Politics Cafe....? Banpocalypse now.

Nody

SterlingArcher wrote: »

This should be the main focus. Letting open honest discussion happen. Yeah it gets ugly but so what? that happens when people talk open and free from being pretentious. The upside is when you cut through the bull. you are more likely to learn something true.

Except if people don't talk but preach and simply restate the same thing over and over again without any factual links backing it up as that's not a discussion but soap boxing.

And if these type of threads with the same issues raised.pop up again and again. why the fob them off? Is it not evidence that something is not right. it is not some disgruntled few. a greater number of people are feeling this way because this is what is happening. How mamy to that the probably bigger numbers that just say what's the point.

No one is questioning the need for a debate (as far as I can see); what's questioned is the quality and level of it and if it's really a debate or simply a group of people grand standing on a soap box for their view point and ignoring everything that don't fit that view point. Then it's no longer a debate but rather a echo chamber which is what people accused boards of becoming when in reality it was already happening on the thread in question (and many others such as the main Politics Trump thread for example).

I can stand around here posting all Irish priests are paedophiles on a thread but if I'm not willing to a) back that up with some actual relevant evidence beyond my own blog or biased network site and b) consider changing my opinion that I may be wrong it's not really much of a debate now is it? Rather we've come to the echo chamber status instead which from a brief view characterise a lot of the thread's last couple of pages.

Who wants to sit around only discussing topics with people who think the same? Pats on the back and thumbs up likes my post? I'll tell you who. The real fearmongers.

Most users these days on FB actually; it gets scary what you see gets passed around on private topic FB boards or as "facts" in various FB posts as it reinforces their worldview and hence it's "real". You can see it in action with Trump and the "false media" angle because it does not fit his world view it has to be false (even if actual facts proves him wrong he refuses to accept it).

jackofalltrades

I used to post in the EU immigration thread, I stopped because the moderation was becoming suffocating.
Every couples of posts there was a warning or someone carded.
More and more rules were being added, requests for clarification were being ignored and feedback threads were closed.
It really is an example of everything that is wrong on this site, both in terms of posts and moderation.

The earlier moderation of the thread going back to when it existed in AH and Humanities IMO created some much bad blood that the thread in PC was never going to work.
Posters sceptical of immigration had to put up with a lot of crap back then.
I don't think that has ever really been forgotten.
It's an important and ongoing discussion that really needs to happen somewhere.
The only "winners" from the decision to close this thread are the posters that deliberately posted so as to wind up other posters.
Several have posted in this thread celebrating their "win".

Taltos wrote: »

Clearly immigration threads just attract the types of posts that Boards are better without, looking at this one I can clearly see incitement there as well as pure muppetry, what I don't see are the corresponding reports for some of these which worries me doubly.

This is half of the problem.
Everyone seem to be working of different interpretations on what is considered hate speech/incitement/racism etc.
It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a discussion on the above so people can agree on what is acceptable and what is not.
As it stands this seems to be down to the individual interpretations of the Mods and their political leanings.

mike_ie wrote: »

Provide useful feedback however, and we'll endeavor to act on it.

1. Mods shouldn't be arguing a side.
If they have an interest in the topic that's fine.
But posters becoming Mods and then suddenly finding an interest in a thread and posting extensively just isn't on.

2. It's a discussion site, threads should only really disappear because posters lose interest in them.

3. Crack down hard on posters who only post on threads to wind others up in the hope that it's shutdown.
Or at least take away their ability to quote other posters or reply 4/5 times in a row.

4. Stop moving political threads out of AH.

Tokyo

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Everyone seem to be working of different interpretations on what is considered hate speech/incitement/racism etc.
It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a discussion on the above so people can agree on what is acceptable and what is not.
As it stands this seems to be down to the individual interpretations of the Mods and their political leanings.

1. Mods shouldn't be arguing a side.
If they have an interest in the topic that's fine.
But posters becoming Mods and then suddenly finding an interest in a thread and posting extensively just isn't on.

2. It's a discussion site, threads should only really disappear because posters lose interest in them.

3. Crack down hard on posters who only post on threads to wind others up in the hope that it's shutdown.
Or at least take away their ability to quote other posters or reply 4/5 times in a row.

4. Stop moving political threads out of AH.

Thank you for the feedback, sincerely, because unlike many of these threads, what you have provided is genuine feedback. We will take the above points onboard.

