Politics Cafe: Restrictive definition of 'on-topic', and associated mod warnings

Snake Plisken

AlekSmart wrote: »

I would suggest a removal of the lock on the E.U Immigration Thread would be a very good start of the re-engagement process.

The issues surrounding E.U. Immigration/Refugee/Asylum processes,have not sudddenly paused to allow Boards stalwarts to navel gaze and mull over high-minded principles ....the topic continues to develop and rumble on in the background,and will continue to do so.

I don't know Alex I'm kind of happy that it's closed as I think it would descend back to bans and infractions again and I find that very frustrating seeing a thread become very one sided.
I had a discussion with one of the mods re the last card he issued me and he told me that when he logs in he sees the reported posts and actions it, it always seemed to me that those on the left of the arguement are pretty quick to use the report button rather then debate the points made Boggles post above confirms that attitude and his opinion of those who has opposing views.

I think that it was to be reopened it would need a change of personnel on the modding side for this particular thread imho to rebuild confidence on a balanced discussion on an important topic. All imho of course.

Boggles

AlekSmart wrote: »

I'm not a Daily Mail reader

You are right, the Daily Express and Daily Mirror are your "tipple" of choice.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Circulation c.1.500,000 per day.

Since when has perceived popularity automatically equated to veracity?

Bill O'Reilly had the most popular cable news show on American TV for 15 years, doesn't negate the fact he was a lying racist sex pest.

Snake Plisken wrote: »

it always seemed to me that those on the left of the arguement are pretty quick to use the report button rather then debate the points made Boggles post above confirms that attitude and his opinion of those who has opposing views.

I am far from "left" but it is amazing how you can get branded it so easily just because you don't subscribe to ignorance and bigotry.

Also I'm on the site 14 odd years, couldn't tell you where the report button is.

But keeping making those assumptions, you are knocking them out of the park.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

With all respect, your personal views on the subject (from a quick read over some of your posts on the topic and indeed the way you phrased the above) are colouring your opinion on the validity of the thread itself

If I offered you a grand, I bet you couldn't accurately describe my personal views on the topic from that thread. It's one of the problems and another reason it should remain shut.

---

Anyway since this is feedback here are my suggestions.

1. Soccer Access request system - not perfect but should cut down on the once off loons who launch a grenade into a thread and p?ss off.

2. Massive clampdown and hefty bans on links and sites that are quite easily verified as lies, especially in threads which discuss contentious issues.

3. I know it is kind of policy all ready, but if a mod is heavily involved in a discussion on thread, they absolve themselves from modding duties.

My 3 cent.

Beasty

Just on the soccer access process, perhaps I should clarify that is predominantly to encourage/force posters to read what has become a very prescriptive charter. In fact very few posters get rejected unless they have a particularly poor record in the forum already or possibly elsewhere on the site, assuming they follow the process correctly.

I guess my question therefore is would you want something like this, which arguably still requires the mods to be very active in modding (and possibly ejecting posters), or would it be a case of posters having to show a pattern of relevant/positive contributions before being given access? That in itself could result in accusations of mod bias in deciding who gets access.

Boggles

Beasty wrote: »

Just on the soccer access process, perhaps I should clarify that is predominantly to encourage/force posters to read what has become a very prescriptive charter. In fact very few posters get rejected unless they have a particularly poor record in the forum already or possibly elsewhere on the site, assuming they follow the process correctly.

I guess my question therefore is would you want something like this, which arguably still requires the mods to be very active in modding (and possibly ejecting posters), or would it be a case of posters having to show a pattern of relevant/positive contributions before being given access? That in itself could result in accusations of mod bias in deciding who gets access.

Does the Soccer Access process work and make the Soccer Forum better?

IF the answer is yes, then why not implement it.

The details of how you can get access can be teased out, but I would propose something similar as exists in that forum.

If the answer is No, forget about it.

gallag

Question. What percentage of pc mods are of a left/centre left political outlook.

Question. What percentage of people being banned/carded etc are of a right/centre right outlook.

