensive terminology , gross generalisations or just plain abuse , then you shouldn't be posting , it's as simple as that.

Immigration threads and historically Sinn Fein threads have a tendency to veer badly off course because some posters on both sides of the discussion seem incapable of remaining civil and avoiding tired worn out abusive tropes.

I'd love if there was a mature discussion about Immigration talking about real issues and possible solutions , and to be fair there are more than a few posters that are making the effort to have that , but we continue to have those that allow their "baser" instincts to come out and if left unchecked those posts become a jumping off point for tangential diatribes from both sides leading the thread into the ditch..

So - tl;dr - I couldn't care less what your opinions or political persuasions are , but if you aren't prepared to operate within the guidelines then expect to be sanctioned.

Yourself isit

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If anyone had asked for a source for the mass attendance I would have given one. I actually thought I had done that hyperlink in that post. Pub closing times are in statute but similarly if I had been asked I would have given one. It's a fact set out in law. Saying women are in danger in the camp is an opinion. There's nothing wrong with having that opinion but if you are going to present it as a fact then you should be able to back it up.

Now look at all the times I asked for sources for opinions presented as fact. Nothing more than insults and deflection.

The link didn't prove your case that churches were full, but the opposite

Yourself isit

In general I think that the demand for links should be for extraordinary claims only. There's a growing annoying type poster who wants "links please" if you suggest summer is warmer than winter.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Stheno

Crann na Beatha wrote: »

Well hate to break it to ya bud, im the token conservative mod

No i thought that was me !

Alf Stewart.

gallag wrote: »

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.

Nonsense.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Pasta411

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.

Your probably better off taking no notice of the mods, expressing an opinion which isn't the same as their own seems to be a massive offence in their books, it's pathetic that they have such little respect for others opinions… if everyone on boards all had the same opinion on everything as they seemingly want to be the case I don't think any of us would have much to talk about ever

The Hill Billy

gallag wrote: »

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...

When did 'management' tell you this? Who exactly said it? And how do they happen to know moderators' political leanings? Are we supposed to fill out a form to make these declarations the day we are first modded?

Utter crap!

Special Circumstances

The Hill Billy wrote: »

When did 'management' tell you this? Who exactly said it? And how do they happen to know moderators' political leanings? Are we supposed to fill out a form to make these declarations the day we are first modded?

Utter crap!

People have been sanctioned for tone/content far more innocuous than this.

KERSPLAT!

The Hill Billy wrote: »

When did 'management' tell you this? Who exactly said it? And how do they happen to know moderators' political leanings? Are we supposed to fill out a form to make these declarations the day we are first modded?

Utter crap!

I assume it was Davs post, I'm not sure if the above post is a fair reflection of Davs though. I can't remember exactly what it said tbh.

The Hill Billy

Cheers, K!. Well, if it is a true reflection of what Dav said - then he was talking utter crap. There's no way anyone in HQ could state with any certainty what the political bias of the mods on this site may be.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Special Circumstances

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Cheers, K!. Well, if it is a true reflection of what Dav said - then he was talking utter crap. There's no way anyone in HQ could state with any certainty what the political bias of the mods on this site may be.

I've definitely seen warnings and bans for dragging another named poster and their opinions into a thread where they are not present.

The whole inconsistency thing isn't going well for ye lads.

The Hill Billy

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I've definitely seen warnings and bans for dragging another named poster and their opinions into a thread where they are not present.

The whole inconsistency thing isn't going well for ye lads.

The thing is that (a) now that we have been provided a link we can see that it was indeed a wildly inaccurate interpretation, & (b) we are not talking about 'dragging another named poster' into the discussion, but a former Community Manager whose statement was misrepresented earlier in this thread.

So, eh - no issue with inconsistency here, lad.

Stheno

Yourself isit wrote: »

In general I think that the demand for links should be for extraordinary claims only. There's a growing annoying type poster who wants "links please" if you suggest summer is warmer than winter.

People making blanket statements with no back up is the problem.

Now this is a good example of a post which is anti immigration, but provides good links to back up their point http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102446727&postcount=719, as opposed to "http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102444389&postcount=715" or numerous other posts which make claims but fail to back them up.

At least if people such as the first poster I referenced provide links you can argue based on fact, as opposed to hyperbole.

Pasta411 wrote: »

Your probably better off taking no notice of the mods, expressing an opinion which isn't the same as their own seems to be a massive offence in their books, it's pathetic that they have such little respect for others opinions… if everyone on boards all had the same opinion on everything as they seemingly want to be the case I don't think any of us would have much to talk about ever

Actually, I think there are a fair proportion of posters in the cafe in particular who would argue that engaging with the mods is often more beneficial than ignoring them.

There are a lot of mod interactions in the cafe with posters which do not result in cards/bans, and which lead to posters continuing to contribute but doing so within the charter tbh.

