Why is Boards so quiet?

D0NNELLY

Steve wrote: »

You may have a point about new mod training but I can assure you that's not how new mods are chosen.

Apologies, Meant mods as in all levels of mods up to admins..

Wibbs

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

When I joined the owners of the site used it regularly (not all, I guess a couple of them had moved on to varying extents even then) and were active posters. Even after the sale in 2008, Dev was the visible driver for a few years and an important single focal point - though it seems clear to me now that his objective during that period was to transition it over to a different type of structure.

Though to be fair the lad deserved a break. He put his heart and soul into the place for over a decade. That's gotta be bloody wearing.

Dav loved the place and, even if he made mistakes, it was always clear that he was passionate about it.

+1. We didn't exactly see eye to eye on a couple of occasions, but behind that it was very clear his genuine love for the community.

I'd wonder what influence the Admin team have at all anymore if I'm being honest, they strike me as slightly weary

Some influence, but their hands are somewhat tied. They take a lot of unwarranted criticism IMH. They didn't OK the retarded category massacre, nor the "responsive" site, nor the closed account "feature". The vast majority of them were very plugged in valuable members of a community, when it was a community.

and the odd post from official company accounts seem disconnected (being charitable).

Being very charitable, though I don't blame them TBH, they're following standard operational company speak. I do blame the invisible "leadership". Oh BTW folks said leadership is just as opaque behind the scenes as it is in front and on those rare appearances has always been reactive to poo approaching the rotating air agitation device.

Which would lead a man to say - what's the point of this thread really? There have been numerous threads of this ilk over the past 18 months, things have not changed to any noticeable degree, and the trend is negative. The people who built it and made it what it was are gone; many of the best and brightest posters have disappeared over the years; and there is obviously a dearth of passionate younger users - the kind who would have the drive and ideas to effect meaningful change and bring a valuable perspective to the fore.

TBH more and more I'm agreeing with you more than I'm not LL.

It's over a year since this thread was started:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057592798

Over a year. Meh.

Just had a quick perusal of that and christ... Other than the hiding of the closed account tag*, it looks like nothing has changed.






*which as usual under the current "leadership" was a clumsy fudge for optics, rather than actually looking at the underlying issue and took too long to implement. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

Wibbs

Lara Flat Tricycle wrote: »

Not that it particularly matters, because even if every mod here was willing to implement the changes being suggested we know from experience that nobody actually drawing a salary from boards gives one **** about feedback from the user base.

Now that may or may to be actually true EB, but by god it feels that way and that's what will drive people away.

LuckyLloyd

Wibbs wrote: »

The vast majority of them were very plugged in valuable members of a community, when it was a community.

Well isn't that just it - it hasn't felt like a community or a set of sub communities in a long time.

Steve

kuntface 55 wrote: »

Dear kuntface 55,

You have been permanently banned from After Hours for being uncivil.

thats no a nice way to talk to your customers

You should demand your money back.

dfx-

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Opening the soccer forum during Euro 2016 just had a floods and floods of trolls and made the forum generally crap for the duration of the tournament. About as bad as I'd ever seen imo.

There were regular posters looking forward to access being reintroduced to cut out the re-regging of long and short term banned users who re-surfaced.

bodhrandude

I remember a crazy time in 2006 I think where the word Oxegen was banned from the music forums, eventually discussions amounted to 'Are you going to see some act (Insert name) at ****** festival' lol. In fairness some of the music promoters were giving Boards a hard time over some of the posts.

Turtyturd

gimmick wrote: »

There are too many mods who feel there is a strict way to use the forum and fall outside those parameters and they threaten with bans. The soccer forum is a beaut. You cannot talk about matches in a teams general thread. You need access to get in for some reason. Say some disparaging about a player and its demed personal abuse.

The rules themselves aren't the problem with that forum, it's the biased enforcing of them that is.

Will I Am Not

It feels more like a money maker and less like a community for sure.

I know it's been like this since I've known the place but having to pay to have your own avatar/profile pic is so bad in this day and age.

b_mac2

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

pay to have your own avatar/profile pic is so bad in this day and age.

On that note, the hammer and sickle avatar pic seems to be a popular choice here looking at a few of the heavily- mod protected- extremist left users.

No agenda there though, and I'm sure all those millions of people murdered in the name of communism weren't doing it properly.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

I'm not sure I've seen a single Hammer & Sickle avatar, not on the Politics Cafe?

But on your second point, yes, it seems to be more acceptable to compare people of a right-wing bent with people like Hitler/Nazis, but if you call left wingers out as Stalin-esque Communists you get told "not true Communists".

The double standard is certainly there.

Doctor DooM

I see permabear has deleted his posts in this thread, but here is a perfect example of what I am talking about, and I am finding it making it difficult to enjoy.

There is a thread on AH right now about "shallow reasons you'd leave someone". That's the classic makings of a funny AH thread.

