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

Alf Stewart.

Even if Politics Cafe were shut down, that would not restore the posting community that once existed in Politics. And it wouldn't resolve the problems repeatedly identified in these Feedback threads, either, because those who have long engaged in negative posting habits in Politics Cafe will try to carry on in the same vein elsewhere.

Very much debatable.

This is the problem you see. I would consider myself a fairly decent poster across the site in general. The only cards or bans I've racked up over the years here have been in politics forums (either the cafe, or the main forum)

Politcs is a contentious issue. Obviously it's gonna divide opinions, people are always going to disagreed on much of it.

I don't believe the cafe needs to be nuked, if the main forum traffic is down, that's due to people choosing to post in the caf instead. I don't have any survey results that would indicate why, but my guess would be that they find the lighter moderated, less stuffy - more casual style of the caf to be more appealing. Forcing people into a forum they don't want to be in is never going to be popular, or accepted.

It's the confusion and inconsistency surrounding the "rules" that is half the problem. Just scanned a few threads today, and i can see more than several instances of posters indulging in what others have been carded or banned for previously, with complete impunity. Many within the same threads.

These negative posters are only negative sometimes, going by the aove. ^^

Jawgap

My own view is that the Cafe has run its course......there's nothing lighthearted about the discussions there and especially when mods are so active posting there (not as mods, but as posters) - I don't see how someone can objectively moderate a discussion where they have initiated the thread and/or they account for a significant number of the posts therein.

I reckon we reached 'peak-mod' recently when the first page of a thread, started by a mod had 6 of the 15 posts made by three different mods!

.....and just now, I posted on one thread - two replies quoting me, both mods! Personally, I'm just going to leave them to it.

....and woe betide the person who posts anything satirical in the Cafe

The irony that the likes of Frank Hall (Hall's Pictorial Weekly), Dermot Morgan (Scrap Saturday) and Kevin McAleer (Nighthawks) would be quickly banned from the Cafe for satirising politicians in the way they did, should not be lost

dudara

Hi all,

Over the next few days, I plan to aggregate all the feedback from this thread and kick off some discussions at different levels. So this is a final call for posters to share their feedback and suggestions.

dudara

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

blackwhite

I think that Permabears last point gets to the heart of some of the recent problems that PC has been having (or perceived to be having).
On what seems to be a daily basis you can see 2/3 mods engaging in discussion in a manner identical to what gets infracted in other threads.
In the past week, for example, we've a mod who claims that FF and FG are controlled by a global conspiracy similar to the Bilderberg conspiracies, whilst on the same thread posters were infracted for speculating about IRA control of SF. I fully appreciate the need to eliminate the SF/IRA baiting that goes on far too often, but when you then have a mod engaging in similar it doesn't exactly set a great example, and certainly gives an impression of double standards at play.

One of the last feedback threads RE the Cafe included a mod summarising the types of bad posting style that were dragging the cafe down. Quite simply, their post unfortunately summarised the posting style of plenty of problem posters, but also of a couple of their fellow mods. It's very hard to say "this isn't acceptable behaviour" when the example set by some of the mod team is exactly that behaviour.

Separately, as someone who rarely posts in the immigration threads but lurks in them a bit, there's a distinct impression that the "burden of proof" requirements are far more regularly invoked towards one side of debate that the other. that's an impression only made worse (rightly or wrongly, the problem is perception), that the mods who actually post in the thread all post from a similar perspective RE immigration.
I'm generally pro-immigration (with some controls/caveats) but even to me it seems that on those threads it's the posters I disagree with the most who seem to be subjected to the strictest possible interpretation of the rules.

Kivaro

I echo Permabear's sentiment about this well-moderated feedback thread, and wholeheartedly agree with his final point for the need of mod impartially, especially in PC.
I believe that if posters are carded/banned by a moderator who has exhibited fairness in a thread, then those cards/bans would probably be accepted as justifiable by posters; and hence less follow-up feedback/helpdesk/dispute resolution threads.

pontoonz

i posted on post calling enda kenny a snarey headed kkunt and got instantly banned,

no free speech

Zaph

pontoonz wrote: »

i posted on post calling enda kenny a snarey headed kkunt and got instantly banned,

no free speech

1 - Boards is a private site and therefore there is no automatic right to "free speech".

