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

Alf Stewart.

Byron Chilly Haze wrote: »

No, there's actually a "Reported Posts" forum, when you report a post a thread is automatically generated there "Post Reported By USERXXXX in FORUMYYYYYY"

It's a subforum of the moderator forum, and the threads are open and can be commented upon. A mod might stick a note in the thread "actioned" or "had a look, don't think there's any action warranted.

All subsequent reports of the same post are appended to the thread also, afair.

Cheers bot, never realised that, I guess there's actually a lot of transparency and openness going on behind the scenes than many of us realised.

Tokyo

Alf, I realise you are in the middle of a forum ban, but if you have any contributions you'd like to make to the Politics Cafe Charter Suggestions and Amendments thread, which has taken on board points made by you and others in feedback, and is working towards a solution, feel free to PM them on to me and I'll post them in the thread for consideration. Regardless of the ban, as a regular contributor to the Cafe, your input would be appreciated.

neverever1

Is it mod policy to hound a poster for sources on the politics cafe forum? But only if they disagree with the poster of course.

Zaph

neverever1 wrote: »

Is it mod policy to hound a poster for sources on the politics cafe forum? But only if they disagree with the poster of course.

You already have a thread in the Help Desk, so please confine your comments regarding moderation ​to that thread to make things easier to follow.

steddyeddy

I've only noticed a problem with it recently. There's a mod who is active in the forum discussion who seems to issue warnings about arguments in disagreements. It's a bad road to go down.

steddyeddy

Sorry guys. I just re-read that and realised it didn't make any sense. Long day at the job. I meant to write that the mod in question uses his position as mod to card people he/she disagrees with. The mod enters the debate (nothing wrong that at all) and cards or threathens to card those who disagree with him/her.

It's a good forum and it would be a shame to go down this route.

Seth Brundle

Steddyeddy, I can only assume you are referring to me as I previously gave you a warning for trolling and tonight I gave you a thread ban for posting off topic despite multiple warnings in that thread of such an action. You chose to raise a comment about bankers in a welfare fraud thread with no attempt to join the dots between the two.

Just to add, the actions taken against yourself were preceeded by ordinary members reporting your posts. The action taken against you would in all likelihood have occurred even if it had not been me that carried it out.

However in both cases where I modded against your posts, my decisions were made impartially and had nothing to do with any input I had made personally in the thread.
To be honest, I'm not even sure when I last posted in the thread you "contributed" to tonight let alone sought some kind of vengeance against a differing opinion. Either way, I can separate personal opinion from moderator calls.

However if you could provide an example of where I used "cards or threathens to card those who disagree with" me personally I'll happily hold my hands up and apologise before letting the cmods and admins decide on it.

_Kaiser_

So folks, has a decision been made on whether Boards is going to allow the discussion of the migrant/asylum seeker situation yet?

Skimming the Cafe this morning and I see a new thread on the topic "locked for review" since yesterday evening. While not the most eloquent OP, the first response is classic nonsense and it's clear that the desire/need to discuss the issue hasn't gone away.

Any updates? Apologies if I've missed one elsewhere

hatrickpatrick

I'm pretty close to giving up on it to be honest, Kaiser. I've literally never seen another forum which attempts to confine threads into such a narrow straitjacket of discussion that they get "locked for review" every two days. Hell, moderators of professional debates on something like Prime Time or Vincent Browne would allow more natural conversational drift than Boards does at this stage.

hatrickpatrick

If the Cafe was a rugby forum:

Welcome to the Pro 12 final thread, a place for lively and interesting discussion of Saturday's clash between Munster v Scarlets!

Before we get started, a few friendly reminders:

-You may not discuss which team played better - Scarlets won, there is no further discussion to be had.

-You may not discuss other past or future matches in this league or involving these teams - stick to the topic at hand, please!

-You may not discuss the performance of individual players from either team - there is a risk of this getting out of hand.

-You may not discuss the techniques and tactics employed by either team - this could descend into personal abuse, and furthermore there is a slight risk of litigation.

-You may not discuss the refereeing of the match - referees are immune from criticism and can do no wrong.

-You may not discuss attendance at the match - these statistics are not open to discussion.

-You may not discuss the weather during the game - this may offend climatologists, meteorologists, the department of the environment, and above all the players who may be offended by the insinuation that the weather might have affected their performance.

-There may be other matters which, at the discretion of the moderators, may be subsequently banned from discussion

Apart from this, enjoy your thread and please have as comprehensive a discussion of the match as you would like! :pac:

rgossip30

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So folks, has a decision been made on whether Boards is going to allow the discussion of the migrant/asylum seeker situation yet?

Skimming the Cafe this morning and I see a new thread on the topic "locked for review" since yesterday evening. While not the most eloquent OP, the first response is classic nonsense and it's clear that the desire/need to discuss the issue hasn't gone away.

Any updates? Apologies if I've missed one elsewhere

Try politics.ie

A new thread could be started where only positive posts about asylum seekers and refugees are allowed . Links would still apply of course .

neverever1

I've reported mods of the politics cafe for bullying and I received messages from others saying they have been victims also. Despite saying that they take bullying seriously, nothing has been done, I mean I have received no response about it!
With this happening added to what we see above, why are the mods in question let do this? Is this approved behaviour from those higher up the boards.ie food chain?

Boards.ie: Mark

Hi neverever1, please give the mods some time to review this; it's going to take some time, which I hope you can understand as something like this is taken seriously.

But as Zaph said, you already have a Help Desk thread where this is being looked at, so please keep everything related to this in that thread.

neverever1

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

Hi neverever1, please give the mods some time to review this; it's going to take some time, which I hope you can understand as something like this is taken seriously.

But as Zaph said, you already have a Help Desk thread where this is being looked at, so please keep everything related to this in that thread.

Ok sorry yes. I'll keep it to there.

hatrickpatrick

What isn't being addressed is the ongoing plague of mod warnings and "closed pending review" notices in threads discussing anything remotely contentious or controversial.

Should we just close down all of the politics forums and replace them with a notice which says "Boards.ie is terrified of any discussion which is not micromanaged to the point of incomprehensiblity, or in which there may be widespread disagreement - therefore no further political discussion will be allowed"?