Syria threads closed.

Yourself isit

Two threads on Syria were closed in AH, re the two most recent incidents. Some nonsense about "conspiracy" and off topic postings and a reference to a non existing politics thread?



Really? This site won't discuss Syria?

LoLth

From the closure notices: the first was on the MOAB dropped during the week and went off topic, users directed to post in the politics cafe thread instead, which is pretty much what politics cafe was set up for.

the second was closed because it went from discussion of an event to political soapboxing and speculation, the mod deemed it unsuitable for AH and directed posters to the Politics Cafe.

its not that politics aren't allowed on boards, its that there is a forum for it and its better to keep it all in the one place so those interested in that type of discussion can find it easier.

ps. next time, links to the threads would be useful. Feedback is better when the event underpining your point can be easily viewed.

Yourself isit

There are no threads in politics cafe on either issue.

Yourself isit

Also it wasn't the moab. That's not Syria and it's still going.

Yourself isit

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057729892/1

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057725610/96

LoLth

maybe not specifically on Syria (perhaps you could start one? I am not sure if there was a mod decision for or against that but it would certainly appear to qualify as political discussion to me) but the US bombing of Syria is discussed in the Donald Trump thread and also in a thread on the likelihood of there being a larger war.

and in a Trump moment, I meant the missile launch on Syria, not the MOAB, that was Afghanistan.

I'm not sure what your feedback on the boards.ie site is here. If its a question about modding in AH I would suggest you contact the mods that closed the threads and ask (I can only go by the closure message, same as you so I am unsure where you got the impression that no discussion was allowed anywhere on the site from what was written on two thread in AH that specifically states discussion can be held elsewhere).

Yourself isit

LoLth wrote: »

maybe not specifically on Syria (perhaps you could start one? I am not sure if there was a mod decision for or against that but it would certainly appear to qualify as political discussion to me) but the US bombing of Syria is discussed in the Donald Trump thread and also in a thread on the likelihood of there being a larger war.

and in a Trump moment, I meant the missile launch on Syria, not the MOAB, that was Afghanistan.

I'm not sure what your feedback on the boards.ie site is here. If its a question about modding in AH I would suggest you contact the mods that closed the threads and ask (I can only go by the closure message, same as you so I am unsure where you got the impression that no discussion was allowed anywhere on the site from what was written on two thread in AH that specifically states discussion can be held elsewhere).

Except that the threads weren't moved to politics or politics cafe, they were closed. Why would any of us start a new one or two - with the loss of context and history of posts, particularly since we can't be sure that either would be allowed continue?

The trump thread is about trump. With the best will in the world even his biggest detractors probably don't think he personally bombed the refugees using a remote controlled Al Nusra suicide bomber.

The "Syria Again" thread was about the previous chemical attack, it didn't reference trump until he lobbed the tomahawks in a fit of indigestion driven pique. In general the discussion was about the likelihood of the chemical attack being from the government. Or not.

By your logic the moab thread and the North Korea thread should also be abandoned so we can have instead one giant trump thread.

I'm posting here to expose the insane moderation which is damaging the site.

LoLth

from my understanding of the mod preferences when it comes to AH/PC crossover, it is generally seen as better to not move a thread from one to the other as posts that are fine in AH may be against the charter in PC, also, while a thread might start out as AH style discussion and subject matter, once it has moved to PC content the discussion in AH would be considered finished and the audience would be better represented in the PC forum instead, so close off the AH discussion and direct it to the PC forum.

In this case there was mention of a thread in PC to post in though I could not find it myself and cited two that I thought would fit. Perhaps a thread on the Syrian situation (outside of Trump's foreign policy) could be set up?

I can see your perspective here but I don't think its "insane moderation" and I also don't agree that posters were lead to believe that the Syrian topic could not be discussed anywhere on the site.

Wibbs

LoLth wrote: »

From the closure notices: the first was on the MOAB dropped during the week and went off topic, users directed to post in the politics cafe thread instead, which is pretty much what politics cafe was set up for.

Indeed but as current and previous feedback suggests L that forum itself has more than a few issues.

Yourself isit wrote: »

By your logic the moab thread and the North Korea thread should also be abandoned so we can have instead one giant trump thread.