The problem is very simple.

AlekSmart

Boggles wrote: »

You are right, the Daily Express and Daily Mirror are your "tipple" of choice.

My tipple of choice ...?

Is it your position that posters disregard media outlets which do not conform to your requirements as to choice ?

Since when has perceived popularity automatically equated to veracity?

I don't know how you arrived at the Popularity=Veractity conclusion,except,perhaps by unconscious bias...or covert bigotry towards those who won't comply ?

Bill O'Reilly had the most popular cable news show on American TV for 15 years, doesn't negate the fact he was a lying racist sex pest.

Is he seeking to migrate into Europe ?

I am far from "left" but it is amazing how you can get branded it so easily just because you don't subscribe to ignorance and bigotry.

Also I'm on the site 14 odd years, couldn't tell you where the report button is.

But keeping making those assumptions, you are knocking them out of the park.

+1 on the report button.

If I offered you a grand, I bet you couldn't accurately describe my personal views on the topic from that thread. It's one of the problems and another reason it should remain shut.

---

Anyway since this is feedback here are my suggestions.

1. Soccer Access request system - not perfect but should cut down on the once off loons who launch a grenade into a thread and p?ss off.

2. Massive clampdown and hefty bans on links and sites that are quite easily verified as lies, especially in threads which discuss contentious issues.

3. I know it is kind of policy all ready, but if a mod is heavily involved in a discussion on thread, they absolve themselves from modding duties.

My 3 cent.

Are you suggesting that other posters on the thread,who may be dissenters from your "personal views",are therefore to be condescendingly slapped down,or otherwise denied their opportunity to put their views forward ?

Your personal views are exactly that,relevant to yourself,and totally within your own power to reveal or conceal as you wish.
Posters can only respond or debate on the posted views of contributors,which is exactly what most contributors to the Thread have been doing.

I'd take one of your cents however..the third one,although I would suggest it is far from being any "kind of" policy already.

Point number 2,is particularly contentious for me,as it strongly suggests that the "easy" verification process for "acceptable" media will be required to follow your own interpretation of the term "Acceptable" ...and perhaps even,"Easily" .

If verification of anything to do with the Thread Title was "Easy" then it's very likely the Thread would never have been required in the first place.

However,verification of identity,background and possible intent remains a VERY significant part of the Threads discussions.....yet that appears to be deemed unacceptable ?

Strange policy for a Discussion Board ?

Boggles

AlekSmart wrote: »

Is it your position that posters disregard media outlets which do not conform to your requirements as to choice ?

No just ones that print lies.

I hardly think it is a radical policy TBF.

You are over thinking it.

AlekSmart

gallag wrote: »

Question. What percentage of pc mods are of a left/centre left political outlook.

Question. What percentage of people being banned/carded etc are of a right/centre right outlook.

The problem is very simple.

The very methodology used in this case is somewhat cynical I feel.

Posters such as myself are infracted,banned or whatever.

It usually stems from a post replying to,or otherwise challenging a posted statement,rather than from a Thread Starting Post.

Once the immediacy of the discussion has been halted,the business of shutting down the discussion is quickly dealt with.

One only has to look at the Two threads (One locked !) on Feedback relating to the Moderation of the E.U. Migration thread to see how debatable the core issue actually is.

To paraphrase one of our greatest living statesmen ( )..... "It's not going to go away,y'know "

I'll just get my coat.

AlekSmart

Boggles wrote: »

No just ones that print lies.

I hardly think it is a radical policy TBF.

You are over thinking it.

Succinct and to the point.

Still does'nt strike me as any form of "Policy"...radical or otherwise,as it relies on Your undoubtedly well-tuned ability,to detect and filter these lies...other posters may prefer to allowed perform that filtering for themselves...or to put it another way,to be left to decide their own levels of thought,rather than one randomly imposed on them.

Boggles

AlekSmart wrote: »

Succinct and to the point.

Still does'nt strike me as any form of "Policy"...radical or otherwise,

It all ready was a sub forum policy.