2 - If you act the dick expect to be treated accordingly.

pontoonz

Zaph wrote: »

1 - Boards is a private site and therefore there is no automatic right to "free speech".

2 - If you act the dick expect to be treated accordingly.

ya not complaining, got the rundown from mod,

just saying

Jawgap

I'd generally agree with @Permabear's assessment above.

Modding needs to be consistent and fair, and be seen to be so - and when you have mods that are nakedly political (and there are at least 2 in PC) then it doesn't give confidence that matters will be handled fairly or consistently - and this is only reinforced when there are clear examples of inconsistent and, on the face of it, biased modding.

I know it's a difficult and fine line to tread, but there also needs to be some acknowledgement that there is a certain amount of 'rough and tumble' in political discourse outside the formal debating fora, and it has always been thus. Banning words, phrases etc is, in most instances, just ridiculous especially when the words etc being banned appear in the 'traditional' media, or are used by political correspondents (especially in their 'sketch' pieces) or are used by party leaders to self-describe themselves and their party's followers.

Politics is well modded, with clear standards that set expectations for a quality of informed debate - it is the Senate! If you are going to make the PC more like Politics then you might as well just get rid of it.....in political terms it should be the Plebeian Council (some wider scope for political discussion, clear boundaries and objectively fair modding).....AH can be the vulgar mob!

rgossip30

dudara wrote: »

hatrickpatrick- thanks for posting this and giving us your thoughts. Right now, I think the topic of the Café is very emotive, both for mods and posters alike. I honestly feel that we need to step back for a while and give all this some time to percolate. Many mods and others are not very active (if at all) this weekend, for obvious reasons.

The comments from the earlier thread have been heard loud and clear and I'm genuinely not sure if further criticism at this point will achieve anything. The only way I can see this thread remaining open is if posters give us genuine suggestions or potential solutions . We've had enough of hearing what's wrong, we can all see that. It's clear that a lot of posters care, but I'm asking you now to help us in our discussions by putting constructive solutions on the table.

Go to politics.ie

AlekSmart

The locking of the E.U immigration thread remains the causative feature of this Feedback thread.
It also continues to feature in general discussion elsewhere outside of this Forum.
It is to be hoped that the Great & Good of Moderation will soon reopen it.

Alf Stewart.

More questionable moderation going on in the cafe there as past few days, apart from the incident where upon my posts got deleted by a mod because they were "potentially libellous" despite what I was posting was the findings of the Moriarty Tribunal yet accusations that labelled people as murderers weren't snipped, or edited and the poster unactioned for it.

Tonight I am on the receiving end of yet another ban, for standing my ground with the same mid I suspect deleted my posts (as no one ever admitted doing so, nor had the courtesy of pming me explaining why)

The ban comes as a direct result of this thread which centres around bullying accusations.

It would appear to me that the particular mod, may have intentionally have been seeking some kind of reaction from posters, and even seemed a bit disappointed when he didn't get it, as can be seen in this post, where he asks for examples of similar problems within party's, and expresses his surprise at posters not wanting to take the bait so to speak.

I'm surprised that a party that would be quick to fight for the workers is the only one that I am reading about that has employment relations problems.
Feel free to show me similar reports relating to other political parties and I'll acknowledge them.
It is still unusual for the usual SF supporters to be so quiet. Do they disagree with the actions taken by HQ against the SF personnel?

When pointed out to him, that due to previous threads where examples have been given of comparable situations, the usual cries of whataboutery and deflection ensue, and of course when they where given, the cries ensued.

And you've asked for similar examples of internal party fallout, but when they're given, cries of "whataboutery" and claims of wanting to drag a thread off topic ensues, so maybe posters think, "what's the fcuking point"?

The same mod goes on to ask questions, that he was provided straight, and polite answers to, yet tried to claim he had "struck a nerve" despite no poster showing any sign of anything other than courteous answers to his questions, which looked to me, like a clear attempt at stirring or goading.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103415608&postcount=116

Roll on to this morning, and same mod and me are hammering it out, and the offensive post that earned me my bam is this one.

In it I specifically give the mod direct comparisons to his own scenarios that he had listed in.his thread. Employment bother, female politicians claiming bullying forced them from a party and so on.