Pretty much seems to be the thinking, though only to a degree. There are few enough threads in AH that couldn't be moved to their respective "proper" forums.

I'm posting here to expose the insane moderation which is damaging the site.

I'd not call it insane, I would see it as confused. More, I would see it as too rigid an application of a set of rules that worked in the past, but work far less now as the nature of the site and the web at large has changed. The site can't afford to further dilute already dwindling numbers by spreading them around different forums. It doesn't work.

conditioned games

If the thread is any way against American foreign policy then it gets shut down by the mods. Only the mainstream media opinion, which the establishment in the US and Britain have control of is allowed. Hence the false flag event created in Syria to prement the US attack is called a conspiracy and the thread is shut down for discussion.

LoLth

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed but as current and previous feedback suggests L that forum itself has more than a few issues.

the feedback was on the mod behavior in after hours in relation to two threads, not the state of affairs in politics cafe. the AH mods cannot be responsible for both forums, they can only continue to mod in a consistent manner until events require a rethink. If the mods closed a thread because it had moved into political debate and added a note to instruct users that it was better taken up in the politics cafe forum, then they are being consistent and not shutting down discussion because its not allowed anywhere on boards, nor are they shutting down a conversation they don't agree with.

Pretty much seems to be the thinking, though only to a degree. There are few enough threads in AH that couldn't be moved to their respective "proper" forums.

and this is why they weren't moved, the thread started on a non-political discussion of an event (not politics cafe material) it moved on to politics (politics cafe material). rather than have an off topic thread in PC that becomes on-topic, the discussion was stopped and asked to be continued somewhere more suitable.

I'd not call it insane, I would see it as confused. More, I would see it as too rigid an application of a set of rules that worked in the past, but work far less now as the nature of the site and the web at large has changed. The site can't afford to further dilute already dwindling numbers by spreading them around different forums. It doesn't work.

to an extent I agree. we do need to re-evaluate the rules and we do, constantly. We tried the idea of free discussion and anything goes and it resulted in cyber-bullying and cliques, we tried anything goes in AH and it resulted in an echo chamber where campaigns were orchestrated to drown out opinions and public lambaste posters that were outspoken against the popular opinion of the vocal majority. Currently the best way to allow discussion to continue without being de-railed to further agendas is to restrict it to areas where it will have the most likely audience. Of course, this risks creating echo chambers as users may stop going to some fora because that's where all the dicks hang out but thats why we need moderation that protect debate and discussion even if that protection means we have to curtail the stronger, lengthier and soapboxier opinions to allow other users to have their say without fear of over the top reaction or reprisal both on and off Boards.

the feedback here is about AH locking threads and boards banning discussion. AH did lock threads, as they have done in the past. They left a closure notice (probably as a result of feedback in the past) and they pointed to where the discussion could be continued.

edit: remove sarcasm. apologies to anyone that read it. if there is a perception that there is a bias then it should not be lightly dismissed by me or any other mod. It should be examined and monitored over time to determine if that bias does exist and if the monitoring itself doesnt resolve the issue then action should be taken. (by the same token, random accusations of bias should not be taken as absolute proof that a bias exists)

Elmer Blooker

I would tend to agree 100% with conditioned games post above.
Citing "conspiracy theories" as a reason to shut the Syria thread was a very unconvincing and lame excuse as far as I'm concerned!

Wibbs

LoLth wrote: »

the feedback was on the mod behavior in after hours in relation to two threads, not the state of affairs in politics cafe.

The two are clearly related and can't in this case be treated in isolation. That's another issue illustrating a quite rigid position in the face of a changing website and interwebs in general.

and this is why they weren't moved,

Kinda missing my point L.

the thread started on a non-political discussion of an event (not politics cafe material) it moved on to politics (politics cafe material).

To be fair that distinction is extremely nebulous.

rather than have an off topic thread in PC that becomes on-topic, the discussion was stopped and asked to be continued somewhere more suitable.