_Kaiser_

I'd echo the above sentiments. Like it or not, moderation of the thread in question certainly appears to be unduly influenced by the political leanings of the mods in question. It's a simple conflict of interest that isn't healthy for the discussion or the site as a whole.

It's the same issue with one of them being a serving AGS member and modding AGS-related threads in the PC as well. Conflict of interest at the very least I'd think, and are there not rules about posting on social media for AGS members anyway? How does that fit with modding a topic about the force?

By all means should they contribute their views and argue their case constructively (and this applies to everyone) - baiting (also from those who are in favour) is common and only serves to inflame and derail what is usually a decent discussion to that point - but I'd suggest maybe a "neutral" mod would look over any issues that arise

The aim however should be to keep the discussion as open and free-flowing as possible . Another general comment I'd have - and this applies site wide - is the obsessiveness with "on topic" warnings. A normal discussion will naturally flow into related items as it progresses. I don't see any harm in this but if it sidetracks a little too far, THEN a gentle push back on course can be useful.

Ultimately this is a discussion forum and one that has declined over the last few years - partly because of the shift to other forms of social media, but also because of the never-ending series of new "warnings", "rules" and more cards than a League season If this site is to survive it needs to take a step back from itself and remember why people come here, what they want/expect and what is unique about it.. if played right, the "old style" structure that is a forum could in fact be Boards greatest strength in a sea of Twitter/Facebook/Reddit nonsense.

Tom Dunne

This is the kind of honest, constructive feedback we appreciate, so thanks.

For those that are not offering constructive feedback and have had posts deleted, it is spelled 'Nazis' - there is no 't' in Nazis.

AlekSmart

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I used to post in the EU immigration thread, I stopped because the moderation was becoming suffocating.
Every couples of posts there was a warning or someone carded.
More and more rules were being added, requests for clarification were being ignored and feedback threads were closed.
It really is an example of everything that is wrong on this site, both in terms of posts and moderation.

The earlier moderation of the thread going back to when it existed in AH and Humanities IMO created some much bad blood that the thread in PC was never going to work.
Posters sceptical of immigration had to put up with a lot of crap back then.
I don't think that has ever really been forgotten.
It's an important and ongoing discussion that really needs to happen somewhere.
The only "winners" from the decision to close this thread are the posters that deliberately posted so as to wind up other posters.
Several have posted in this thread celebrating their "win".

This is half of the problem.
Everyone seem to be working of different interpretations on what is considered hate speech/incitement/racism etc.
It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a discussion on the above so people can agree on what is acceptable and what is not.
As it stands this seems to be down to the individual interpretations of the Mods and their political leanings.

1. Mods shouldn't be arguing a side.
If they have an interest in the topic that's fine.
But posters becoming Mods and then suddenly finding an interest in a thread and posting extensively just isn't on.

2. It's a discussion site, threads should only really disappear because posters lose interest in them.

3. Crack down hard on posters who only post on threads to wind others up in the hope that it's shutdown.
Or at least take away their ability to quote other posters or reply 4/5 times in a row.

4. Stop moving political threads out of AH.

As a poster who has already served a One Week ban from P.Cafe,and who is now into a second,Two Week ban,Both of which I strongly contest,I can only give a rousing Hurrah :eek: ! to jackofalltrades post.

There are no absolute Right's or Wrong's in this Modding discussion,just as there are none in the E.U. Immigration thread either.

However,as Tom Dunne and Mike_ie point out,it is a discussion which has to be facilitated and progressed,the exact same attitudes so oddly absent from the P.Cafe directives.

Jackofalltrades 4 Points surely can be viewed as positive,and intended for the good of the greater Boards.ie ethos ?

My own bans will have been well worth it,if even those 4 Points alone,are meaningfully considered by the C Mods and allowed to feed into their future policies relating to free and open discussion.

riffmongous

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

My own suggestion would be to create an unmoderated private forum, provide access to everyone who wants to continue posting in an unrestricted fashion, and close the door behind them.

There are already places online where ex-posters from Boards do that, and they are not pretty, or even popular.

_Kaiser_

OK.. I count 13 mods on the PC (incl Cat Mods) yet a quick trawl through the first few pages of forum shows that almost every "controversial" thread that has been locked down was done so by the same 2, or closed for reviews that didn't happen. That to me points to a problem with some of the mod choices to be honest.