4. No making claims without a reputable source to back up what you are referencing.

My Feedback is it should be in the overall charter and stringently enforced.

I honestly can't see how this is confusing you.

Phoebas

Beasty wrote: »

Just on the soccer access process, perhaps I should clarify that is predominantly to encourage/force posters to read what has become a very prescriptive charter. In fact very few posters get rejected unless they have a particularly poor record in the forum already or possibly elsewhere on the site, assuming they follow the process correctly.

I guess my question therefore is would you want something like this, which arguably still requires the mods to be very active in modding (and possibly ejecting posters), or would it be a case of posters having to show a pattern of relevant/positive contributions before being given access? That in itself could result in accusations of mod bias in deciding who gets access.

I think there is a big risk that this would result in the same bad tempered trench warfare that we currently see in Politics Cafe, but just done by people who are more committed to it.

A step in exactly the wrong direction in my view.

Beasty

Boggles wrote: »

Does the Soccer Access process work and make the Soccer Forum better?

IF the answer is yes, then why not implement it.

The details of how you can get access can be teased out, but I would propose something similar as exists in that forum.

If the answer is No, forget about it.

I think it does, as it means posters know they are, for want of a better term, "on licence". Hence although we continue to see a lot of tribalism it's not a free for all that it perhaps once was

Just to add though we did open it up to all users during the past 2 international tournaments, although there were not major incidents resulting. I guess there is a risk though of more substantial cliques forming amongst those who have had access for some time, possibly turning against newer members.

It's a process that has been in place for some time and thinking about it (and to be clear I really don't want this thread to turn into a dissection of that process within the Soccer forum), given some of the issues raised in this and previous Feedback threads on PC, maybe it is a way to retain that forum without it descending in the way it sometimes appears to. Having said that I really have little direct experience of posting in the Café and am largely going on what I'm seeing in these Feedback threads

Lovely Bloke

Boggles wrote: »

It all ready was a sub forum policy.



My Feedback is it should be in the overall charter and stringently enforced.

I honestly can't see how this is confusing you.

Because when it comes down to it, the mods can decide for themselves what constitutes a reputable source.

I had one moderator post a claim without a source, then when I asked for one she started quoting me some rubbish from 2004 (two thousand and FOUR, 13 years ago )ago in this publication, then when I called her on that, another mod carded and banned me for "baiting" because I was calling out the source as being utter rubbish

I'm not disputing the card because I'll be labelled a timesink, but unless you post an exhaustive list of what is and is not a "reputable source" then you'll get mods abusing power like that. It was like a tag-team effort by the pair of them, bait me into reacting, card me and eventually ban me, or get a Admin to start saying I'm a timesink.

It's insidious stuff like that, buried inside threads, that leads to this kind of feeling.

Incident is in-and-around this post

There's an example of mods riding roughshod over the rules, then carding and banning me for the same incident for calling them out.

Boggles

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

Because when it comes down to it, the mods can decide for themselves what constitutes a reputable source.

It should be up to the poster basing their opinion on a source that first and foremost ensures that information is accurate and reputable.

I'll give you an example from the same thread.

63 out of a million employed, and not in construction BTW.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...en-door-policy

Even a quick glance suggests it's a complete BS article which is designed simply to vilify Merkel and "Migrants". The British Tabloids as a rule are all agenda and no evidence.

I spent time trying to explain it here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102989636&postcount=1721

IMO that poster should be banned for quite some time.

It is a tactic that was widespread on that thread.

Throwing in some nonsensical link, when challenged on it - they disappear.

AlekSmart

Boggles wrote: »

It should be up to the poster basing their opinion on a source that first and foremost ensures that information is accurate and reputable.

I'll give you an example from the same thread.

Even a quick glance suggests it's a complete BS article which is designed simply to vilify Merkel and "Migrants". The British Tabloids as a rule are all agenda and no evidence.

I spent time trying to explain it here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102989636&postcount=1721

IMO that poster should be banned for quite some time.

It is a tactic that was widespread on that thread.