Again with the rigid binary categorised thinking. Thinking that worked in the past, but will work less in the present. Normal conversation was stopped in one forum. The conversations won't move to an ever increasingly narrow focus, avoided by many and small enough in numbers forum. So conversation dead in both. This happens too often.

to an extent I agree. we do need to re-evaluate the rules and we do, constantly. We tried the idea of free discussion and anything goes and it resulted in cyber-bullying and cliques, we tried anything goes in AH and it resulted in an echo chamber where campaigns were orchestrated to drown out opinions and public lambaste posters that were outspoken against the popular opinion of the vocal majority.

Can you give an example of that?

the feedback here is about AH locking threads and boards banning discussion. AH did lock threads, as they have done in the past.

And IMH they lock threads far too often and for all too often baffling "just cos" reasons. That again stifles conversation. Natural conversation ebbs and flows around a subject. Let it. And y'know moderate where necessary, moderately.

TBH I'd also get rid of PC entirely. It's the bastard child of AH and politics and did no favours for either. Politics became a ghost town, AH lost conversations suited to there and PC became such a clusterfcuk it needed to be shut down and it remains a high PITA forum for both users and mods.

kneemos

The last post on the second page of PC was three days ago. Nobody uses it so why not let people do what they want for a change and use AH for political topics.

Too many mods with nothing to do imo,for what it's worth.

Pelvis Parsley

That, and there's one or two of them living on the thing.

Rumpy Pumpy

The politics cafe was far better before the whole closing down and reviewing fiasco that took place last year. You needed a thick skin to post there and there was guff from both sides.

Now it's almost impossible to know what is and isn't allowed. It's being moderated to death and users have left in droves. It's walking on eggshells stuff.

Either close it's down or realise that politics brings out high emotions in people. Unpopular and controversial opinions as well.

Gatling

It seems posters just want to disrupt threads for their own entertainment ,
It's bad modding is the problem it's the demand every thread on anything involving Syria , Afghanistan, Ukraine and Korea turns into a conspiracy theories threads full of opinions but zero facts or evidence to back themselves up,
We had several poster claiming media blackouts about Mosul and Yemen in Syria threads despite been proven otherwise ,but the same several posters keep it going , constantly disrupting any discussions other than Murica did this and Murica did that ,or anyone who disagrees with a small numbers of posters your a Team America cheerleader,(childish nonsense)

Frankly​ threads on syria,Korea , Afghanistan, Ukraine or yemen belong in the international politics forum where a higher​ quality of discussion and posts are required and no conspiracies ,

Yourself isit

Gatling wrote: »

It seems posters just want to disrupt threads for their own entertainment ,
It's bad modding is the problem it's the demand every thread on anything involving Syria , Afghanistan, Ukraine and Korea turns into a conspiracy theories threads full of opinions but zero facts or evidence to back themselves up,
We had several poster claiming media blackouts about Mosul and Yemen in Syria threads despite been proven otherwise ,but the same several posters keep it going , constantly disrupting any discussions other than Murica did this and Murica did that ,or anyone who disagrees with a small numbers of posters your a Team America cheerleader,(childish nonsense)

Frankly​ threads on syria,Korea , Afghanistan, Ukraine or yemen belong in the international politics forum where a higher​ quality of discussion and posts are required and no conspiracies ,

By no conspiracy you mean nothing disagreeing with the western/US narrative on syria?

But that would make criticism of the reasons for the Iraq war invalid, as we would would have to agree that WMD existed.

Your contributions were generally facile one liners though.

WinnyThePoo

Yourself isit wrote: »

By no conspiracy you mean nothing disagreeing with the western/US narrative on syria?

But that would make criticism of the reasons for the Iraq war invalid, as we would would have to agree that WMD existed.

Your contributions were generally facile one liners though.

I think he means for instance if a poster claims something and has nothing to back up, it stops discussion and brings it down to who shouts loudest.

Ie. Poster claims Assad bomb was a false flag attack. Spends the day defending that narrative and calling other people trolls.
When forced to provide link or anything that could point to that scenario. Poster disappears.

I would be in favour of the Syria threads being moved to international politics forum as well. It would improve discussion considerably.

Gatling

Yourself isit wrote: »

By no conspiracy you mean .

Your contributions were generally facile one liners though.

I mean exactly that no conspiracies ,false flags and alternative history.
Or digs .