This particular part earned me my two week ban by the way.

The OP (A forum moderator) set the terms of the thread by citing bullying allegations within a particular party (Sinn Fein) and asked, rather specifically if other party's were subject to the same alleged bullying problems.

Couple of posts in, another poster mentions FG, to which someone questions why they were bringing up another party, when pointed out that the op asked if these allegations existed in other party's, the poster complained and got a month off for his troubles, and the craic.

Now, in that post I am apparently discussing moderator action. Despite the fact that it's arguing moderator actions that are against the charter

Charter wrote:

Do not argue moderator actions on thread, please pm one of the mod team with any questions.

Apart from the moderator been given comparable situations which he asked for, and more or less dismissing them out of hand.

Creighton too. I profoundly dislike her. However she stood under the party banner buy wouldn't follow the party policies. I don't believe that she felt bullied rather than felt alone because she wouldn't follow the policies she signed up to and helped negotiate. She was free to challenge the leadership and then set her own policies. She didn't. She was free to make up her own mind and in the end, she did.

Apart from the complete and utter attempt at Rewriting history, and redefining what may or may not be considered "bullying", and what is considered "bullying etiquette" there's quite clearly some backroom conniving and scheming going on there to shut a counter argument to a moderator opened thread down, and if I'm honest, downright dodgy and suspect moderation in general.

I reckon my time on boards is nearing it's conclusion. I'm relatively ban and infraction free over a few accounts going back eleven years bar the ones I receive which are directly connected to politics.

It stinks if I'm honest.

dudara

Alf - with all due respect, if you want to discuss a specific mod action against you, please take it to DRP, assuming that you have tried and failed to resolve it with the mod via PM.

Alf Stewart.

dudara wrote: »

Alf - with all due respect, if you want to discuss a specific mod action against you, please take it to DRP, assuming that you have tried and failed to resolve it with the mod via PM.

I'm not arguing the mod action, I'll take the ban dudara, but I think its clear to see that when a mod isn't winning an argument. Your card can and will be marked.

Forget the technicalities of arguing the specific wording of the charter.

When asking for similar scenarios of bullying, and when given direct links to same, dismissing them out of hand isn't on.

Banned a few hours later = :cool:

Zaph

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

I'm not arguing the mod action

Well no, actually you are or you wouldn't be giving out about it here. So you either take it to DRP or you stop moaning about it here, the choice is yours.

Alf Stewart.

Zaph wrote: »

Well no, actually you are or you wouldn't be giving out about it here. So you either take it to DRP or you stop moaning about it here, the choice is yours.

If I was arguing it I'd take it to feedback zaph. So far as I can tell this is a feedback thread.

Feedback can be positive or negative.

Negative feedback doesn't specifically mean moaning.

Know the difference.

TherapyBoy

If you're "taking the ban" then take the ban.

If you're not, take it to DRP.

Know the difference.

Zaph

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

If I was arguing it I'd take it to feedback zaph. So far as I can tell this is a feedback thread.

Feedback can be positive or negative.

Negative feedback doesn't specifically mean moaning.

Know the difference.

No, what's happened here is that you've picked up a ban that you probably believe is indefensible in DRP, so you're using this forum to soapbox about it and play the martyr here. Negative feedback is one thing, this however is clearly moaning, and I can tell the difference.

Alf Stewart.

Zaph wrote: »

No, what's happened here is that you've picked up a ban that you probably believe is indefensible in DRP, so you're using this forum to soapbox about it and play the martyr here. Negative feedback is one thing, this however is clearly moaning, and I can tell the difference.

No, what I'm providing are facts that led to the ban.

Let's move on from the ban so, there's obvious background conniving going on there, the site is losing posters hand over foot, and there's little to no (at least visual) evidence that anything is changing to stop it.

The moderating going on in that forum is completely and utterly suss.

So many feedback threads telling you lot so is testament to that fact.

Zaph

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

No, what I'm providing are facts that led to the ban.

The facts from your point of view, which is essentially disputing the ban, no matter how you want to dress it up, so you can knock it off with the semantics, I'm not buying it.