Throwing in some nonsensical link, when challenged on it - they disappear.

It appears to be a recurrent theme that "British Tabloids" of themselves are to be banned from Boards references.

All well and good,if that banning an be shown to be based upon good reason.

In this instance,even if drawing Boggles ire,I fully stand by the relevance of the articles to further add to the essence of the debate...Having read them,readers are then,"as a rule",presumably free to draw their own conclusions from these articles.

I have indeed,in line with Boggles opinion,been banned for quite some time,so one can assume that that phase of the programme is proceeding well,with the locking of the thread potentially being phase 2......the issue may well turn out to be..."Where next for Boards" in the event that the restrictions on free thought,expression and debate can be enforced across the spectrum of issues approved for debate.

In the years since I joined Boards,I have rarely seen such a concerted campaign to force a change of direction,by dictat,using what I would consider, the flimsiest of pretences that U.K. Media outlets are poisoning the minds of our people.

Boggles

AlekSmart wrote: »

It appears to be a recurrent theme that "British Tabloids" of themselves are to be banned from Boards references.

Well No.

Posters who link their opinion to mendacious articles should be banned and for a long time IMO. Per example above.

You seem to want to argue the virtues of the British Tabloids, that's a conversation you will have to have without me.

AlekSmart

Boggles wrote: »

Well No.

Posters who link their opinion to mendacious articles should be banned and for a long time IMO. Per example above.

You seem to want to argue the virtues of the British Tabloids, that's a conversation you will have to have without me.

It appears to be a requirement for you to assign intent to posters where none is evident or intended.

You have repeatedly and with some gusto brought up the issue of what Media Organs are acceptable as reference sources to YOU.

All well and good,and perfectly acceptable.

However,you appear to be singularly intent upon enforcing your laudable standards upon the greater mass of Boards posters,many of whom link to such outlets because they exist as widely circulated and read in the real world.

You may well denounce such organs,and I would support your right to do so,but,you Cannot deny a greater body of posters their absolute right to consider ALL published opinions and then,come to their own conclusions about them.

How on Earth you take this to be "arguing the virtues of British Tabloids",for the moment escapes me,but I believe it is far healthier for these issues to be debated within the original thread,rather than the rarified Feedback location.

I've little doubt that others will feel inclined to continue the discussion in your,entirely voluntary absence,as there is considerable interest in the topic,a reality which is very obvious at this juncture.

Boggles

AlekSmart wrote: »

It appears to be a requirement for you to assign intent to posters where none is evident or intended.

You have repeatedly and with some gusto brought up the issue of what Media Organs are acceptable as reference sources to YOU.

All well and good,and perfectly acceptable.

However,you appear to be singularly intent upon enforcing your laudable standards upon the greater mass of Boards posters,many of whom link to such outlets because they exist as widely circulated and read in the real world.

You may well denounce such organs,and I would support your right to do so,but,you Cannot deny a greater body of posters their absolute right to consider ALL published opinions and then,come to their own conclusions about them.

How on Earth you take this to be "arguing the virtues of British Tabloids",for the moment escapes me,but I believe it is far healthier for these issues to be debated within the original thread,rather than the rarified Feedback location.

I've little doubt that others will feel inclined to continue the discussion in your,entirely voluntary absence,as there is considerable interest in the topic,a reality which is very obvious at this juncture.

I'll be honest, I haven't a Scooby Doo what you are talking about.

weisses

AlekSmart wrote: »

It appears to be a requirement for you to assign intent to posters where none is evident or intended.

You have repeatedly and with some gusto brought up the issue of what Media Organs are acceptable as reference sources to YOU.

All well and good,and perfectly acceptable.

However,you appear to be singularly intent upon enforcing your laudable standards upon the greater mass of Boards posters,many of whom link to such outlets because they exist as widely circulated and read in the real world.

You may well denounce such organs,and I would support your right to do so,but,you Cannot deny a greater body of posters their absolute right to consider ALL published opinions and then,come to their own conclusions about them.