Yourself isit

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I think he means for instance if a poster claims something and has nothing to back up, it stops discussion and brings it down to who shouts loudest.

Ie. Poster claims Assad bomb was a false flag attack. Spends the day defending that narrative and calling other people trolls.
When forced to provide link or anything that could point to that scenario. Poster disappears.

I would be in favour of the Syria threads being moved to international politics forum as well. It would improve discussion considerably.

Not to rehash the thread but there were plenty of links provided. Of course most of the "respectable" western media swallowed the US narrative which meant the links could be poo poed based on the source. The same would have been the case in 2003 when the economist, Times, NYT, Washington post accepted WMD and it would have been conspiratorial to deny their existence.

Yourself isit

Gatling wrote: »

I mean exactly that no conspiracies ,false flags and alternative history.
Or digs .

You mean the US narrative.

WinnyThePoo

Yourself isit wrote: »

Not to rehash the thread but there were plenty of links provided. Of course most of the "respectable" western media swallowed the US narrative which meant the links could be poo poed based on the source. The same would have been the case in 2003 when the economist, Times, NYT, Washington post accepted WMD and it would have been conspiratorial to deny their existence.

' us narrative' is a Cop out term. If you cant coherently back up a claim. It's not the' US narrative '. It's your own problem

Having the Syria threads In the international politics forum is the way to go.

Yourself isit

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

' us narrative' is a Cop out term. If you cant coherently back up a claim. It's not the' US narrative '. It's your own problem

Having the Syria threads In the international politics forum is the way to go.

If the Syria threads in the international politics forum take the form you want - which is basically the US narrative - with no "conspiracy theories" (the non US narrative) allowed, then it will be you and Gatling in a circle jerk. After all nobody is in favour of gassing children, the only possible debate was on who would do it.

There would hardly be more than a dozen posts. Although that might be better than zero.

kneemos

Making up **** and calling it real is weird. Just ban that.

WinnyThePoo

Yourself isit wrote: »

If the Syria threads in the international politics forum take the form you want - which is basically the US narrative - with no "conspiracy theories" (the non US narrative) allowed, then it will be you and Gatling in a circle jerk. After all nobody is in favour of gassing children, the only possible debate was on who would do it.

There would hardly be more than a dozen posts. Although that might be better than zero.

Where did I say moving the threads to the international politics forum would allow only one viewpoint?

Gatling

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Where did I say moving the threads to the international politics forum would allow only one viewpoint?

It's odd posters demanding they should be allowed to disrupt threads with conspiracy theories and america did this and america while adding nothing to the discussions

Yourself isit

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Where did I say moving the threads to the international politics forum would allow only one viewpoint?

Because that thread had largely two viewpoints.

1) assad definitely did this.
2) it doesn't make sense that assad did this. Therefore the rebels probably did it.


Nobody was supporting the chemical bombing (it wasn't like the MOAB for instance).

Since 2) is what you consider conspiratorial and since you want international politics to be conspiracy free - resurrecting the thread there, under your terms of reference, would have just one side of the argument.

Yourself isit

Gatling wrote: »

It's odd posters demanding they should be allowed to disrupt threads with conspiracy theories and america did this and america while adding nothing to the discussions

Confusingly for you, perhaps, claiming either America or the rebels were in fact responsible was a validly held position in the thread not an attempt to disrupt the thread. Thread disruption is not defined as something that you disagree with.

Gatling

Yourself isit wrote: »

Thread disruption is not defined

It's usually defined when people repeatedly post to disrupt the thread and the discussion till the discussion dies or thread get locked ,
But yet won't open relevant threads themselves in the various fauna..


I'll just have to wait till we get actual feedback from those behind the scenes

WinnyThePoo

Yourself isit wrote: »

Because that thread had largely two viewpoints.

1) assad definitely did this.
2) it doesn't make sense that assad did this. Therefore the rebels probably did it.


Nobody was supporting the chemical bombing (it wasn't like the MOAB for instance).

Since 2) is what you consider conspiratorial and since you want international politics to be conspiracy free - resurrecting the thread there, under your terms of reference, would have just one side of the argument.

Once more trying to put words in my mouth. I reference my above post for you to read again and then answer.