A poster says "socialist." Permabear, who I disagreed with on this thread, at very least, replies "that aint shallow". This is one of the responses:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103526669&postcount=53

This is a bait. It's the oldest forum trick in the book, the art of the troll. If anyone on the left side of the spectrum responds to this unbidden insult, it's then "oh look at the snowflake" and then that's ANOTHER thread to fall to the white noise.

EDIT: In this particular case I'm happy to report people seem more interested in having their fun than engaging. Thankfully.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

I don't understand the above complaint, I'm just not getting it.

Considering someone's political bent is not a "shallow" thing when it comes to choosing a long term romantic partner, and a person may think that anything close to a "right wing" outlook shows a lack of morals, or ability to feel for other people. Or you may think that someone displaying obvious left wing thinking is a bit of a smelly hippy.

Is it not normally right wingers accused of having less than moral values anyway?

ancapailldorcha

I think the point is that it's baiting. Basically, someone trots out a line like "Loony leftist" in the hopes of provoking a response. If they get it then they escalate to "Snowflake" or something equally insightful before wailing about being censored.

Doctor DooM

Matias Mysterious Deer wrote: »

I don't understand the above complaint, I'm just not getting it.

Considering someone's political bent is not a "shallow" thing when it comes to choosing a long term romantic partner, and a person may think that anything close to a "right wing" outlook shows a lack of morals, or ability to feel for other people. Or you may think that someone displaying obvious left wing thinking is a bit of a smelly hippy.

Is it not normally right wingers accused of having less than moral values anyway?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think the point is that it's baiting. Basically, someone trots out a line like "Loony leftist" in the hopes of provoking a response. If they get it then they escalate to "Snowflake" or something equally insightful before wailing about being censored.

Exactly. For the purposes of this thread, and that, it doesn't matter if left or right is more moral or whatever. This is a very clear attempt to derail a thread, and you're always asked to give examples in FB- here's a live one.

Bear in mind I am someone who's happy to discuss my moral philosophy in a forum or thread that's for that actual purpose.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think the point is that it's baiting. Basically, someone trots out a line like "Loony leftist" in the hopes of provoking a response. If they get it then they escalate to "Snowflake" or something equally insightful before wailing about being censored.

But I don't see anyone doing that in the above linked instance, is it extremely subtle?

Poster 1 - looking at someone's political persuasion is not shallow when choosing a partner, it tells a lot about their values

Poster 2 - or lack of values!

Who is baiting who there? What's the problem? I just don't see it.

ancapailldorcha

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Exactly. For the purposes of this thread, and that, it doesn't matter if left or right is more moral or whatever. This is a very clear attempt to derail a thread, and you're always asked to give examples in FB- here's a live one.

Bear in mind I am someone who's happy to discuss my moral philosophy in a forum or thread that's for that actual purpose.

Well, this has been an issue in Politics which is tightly moderated. We have some people come in solely to post inflammatory statements and then PM me when sanctioned to moan about not being allowed to express their Political views.

ancapailldorcha

Matias Mysterious Deer wrote: »

But I don't see anyone doing that in the above linked instance, is it extremely subtle?

Poster 1 - looking at someone's political persuasion is not shallow when choosing a partner, it tells a lot about their values

Poster 2 - or lack of values!

Who is baiting who there? What's the problem? I just don't see it.

I wasn't talking about the case that Doctor DooM mentioned, I was presenting an alternative scenario.

Doctor DooM

Matias Mysterious Deer wrote: »

But I don't see anyone doing that in the above linked instance, is it extremely subtle?

Poster 1 - looking at someone's political persuasion is not shallow when choosing a partner, it tells a lot about their values

Poster 2 - or lack of values!

Who is baiting who there? What's the problem? I just don't see it.

No offence but I believe you to be behaving willfully ignorant.

If someone is socialist or communist or far right or liberal one thing they all have is values.

Of course someone on the political left is going to respond something like "how dare you, least we care about people, etc etc".

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Doctor DooM wrote: »

No offence but I believe you to be behaving willfully ignorant.

Nope, I'm not

Doctor DooM wrote: »

If someone is socialist or communist or far right or liberal one thing they all have is values..

Yeah, fair enough, but "no values" is short hand for "values I dislike or disagree with" in that instance, well, that's how I interpret it.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Of course someone on the political left is going to respond something like "how dare you, least we care about people, etc etc".

Excuse me for a second here, I seem to have wandered into some kind of weird universe.

I am of the understanding that the prevailing "thought" about "left wing" people is that they "care about people" more than people of a "right wing" persuasion.

In the instance you linked, I'm 100% certain that the "or lack of" morals quip is aimed at people of the RIGHT, who left-wing people view as lacking empathy for minority groups, and therefore have a moral compass that is somehow lacking and have "no values" (ir, values that are different to being empathetic to people who are having a hard time of it, now matter the reason for that, poor, lgbt, refugee, whatever)

Jobs OXO

Doctor DooM wrote: »

No offence but I believe you to be behaving willfully ignorant.