How on Earth you take this to be "arguing the virtues of British Tabloids",for the moment escapes me,but I believe it is far healthier for these issues to be debated within the original thread,rather than the rarified Feedback location.

I've little doubt that others will feel inclined to continue the discussion in your,entirely voluntary absence,as there is considerable interest in the topic,a reality which is very obvious at this juncture.

On more then one occasion i pointed out with facts/data how the daily mail is not a good source for trustworthy content, it took me not more then 5 minutes to poke holes in it, you can form an opinion/reach conclusion on its content, but that doesn't mean its a valid one, just seem to be lazy copy pasting from a crap source ... Is that how you want to have a discussion ?

dudara

AlekSmart & Boggles - can we move on from this discussion please? You've both made your points, and I'd like to keep this thread open to all for more feedback.

Thanks
dudara

dudara

Lovely Bloke given one week off from Feedback for continuing to soapbox and ignore mod instruction.

dudara

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Yourself isit

It seems to me that boards is becoming a cold house for many different groups.

Irish Republicans. - Alex Smart etc
Unionists - Gallag is gone
Immigration restrictionists
The PBP supporters. See the travails of jolly red giant
People who link to tabloids or "unacceptable" news as loosely defined by boggles.
Pro Trump posters.

From my own experience too much criticism of modern American foreign policy can get you in trouble or at least threads ended.

That's a lot of the potential posting constituency which is going to go elsewhere. What's left is a sorta bastard version of Americanised liberalism -- at a time when liberalism is not the choice word for these intolerant shysters but it's what is used.

(Anti feminism is tolerated more for some reason, maybe it all depends on the number of people reporting posts and there aren't that many women).

gandalf

The problem with the Politics Cafe is a symptom of what is wrong with boards. Just because some people cannot discuss politics or emotive divisive issues the boards hierarchy feels the need to cater for them. Then when they do it is such a half hearted mess it still effects the forum it was supposed to save, After Hours it guts the actual Politics forum and we are all in here complaining about it again.

I have no issue discussing emotive subjects with people of varying viewpoints but I do take issue wasting my time with those who cannot back up what they say or those that resort to throwing labels or soundbites. The Politics Cafe is not fit for purpose and tbh having a light touch moderation on somewhere that will contain divisive issues from my experience does not work. Yes you will drive away a percentage of users but I would counter by saying you will attract those who do want to discuss politics and related subjects in an intelligent manner.

_Kaiser_

I feel the need once again to say that this shouldn't become an "opportunity" to resuscitate Politics by gutting the Cafe. If Politics has lost traffic then that's a different issue as by the logic above, many of the threads and posts in the Cafe wouldn't fit there anyway - and again the core issue of the Cafe are down to a handful of users and some occasionally suspect moderation.

These can be dealt with without closing the forum entirely.

gandalf

I disagree with you and I am not advocating "gutting" the Politics Cafe I am saying it should be taken into the woods with a shovel, beaten to death and buried

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

_Kaiser_

gandalf wrote: »

I disagree with you and I am not advocating "gutting" the Politics Cafe I am saying it should be taken into the woods with a shovel, beaten to death and buried

And with respect, it's this opportunistic grab to bury a forum the Politics regulars never liked or bought into because of some problem users and mod decisions that I have a problem with

If you are right though, then surely those who wanted to discuss political issues in a more "mature" setting would have avoided the Cafe entirely?

Rather I think the Cafe is a reflection of a more younger, tech-literate, userbase who are used to the simplified structure of a Facebook/Twitter post, yet who have been directly affected by political and economic decisions in the last decade and want somewhere to express it.. and AH/the Cafe offers that to to them - hence their popularity.

Those users won't migrate to the more heavily-regulated Politics forum.. they'll just go elsewhere.

Which is why, as I said, there's room for both.. it's a big site!

_Kaiser_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This has nothing to do with the Cafe and more to do with Politics IMO. As per my reply above, there's 2 different target audiences involved and thus it doesn't follow that most will just move to Politics instead

Permabear

This post has been deleted.