Look team.. this is a discussion forum on the Internet. By it's very nature it's going to result in conflicting opinions, heated arguments and people occasionally stepping over the mark (or in some cases baiting others to do so).
By all means sanction the offenders (particularly the repeat offenders) - there's plenty of ways to do so what with cards, temporary suspensions and full site bans, but shutting down valid topics of discussion either because they're "too much work", or because an individual mod's political leanings are at odds with the direction of the thread, goes against the whole POINT of this website.

As I said above there are some (on ALL sides - users and mods alike) who need to take a step back and remember that this isn't life of death. It's an exchange of views with anonymous people on a website and if you can't contribute positively and constructively, or if you can't take criticism or differing opinions in stride (within what I would consider to be "common sense" limits), then maybe PC or the site isn't for you - perhaps the more "instant"/truncated style of Twitter or Facebook is a better fit.

But limiting the ability of others to discuss valid and significant topics that affect them, the country, and the wider world should never be the answer.

Taltos

Admin note
Gentle reminder let's keep the posts on topic to the Immigration thread, I've removed some more off topic posts again. Also if you want to argue your card take it to DRF, though if the same post in two different forums resulted in similar actions then that speaks volumes.

As well as the feedback any more constructive suggestions?

One addition to the above "Stop moving those threads out of AH."
AH is not a political wanna-be. The mods there have been rightly moving threads to Politics, Cafe or Humanities as required.

You should recruit some of the moderators from politicalirish.com

They allow fair unbiased moderation from both sides of the argument, do not get involved in the debate themselves and dont allow buzz words like racist or snowflake to be thrown out.

They allow the argument to be heard and debated.

Boards.ie has to much of a one sided moderation policy that pushes posters to other sites like political Irish or politics.ie.

Its great you are finally listening, but are you going to start acting?

hatrickpatrick

I'm a hard left wing poster with the one exception that as a cultural libertarian, I fundamentally disagree with ideological censorship of any kind - and I've been saying this for years. Boards shuts down right wing opinions in an absolutely ridiculous fashion, such that as a left winger it's no longer nearly as interesting as it once was to get involved in a debate on the politics forums - chances are that if it gets a little heated, your opponent is going to get dissuaded from further engagement by a mod warning even if they're not actually breaking any rules other than the unspoken elephant in the room "don't be too un-PC in the views you express".

Fun fact #1: It's perfectly possible to be entirely civil and polite while calmly saying "I dislike the cultural ideology of most majority-Muslim, non-European countries and I don't want enough people from those countries immigrating to the EU that they begin to affect the EU's cultural climate."

Fun fact #2: I for one would massively disagree with that comment if it was posted and I'd argue against it, so you can't accuse me of defending it simply because I am a right wing hack - I am very demonstrably not a right wing hack, just look at my posting history in the thread about Ibraham Halawa. I am defending it on principle - not out of agreement with the substance.

Fun fact #3: Cultures, religious ideologies and societies are absolutely fair game for criticism. Unlike race or gender, they are not innate human qualities but lifestyles people choose, however unconsciously, to adhere to. You cannot compare attacking a religious system as uncivilised with attacking a race as uncivilised. And again, I would most likely disagree with such an attack on a religious system if it was posted, but that doesn't change the fact that in my view, it would not be a legitimate form of 'hate speech' provided it is backed up with rational discourse.

Let me give you an example. I have nothing against Jews as a people, but I regard the Judaism religious doctrine as barbaric, for the simple reason that it requires the surgical violation of baby boys' genitalia without their consent and for no medical reason whatsoever. Is this un-PC? I don't think so. I'm not being anti-semitic or racist, but I am saying that certain tenets of that religion repulse me and in my view those practises should be banned in this and other civilised countries, regardless of the backlash.

Another example: I have nothing against Catholics - I am a baptised Catholic although I will most likely very soon leave the church and maintain a personal, one-on-one relationship with the God I believe in, because I regard the organisation as having become a perversion of what it was supposed to represent. I attack the church for its attitudes to sexuality and its narrow focus on this while ignoring the much bigger requirement for its adherents to show love and compassion for one another - indeed its insistence in many cases that punishing transgressions of the former overrides the requirement to observe the latter.

Once again, this is not hate speech. I do not dislike individual Catholics, but I have no problem saying that I long for the day when those who subscribe to right wing Catholicism have absolutely no political power whatsoever.