If someone is socialist or communist or far right or liberal one thing they all have is values.

Of course someone on the political left is going to respond something like "how dare you, least we care about people, etc etc".

Great another mod derailing and commenting on another poster....

Doctor DooM

Matias Mysterious Deer wrote: »

In the instance you linked, I'm 100% certain that the "or lack of" morals quip is aimed at people of the RIGHT, who left-wing people view as lacking empathy for minority groups, and therefore have a moral compass that is somehow lacking and have "no values" (ir, values that are different to being empathetic to people who are having a hard time of it, now matter the reason for that, poor, lgbt, refugee, whatever)

Let's assume you are correct- even in that case that person has just been baited by the previous comments about liberals/ socialists, and a funny thread about things you dumped people for that don't make sense is heading towards the left/ right static.

Doctor DooM

Jobs OXO wrote: »

Great another mod derailing and commenting on another poster....

I am not a mod here.

I am doing what you are supposed to do in feedback.

Thanks for trying to pervert that into attack the mod though, that's super helpful.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Let's assume you are correct- even in that case that person has just been baited by the previous comments about liberals/ socialists, and a funny thread about things you dumped people for that don't make sense is heading towards the left/ right static.

You linked Post #53, from yesterday afternoon.

I don't see any evidence from that thread that it went down a "left/right" rabbithole after those couple of comments. So I don't accept that it's "heading" anywhere.

There was a, in my opinion, slightly mirthful post saying that "being a socialist" is a shallow reason for dumping someone. At the very least it may raise a smile, if not a chuckle.

someone else posts that actually, that's not really a "shallow" thing, that actually someone's political persuasion tells a lot about a person, and their values.

Or lack of.

That's all I see there, I don't see any baiting of the left, if anything I see a slight dig at the right. The "OR" is telling to me, really.

Anyway, the thread didn't descent into a political point scoring thing, it just continues to ramble in the "lol I dumped someone because they wore a yellow coat" vein it started in.

me_right_one

The posts above just demonstrate the left-wing mindedness of he mods. They dont even see it themselves!

The default position most people have is centre. They know that the extremes, both left and right, are bad.

Now, Dr Doom above not only misinterpreted the situation with Permabear, but he accused him of baiting! The only way one could imagine Permabear's statement as baiting, is if one was looking at it from a left-leaning point of view.

To make matters worse, another mod, Ancapailldorcha, actually saw it the same way as DR Doom!

What Permabear was actually saying, whether left or right, was that someones political views are pretty important in relationships. Thats it! No baiting involved. But Dr Doom classed it as "the oldest troll trick in the book". WTF like?


This is exactly what is wrong with the moderation on this site. The mods have a lefty bent and think everyone else is hitler, while everyone else is ACTUALLY fairly centerist, and see the modding as completely out of whack.

Selection of the mods, or at least how they moderate, is the crux of the entire problem.

testaccount123

Matias Mysterious Deer wrote: »

Who is baiting who there? What's the problem? I just don't see it.

Ive no idea what he's talking about either.

How about if people dont like the post or the thread then just ignore it. Nobody is really interested in your silly meta-commentary. It always seems to be these types who end up as mods. No wonder so many threads are locked/deleted/posters banned on here.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

The thing is, if that happens in a forum Dr Doom is modding and he actions it as such (unlikely in either of his forums, granted), good luck getting it overturned, I got accused of being "willfully ignorant" for deigning to questioning his slanted interpretation of events, it's weird.

Asking questions is "ignorant" now, accusing someone of being "ignorant" is a good tactic to shut down discussion. He may as well have said "you just don't get it" such was his dismissal of anything questioning the way he views things.

Honestly, it's a problem. Then the default position on DRP is to support the mods (and I think that's absolutely fair enough, in 90%+ of cases I thinks mods are within their rights to sanction as they have) and you'll get comments like "I can see where he was coming from there, so I can see reason for supporting the sanction, upheld", once that happens good luck getting any further discussion.

ancapailldorcha

me_right_one wrote: »

This is exactly what is wrong with the moderation on this site. The mods have a lefty bent and think everyone else is hitler, while everyone else is ACTUALLY fairly centerist, and see the modding as completely out of whack.

No, thin skins, strawmen and victim complexes are what's wrong. You couldn't even express concerns about bias without invoking Hitler. That's something I think is utterly insane and it says a lot about how online discussion has gone.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No, thin skins, strawmen and victim complexes are what's wrong. You couldn't even express concerns about bias without invoking Hitler. That's something I think is utterly insane and it says a lot about how online discussion has gone.

Only one thin skin started this particular debate, I'm afraid, and you haven't called that one out.

Why not?

me_right_one

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No, thin skins, strawmen and victim complexes are what's wrong. You couldn't even express concerns about bias without invoking Hitler. That's something I think is utterly insane and it says a lot about how online discussion has gone.

Haha, seriously horse? You dont see any irony here?