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Let's move on from the ban so, there's obvious background conniving going on there

That's a serious allegation, so I'm giving you one chance now to either retract it or back it up. Failure to do either will result in a ban from this forum.

Alf Stewart.

Zaph wrote: »

The facts from your point of view, which is essentially disputing the ban, no matter how you want to dress it up, so you can knock it off with the semantics, I'm not buying it.

My point of view is as valid as your point of view.

However I have stated multiple times now that I'm not disputing the ban. I am using this forum for which it was intended.

Providing feedback, just because it's negative feedback, it doesn't come back to me "soapboxing" or "moaning".

I will also add that I previously commented on a ban earlier in this thread, yet was not subjected to the same accusations and criticism as these.

More inconsistencies.

That's a serious allegation, so I'm giving you one chance now to either retract it or back it up. Failure to do either will result in a ban from this forum.

I am not privy to what is going on in the background, so cannot possibly "back it up". Why you would ask me to do so is strange tbh.

However I will retract my opinion as I'm apparently not allowed to have one for fear of being banned.

dudara

darced - post deleted as it was not offering any feedback.

dudara

hatrickpatrick

It would appear that this thread is getting us nowhere at all.

Straight question; will there or will there not be a clarification on what political ideologies are and are not allowed in the Cafe or even on Boards in general?

For instance: is the EU migrant crisis essentially a banned subject on the grounds that the political belief in closed borders or in cultural nationalism is regarded as too offensive a belief to be aired on Boards? Straight, simple answer - yes or no?

Because as others have pointed out, there is currently no thread for people to discuss this subject, after the last one was closed following a spate of unsuccessful attempts at micromanagement.

And once again, I haven't even participated in the aforementioned thread, I'm making these observations as somebody who's just concerned about the future of political debate on this site if everyone with certain political persuasions is essentially driven away, or certain extremely topical and oft-discussed subjects are unofficially banned from the site.

Not since the days of "discussing literally any event or concert involving MCD Promotions is a bannable offense" have we seen such a prolonged period of hyper moderation with regard to a particular subject - and yet the difference is, in that case there were numerous official announcements about it and words related to MCD and Oxegen were banned from messages and blocked such messages from being posted in the first place, so there was absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever about what was and was not allowed.

Tokyo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It would appear that this thread is getting us nowhere at all.

As a result of this thread, we're requesting user input in terms of suggestions and amendments to the Cafe forum charter here.

rgossip30

Zaph wrote: »

The facts from your point of view, which is essentially disputing the ban, no matter how you want to dress it up, so you can knock it off with the semantics, I'm not buying it.



That's a serious allegation, so I'm giving you one chance now to either retract it or back it up. Failure to do either will result in a ban from this forum.

Lesson never debate or challenge a mod you undermine his 'power' .Mods should not take part in debates if so they should not be able to give bans .
Ironic how other web forums have little or no moderation and function without a problem . ?

B_Wayne

rgossip30 wrote: »

Lesson never debate or challenge a mod you undermine his 'power' .Mods should not take part in debates if so they should not be able to give bans .
Ironic how other web forums have little or no moderation and function without a problem . ?

Given the scale of boards.ie, not having moderation would be pretty impossible.

ancapailldorcha

rgossip30 wrote: »

Lesson never debate or challenge a mod you undermine his 'power' .Mods should not take part in debates if so they should not be able to give bans .
Ironic how other web forums have little or no moderation and function without a problem . ?

It's only mod warnings that aren't meant to be challenged.

If by other websites, you're referring to Facebook pages and subreddits which are basically collections of echo chambers then I don't think that that is something to aspire to.

Beasty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's only mod warnings that aren't meant to be challenged.

Of course, any mod warning can be challenged, just not in-thread as that results in a discussion of the rules rather than the underlying topic. It's nothing to so with "undermining power"

If posters have an issue with a mod warning they can take it to PM with the mod in question. If not satisfied there's always the Help Desk, or they can contact one of the relevant CMods

rgossip30

B_Wayne wrote: »

Given the scale of boards.ie, not having moderation would be pretty impossible.

A thread without mods as an experiment has it ever been done .

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2011/10/26/i-had-it-all-then-i-blew-itsacked-boards-ie-moderator-tells-all/

A little reminder if one has not seen before .