I highly suspect that in a thread which is not actually about moderation, and if the above sentiments had been posted as a statement rather than as examples in this discussion, I'd probably have been moderated or warned in some fashion for posting them. And on a forum which has a motto of "now ye're talkin'", that is absolutely, absurdly, atrociously ridiculous.

SterlingArcher

Taltos wrote: »

Admin note

One addition to the above "Stop moving those threads out of AH."
AH is not a political wanna-be. The mods there have been rightly moving threads to Politics, Cafe or Humanities as required.

Think you may be missing whats happening Taltos. Seems alot less interest to discuss in political cafe. because there is very little discussion being allowed.

Cookie_Monster

Taltos wrote: »

One addition to the above "Stop moving those threads out of AH."
AH is not a political wanna-be. The mods there have been rightly moving threads to Politics, Cafe or Humanities as required.

but this is just a massive double standard, why not shift everything to where it should be, why is only politics targeted? First page of AH as of now:
As you can see the vast majority of threads could be moved to a more suitable forum but aren't. There is not even consistency about moving political stuff TBH

Best Gig you have been to Music Gigs & event
Wives... were you glad pubs weren't open today Ladies Lounge
WHERE are you right now? AH
The disappearance of Trevor Deely AH
Poll: Now that world war 3 is imminent Politics or Military
Poll: Could a terror attack happen in Ireland? Politics or Military
Best death in a movie. Films
Self realisation Humanities
I bet you didnt know that AH
angry, annoyances, annoying, bad manners, frustrating, habits, irritations, pointless Ranting and Raving
Myers-Briggs Test One of the science fora
US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea. Politics or Military
Bus Eireann Go to first new post Commuting & Transport
Syria Again Politics or Military
2010 Morgan Kelly Article- Ireland is finished Politics (Irish Economy)

hatrickpatrick

Taltos wrote: »

AH is not a political wanna-be. The mods there have been rightly moving threads to Politics, Cafe or Humanities as required.

The problem is though that the Café is becoming overmodded in the sense of restricting right wing views, while AH is less so. So it's hardly surprising that people get a bit peeved when the sequence of events follows, generally, thread created on AH -> discussion begins -> thread is moved to the Café -> thread is either merged with an existing megathread, therefore losing its individual meaning, or else closed because the Café is now a lot stricter than AH -> ultimate result, discussion of that topic is not allowed at all, essentially.

The original deal was that if AH couldn't have political topics, the Café would become "AH politics" in that it would still allow the irreverence and banter of AH, while Politics (general) would remain the strictly serious politics forum. Over time, the Café has essentially taken General's place as the main politics forum, the rules have been tightened in response, with the result that for certain discussions the choice is, have them on AH until you get shut down because off topic, or have them on PC until you get shut down because breaking the rules, which it wouldn't have been on AH if political threads were allowed.

In other words, basically, if no political threads or social issues threads are allowed on AH, then there should be a forum for them which still has the character of AH, in that topics aren't strictly controlled to keep them exactly on topic and bar all cheeky or silly comments.

Now, it can be argued that AH doesn't really allow cheeky or silly comments as much anymore either, but that again is exactly why people are getting pissed. If I could be racist for a second (but I think we'll all agree with this one), it's not in the Irish psyche generally to maintain a serious tone all or most of the time - we're a nation of cheeky, irreverent, flippant feckers. The attempt to drive this out of Boards in general is essentially an attempt to suppress Irishness on an Irish forum, which is pretty peculiar.

NOTE: I actually like the Café apart from what I see as the bias against certain right wing ideologies therein, but my point is, that I liked the old Politics (general) forum and that's basically what the Café is turning into. There's now no forum at all where people can let off steam on political topics and call Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton an unimaginable feckin' muppet without getting modded, which is silly considering how widely held those viewpoints would be.

Canis Lupus

It's probably unworkable but in the case of a contentious thread and the potential for mod bias would it be possible to have a mod from another forum with no interest in the subject be a thread moderator. He/she doesn't post in the thread or the maybe even the forum? Literally just mods it.

I imagine no one would be too willing to volunteer though but perhaps an idea to think about.

Taltos

Hi Canis - nice idea but mods from other forums don't have the same set of tools and may not be au fair with how the current forum is modded. That role though is occasionally filled by the cmod team where they'll give a nudge either to the mods or a thread. In exceptional circumstances the Admin team may do so but that's usually the nuclear option and not one we like doing as it leaves no recourse for discussion.