Wibbs

The Hill Billy wrote:

we can see that it was indeed a wildly inaccurate interpretation

Well to be fair, he did state "We didn't suddenly start banning Right Wing opinion, Right Wing opinion has become dangerously extremist because the rest of the world has become a more tolerant place". Which gave me a right chuckle at the time on a couple of levels, not least the naiveté involved with the latter statement. The kicker of not being a liberal nearly had my tea come out my nostrils in mirth.

Oh and the long standing rules? There was a long enough period when transexuals for example were rounded upon and on the regular enough and by plenty of mods and others in authority.

And that's grand. Times do and should change and they're changing at the moment and people on all sides want to talk about it. Calling for links or GTFO should apply to ALL sides and it's clear that's, well not so clear. Yes threads can and do go to shít with the same names on both sides going full retard, which is a pain in the arse, but of those less daft caught in that understandable crossfire the right on are less likely to take a bullet. That is their blanket statements are more likely to get a pass.

Of mods political affiliations I agree there would be zero clue in most cases and given the vast majority of forums have nada political in them anyway, it matters little. There will be a centre left bias of mods on Boards, because there would be a centre left bias within the members as a whole which in turn reflects wider Irish society. Indeed the extreme right on or right wingers that show up here are rarely enough to be found outside student coffee shops and the odd old hippy, or nutty old nazi(tis the coloureds father) wandering about. I've encountered both and both are tiresome, though the hippies at least think they mean well. Ireland's politics is thankfully like its weather, mostly meh, with few real extremes and they don't last very long. Thank christ and long may that continue. The importation of the retarded American them/us stuff is more a worry and I'd love to give that guff a paddlin' myself.

Special Circumstances wrote:

I've definitely seen warnings and bans for dragging another named poster and their opinions into a thread where they are not present.

The whole inconsistency thing isn't going well for ye lads.

Jesus boyo, you really don't know when to apply the oul brakes.

Pasta411

I think boards is a great place to discuss different ideas and I don't want to offend anyone but I think some moderators see boards as their very own little kingdom and make a full on hobby out of exerting their power over other users on the website by issuing bans and cards for very petty reasons… it certainly hinders the community as a whole here on boards

Special Circumstances

Pasta411 wrote: »

I think boards is a great place to discuss different ideas and I don't want to offend anyone but I think some moderators see boards as their very own little kingdom and make a full on hobby out of exerting their power over other users on the website by issuing bans and cards for very petty reasons… it certainly hinders the community as a whole here on boards

Agree 100%

Widdershins

I'm confused. Could someone tell me how many infractions and what kind of infractions result in a site ban? As I've accumulated two in one night. The red mark ones. I'd have edited one of the posts in question which is badly worded and includes a generalisation, if I had been given the chance. Anyway, just wondering how many of those results in being zapped.

KERSPLAT!

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm confused. Could someone tell me how many infractions and what kind of infractions result in a site ban? As I've accumulated two in one night. The red mark ones. I'd have edited one of the posts in question which is badly worded and includes a generalisation, if I had been given the chance. Anyway, just wondering how many of those results in being zapped.

It depends on a few factors. Someone with 10 reds over 10 years would be fine IMO. 10 reds in 10 months will lead to bans and if admin feel it necessary, maybe a temporary site ban. It's hard to put an actual figure on it

Stheno

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm confused. Could someone tell me how many infractions and what kind of infractions result in a site ban? As I've accumulated two in one night. The red mark ones. I'd have edited one of the posts in question which is badly worded and includes a generalisation, if I had been given the chance. Anyway, just wondering how many of those results in being zapped.

I've just checked your record and you've no bans at all? You got two infractions on the 28th but no bans?

Generally it's an accumulation of infractions.

On the immigration thread there are multiple mod warnings to say that it will be straight to bans, so you've gotten off lightly with the infractions, and even then it will be a ban from politics cafe, not a site ban.

Just take care to heed the OP of the immigration thread and you should be fine to be honest.

Widdershins

Stheno wrote: »

I've just checked your record and you've no bans at all? You got two infractions on the 28th but no bans?

Generally it's an accumulation of infractions.

On the immigration thread there are multiple mod warnings to say that it will be straight to bans, so you've gotten off lightly with the infractions, and even then it will be a ban from politics cafe, not a site ban.

Just take care to heed the OP of the immigration thread and you should be fine to be honest.

I meant to say two infractions in one night.

Thanks for the information.

Stheno

Widdershins wrote: »

I meant to say two infractions in one night.

Thanks for the information.

No problem at all. Once you can back up your posts with factual links you should be fine.

The problem we are having in the immigration thread is people saying stuff like "All the calais jungle residents are economic migrants" or "these 17 year olds are adults masquerading as teenagers" etc.

If you can back up your statements with credible links, then that's fine and will help lead to good debate/discussion