What does happen quite often though depending on the issue is in either the Cafe mods forum, the local team will discuss how best to approach a contentious issue. I.e. Poster A continually derailing threads claiming all muslims are terrorists or burka wearing women are oppressed and need to be freed. And sometimes those discussions happen at the more open private mods forum where mods across the site offer advice, for example what steps to take with a poster who clearly needs help or someone expressing intent to harm another. I know its all invisible here but the mods do try to seek advice and support across the board, even on topics of how best to not take criticism personally or what to do with persistent trolls.

Kaiser and hatrickpatrick - on your biased modding - can you give some examples?
Actually where posters are making claims like this can you please provide a clear and recent example?
It's very hard to investigate (support or dispute) any such claim without the evidence to look into, some might be clear cut cases, some might be interpretation or some might be crap, there's no one else around I have to mod.
But without those links claims are just claims and this becomes an echo chamber of he said / she said.

C Montgomery Gurns II

Bring your cmplaint to Feedback they say.

I complain about two mods banning me for a post that didn't violate the charter of their forums but merely offended their liberal beliefs.

Post gets deleted.

What is the function of this place exactly?

Tokyo

C Montgomery Gurns II wrote: »

Bring your cmplaint to Feedback they say.

I complain about two mods banning me for a post that didn't violate the charter of their forums but merely offended their liberal beliefs.

Post gets deleted.

What is the function of this place exactly?

Did you take it to DRP?

hatrickpatrick

Taltos wrote: »

Kaiser and hatrickpatrick - on your biased modding - can you give some examples?

Unfortunately I don't have time to do a summary right now as I'm heading out for the day, will happily do one later or tomorrow, but check this thread out, in particular the mod warnings and the events leading up to eventual closure:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057694329

Now in particular have a look at the following post:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103194262&postcount=2140

It's completely mad - trying to make ultraconservative Islam and its potential impact on the EU's political culture in the event of widespread immigration from countries such as Syria etc, an elephant in the room. Everybody knows that when the migrant crisis is discussed, or even multiculturalism in general, this is currently the main issue on peoples' minds. It's ridiculous to suggest that it's not relevant to politics, when it's the decisions of our political leaders and the impact of certain extreme, hardline Muslim ideologies on our political systems which is the main concern most of these right wing posters on the subject have. Declaring discussions of fundamentalist Islam off topic to such a discussion is like declaring discussion of how a storm might affect a football match off-topic to a thread about said match on the football forum because technically such discussion belongs in the weather forum - absurd and inexplicable, unless the reality is that Boards, or some of its moderators, are uncomfortable with anybody expressing the view that they do not support multiculturalism or that they do not believe that people with certain ideologies, which they believe are incompatible with the values of our society, should be allowed to immigrate en masse to the EU.

Once again: I literally have no problem with immigration or Islam (hate to trot this old line out, but some of my best friends are Muslims) so I can't be accused of having a dog in that fight - I just think it's ridiculous that such discussion is being suppressed when it's so obviously the biggest issue on everyone's minds when discussing recent immigration to the EU - the migrant crisis, the fact that many of the migrants are coming from countries which do not believe in the secular freedoms that we do, the fact that Isis has gloated about using the migrant crisis to smuggle their operatives into the EU and the fact that radical Islamist attacks have been on the rise in Europe over the last number of years.

To suggest that these subjects are off topic to a political discussion is utterly ridiculous. And with that thread now locked, there is nowhere on Boards where one can discuss these issues at all.

Beasty

C Montgomery Gurns II wrote: »

What is the function of this place exactly?

This is for feedback about the site or perhaps general forum-specific comments/suggestions

Specific complaints are supposed to go in Help Desk (or as already mentioned DRP) once discussion with relevant mods has been exhausted

Although there is clearly some complaining going on here it does seem to be a thread involving genuine feedback as has already been mentioned

Taltos

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Unfortunately I don't have time to do a summary right now as I'm heading out for the day, will happily do one later or tomorrow, but check this thread out, in particular the mod warnings and the events leading up to eventual closure:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057694329

Now in particular have a look at the following post:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103194262&postcount=2140

It's completely mad - trying to make ultraconservative Islam and its potential impact on the EU's political culture in the event of widespread immigration from countries such as Syria etc, an elephant in the room. Everybody knows that when the migrant crisis is discussed, or even multiculturalism in general, this is currently the main issue on peoples' minds. It's ridiculous to suggest that it's not relevant to politics, when it's the decisions of our political leaders and the impact of certain extreme, hardline Muslim ideologies on our political systems which is the main concern most of these right wing posters on the subject have. .......

the fact that Isis has gloated about using the migrant crisis to smuggle their operatives into the EU and the fact that radical Islamist attacks have been on the rise in Europe over the last number of years.

To suggest that these subjects are off topic to a political discussion is utterly ridiculous. And with that thread now locked, there is nowhere on Boards where one can discuss these issues at all.

And this is exactly why we need the links and rationale.
Your links here show a mod operating as a mod, not as a biased poster, so again please provide supporting links showing clear mod bias here.

Also, just look at the language you used here
"Isis has gloated about using the migrant crisis to smuggle their operatives into the EU and the fact that radical Islamist attacks have been on the rise in Europe over the last number of years"
The terrorists/murders/cowards may claim to be Islamists or fundamentalists but most reasonable muslims you meet in the street or your friends will calmly call out to you that in their actions they are themselves apostates and are twisting the teaching of the Koran to justify their rapes/murders just as early Christians did. So instead of the above you could have just written
"Isis has gloated about using the migrant crisis to smuggle their operatives into the EU and the fact that terrorist attacks have been on the rise in Europe over the last number of years"

This gets the same point across but without tarring everyone of that religion as terrorists, just as in the 80s no Irish in London wished to be tarred as IRA sympathisers or Irish terrorists. Like then it's a small %, I've no idea of the actual value but considering the volume of refugees maybe not even 0.05%.

I really don't get why I'm explaining this again.
Maybe the Cafe just isn't the place for that conversation anymore. Maybe the best solution here is to ban that topic outright from the Cafe or hell close it down, clearly we haven't moved on as far as I'd hoped after the last nukeage there. We're 5 or more pages in now with claims of outright bias, and so far the only quotes I'm seeing don't support that at all, so I'm at a loss right now. Mike your earlier suggestion may be worth considering after all along with the constructive advice from jack and a few others.

Snake Plisken

I would like to know who decides who mods what thread in the Cafe? If I was a mod in there and I had strong views on either side of the debate I would excuse myself from modding the thread due to my views. I would mod some another thread where I wouldn't have any particular view say a thread on FG, also I would expect that if a Senior Mod saw that there was complaints coming in about over modding or saw a Mod coming down strongly on one side of the argument I would expect they would step in and remove them from the thread, they could then get involved in the conversation as a normal poster.

Pelvis Parsley

I don't see how the phrase "Radical Islamist" can be equated with tarring all Muslims with the same brush.

This sort of convoluted logic is in itself an example of bias, whether it's intended or not.

hatrickpatrick

Taltos I feel you might be missing my point - you cannot have a proper discussion of the issues around immigration unless the religious doctrine and associated cultural values those immigrants may bring to Europe are on the table as being up for discussion. The mod warning prior to the closure of the immigration thread essentially implies that religion is simply off the table as far as discussion of immigration goes - this is insane, as religion is a fundamental part of the issue itself.

To suggest that religion is off topic in a political discussion is equally nonsensical - Catholicism has had a huge impact, and continues to do so, on Irish law, government and society. Likewise for the countries in the Middle East from which the immigration that the thread concerns is emanating.

Ludo

Taltos wrote: »

And this is exactly why we need the links and rationale.
Your links here show a mod operating as a mod, not as a biased poster, so again please provide supporting links showing clear mod bias here.

Eh...no. This is telling to me:

"If you want to discuss how Islam is going to impose it's will and imprison all Western Women and force them to abide by Sharia law, go to conspiracy theories."

It is a very dismissive tone from a mod and showing his personal feelings on the subject. I personally agree that it is BS about imposing Sharia law etc, but I can also see that it is a valid discussion and should not be dismissed so casually. If a poster did it he would be open to reprimand surely...not to mind a mod.

hatrickpatrick

Ludo wrote: »

Eh...no. This is telling to me:

"If you want to discuss how Islam is going to impose it's will and imprison all Western Women and force them to abide by Sharia law, go to conspiracy theories."

It is a very dismissive tone from a mod and showing his personal feelings on the subject. I personally agree that it is BS about imposing Sharia law etc, but I can also see that it is a valid discussion and should not be dismissed so casually. If a poster did it he would be open to reprimand surely...not to mind a mod.

I'm exactly the same in that I believe that the fears are unfounded, but it's ludicrous to declare the subject off topic in a politics forum. If people are worried about the cultural impact of immigration from a culture which does not afford women equal human rights, that is absolutely a political issue and entirely relevant to the cafe - the only feasible conclusion one can come to is that the topic is being disallowed for ideological rather than administrative reasons, which is exactly the kind of bias I'm talking about.

B_Wayne

Well, my opinion on the politics cafe is that moderators have generally been fair, even in overly fair to some users. The big problem with topics such as this is that posters invariably make a claim on repeat, then don't back it up and use inflammatory language on a constant basis. A user referenced an Irish forum earlier where the forum is a free for all and a quick glance through made it look closer to an Irish version of Stormfront, far better to avoid such a scenario. Maintaining a level of quality that doesn't veer into all out hate speech is far more preferable.

One criticism I would have is that I suspect that there are some users that have been tolerated far too much.

Ludo wrote: »

Eh...no. This is telling to me:

"If you want to discuss how Islam is going to impose it's will and imprison all Western Women and force them to abide by Sharia law, go to conspiracy theories."

It is a very dismissive tone from a mod and showing his personal feelings on the subject. I personally agree that it is BS about imposing Sharia law etc, but I can also see that it is a valid discussion and should not be dismissed so casually. If a poster did it he would be open to reprimand surely...not to mind a mod.

I would prefer to have a level of fact checking in relation to spouting claims like that. Invariably the claims seem to be that law and order doesn't exist in areas anymore, user asked to back up simply doesn't and repeats over and over.

FA Hayek

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The problem is though that the Café is becoming overmodded in the sense of restricting right wing views, while AH is less so. So it's hardly surprising that people get a bit peeved when the sequence of events follows, generally, thread created on AH -> discussion begins -> thread is moved to the Café -> thread is either merged with an existing megathread, therefore losing its individual meaning, or else closed because the Café is now a lot stricter than AH -> ultimate result, discussion of that topic is not allowed at all, essentially.

The original deal was that if AH couldn't have political topics, the Café would become "AH politics" in that it would still allow the irreverence and banter of AH, while Politics (general) would remain the strictly serious politics forum. Over time, the Café has essentially taken General's place as the main politics forum, the rules have been tightened in response, with the result that for certain discussions the choice is, have them on AH until you get shut down because off topic, or have them on PC until you get shut down because breaking the rules, which it wouldn't have been on AH if political threads were allowed.

In other words, basically, if no political threads or social issues threads are allowed on AH, then there should be a forum for them which still has the character of AH, in that topics aren't strictly controlled to keep them exactly on topic and bar all cheeky or silly comments.

Now, it can be argued that AH doesn't really allow cheeky or silly comments as much anymore either, but that again is exactly why people are getting pissed. If I could be racist for a second (but I think we'll all agree with this one), it's not in the Irish psyche generally to maintain a serious tone all or most of the time - we're a nation of cheeky, irreverent, flippant feckers. The attempt to drive this out of Boards in general is essentially an attempt to suppress Irishness on an Irish forum, which is pretty peculiar.

NOTE: I actually like the Café apart from what I see as the bias against certain right wing ideologies therein, but my point is, that I liked the old Politics (general) forum and that's basically what the Café is turning into. There's now no forum at all where people can let off steam on political topics and call Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton an unimaginable feckin' muppet without getting modded, which is silly considering how widely held those viewpoints would be.

This is key point here. This is an Irish website which caters for a mostly Irish user base with its unique sense of humour, pisstaking and lack of seriousness. The Admin's and owners seem instead to want to create an Irish version of the HuffPost or Vox.

FA Hayek

So it seems one cannot discuss the different cultural, religious and social ideologies that migrants to the EU? We can discuss the migrants themselves but not the above? Am I right? People are not robots.

The issue, is that mods have too much stick in the game, so will try and veer the discussion unconsciously to a side that has a greater benefit. This is apparent in other forums as well where one minute you are debating a user and the next the user puts on his mod hat and sets down the rules of the debate. Its wrong of course but goes on all the time.

me_right_one

Where is the "new" boards? Over the past year or 2, the place has emptied out of its regular posters, the ones who were a bit of craic. I dont mean "face-kicker" reddit types, I mean rational people who were not uptight politically correct warriors.

Where is everybody posting now? Cos thats where I wanna go.