Can we talk about AH?

Franz Von Peppercorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So, just for example, am I right to think you'd like Boards to be a place with no filters at all, so we can talk about N-I-G-G-E-R-S and P-A-K-I-S and K-I-K-E-S and F-A-G-G-O-T-S and R-E-T-A-R-D-S just as part as normal conversation? We should be able to use derogatory words for minority groups as part of normal conversation here, right?

All of those, and gammon, should be carded. For obvious reasons.

Your misogynistic use of the word mob to describe feminist groups you disagree with also deserves an infraction.

AndrewJRenko

KyussB wrote: »

That's a false dichotomy - I'm not going to defend or rebut a position I never argued.

Do you support free speech or not?

Necro

Boards.ie: Niamh wrote:

I've removed a few off-topic posts there. Can we get back to the discussion specifically about After Hours?

Niamh's gonna be busy on Monday again :rolleyes:

The absolute drivel this thread has become and as a result of three or four posters repeatedly dragging it off topic is exactly why AH is the absolute pits today.

They are allowed to play up to the line and bend it so far it's absolute madness.

EdgeCase

I'm seeing things developing on AH like posts going unmoderated where someone just quotes a whole post and then throws in a nasty one liner to attempt to discredit it.

A one-word retort like "waffle" or "rubbish" etc should result in an infraction. Boards is being debased to the level of an angry Twitter thread by some of these posters and it's not being adequately responded to by mods.

Also the "attack the post and never the poster" mantra needs to be used a lot more.

I don't mind the zany, mad, light hearted stuff but it's often getting quite nasty in there on some threads, especially when they turn slightly political on that US style 'liberal' Vs 'conservative' type debate.

Gimme A Pound

Necro wrote: »

Niamh's gonna be busy on Monday again :rolleyes:

The absolute drivel this thread has become and as a result of three or four posters repeatedly dragging it off topic...

And what value is this post which doesn't really say anything about anyone or anything specific. It's not drivel just because you personally don't like it.

Ken.

EdgeCase wrote: »

I'm seeing things developing on AH like posts going unmoderated where someone just quotes a whole post and then throws in a nasty one liner to attempt to discredit it.

A one-word retort like "waffle" or "rubbish" etc should result in an infraction. Boards is being debased to the level of an angry Twitter thread by some of these posters and it's not being adequately responded to by mods.

Also the "attack the post and never the poster" mantra needs to be used a lot more.

I don't mind the zany, mad, light hearted stuff but it's often getting quite nasty in there on some threads, especially when they turn slightly political on that US style 'liberal' Vs 'conservative' type debate.

On a Sunday you gave us half an hour before coming here. Cheers.

Necro

Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote:

And what value is this post which doesn't really say anything about anyone or anything specific. It's not drivel just because you personally don't like it.

Nope, it's drivel because it's not in any way related to the actual topic at hand.

Go off and have your gammon discussion via PM if it's that important or open a thread.

Zorya

Necro wrote: »

Nope, it's drivel because it's not in any way related to the actual topic at hand.

Go off and have your gammon discussion via PM if it's that important or open a thread.

My goodness. There's that gammon again.

blackwhite

Sums up the self righteousness of some of the “right-on” folks here that they can’t see the irony in throwing around racial slurs.

Quite the reflection on boards as well that certain types of bigotry are clearly seen as acceptable.

Racist filth should be condemned regardless of whether it’s left or right spouting it.

EdgeCase

N.S.A.Bot wrote: »

On a Sunday you gave us half an hour before coming here. Cheers.

It's a feedback thread! I gave feedback.

I give up!

Cookie_Monster

Necro wrote: »

Niamh's gonna be busy on Monday again :rolleyes:

hardly. when your only interaction with users is to 'tidy up' some posts it leave a lot of time in the day.
how about some actual engagement from the office on the topic at hand, that too much to ask?

AndrewJRenko

blackwhite wrote: »

Sums up the self righteousness of some of the “right-on” folks here that they can’t see the irony in throwing around racial slurs.

Quite the reflection on boards as well that certain types of bigotry are clearly seen as acceptable.

Racist filth should be condemned regardless of whether it’s left or right spouting it.

I thought free speech was the issue at stake here - no?

Boom_Bap

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

hardly. when your only interaction with users is to 'tidy up' some posts it leave a lot of time in the day.
how about some actual engagement from the office on the topic at hand, that too much to ask?

engagement on what though? what of substance has been raised in this thread that has got a decent bit of feedback and some sort of agreement or backing?....or even a glimmer of something to run with.

blackwhite

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I thought free speech was the issue at stake here - no?

Freedom to express opinions is one thing.

Showing us all exactly what kind of person you are by repeatedly throwing around racist slurs is something else.

Although given your posting history across various fora on here it’s blatantly obvious what you’re at. :rolleyes:

AndrewJRenko

blackwhite wrote: »

Freedom to express opinions is one thing.

Showing us all exactly what kind of person you are by repeatedly throwing around racist slurs is something else.

Although given your posting history across various fora on here it’s blatantly obvious what you’re at. :rolleyes:

I'm really just trying to understand the limits of whatever free speech rules apply around here.

Boom_Bap

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm really just trying to understand the limits of whatever free speech rules apply around here.

Terms Of Use and there is a charter for each forum. Perhaps have a gander at those

Timberrrrrrrr

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm really just trying to understand the limits of whatever free speech rules apply around here.

You have no right to "free speech" on boards.

AndrewJRenko

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Terms Of Use and there is a charter for each forum. Perhaps have a gander at those

You're having a laugh, right?

Discrimination
LINKY
Discrimination will not be tolerated in After Hours.

AndrewJRenko

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You have no right to "free speech" on boards.

That's true and understood - the real question is the consistency, or inconsistency of how those limitations are applied.

Cookie_Monster

Boom_Bap wrote: »

engagement on what though? what of substance has been raised in this thread that has got a decent bit of feedback and some sort of agreement or backing?....or even a glimmer of something to run with.

anything? There have been massive threads repeatedly over the last few years. Basically the only input from the office is "we'll take it onboard and get back to you" and then #tumbleweed

This current thread only exists because of the lack of any action taken over prior threads

Boom_Bap

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

anything? There have been massive threads repeatedly over the last few years. Basically the only input from the office is "we'll take it onboard and get back to you" and then #tumbleweed

This current thread only exists because of the lack of any action taken over prior threads

Ok gotcha, I thought you were talking about this thread

Cookie_Monster

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Ok gotcha, I thought you were talking about this thread

like I said the only reason this thread even exists is because previous ones have been ignored.

TheValeyard

Well I think everyone here is awesome

osarusan

KyussB wrote: »

If Boards adopted a policy of carefully identifying bad faith argument - where it becomes increasingly obvious the poster is engaging in forms of argument that are dishonest, and (after a lot of tactful/careful nudging from mods to knock it out, making pains to avoid being ban-happy) then excises those posters from the forum, or better, simply limits their frequency of posting - that is probably the best form of moderation that you can apply to political discussion, as it directly targets propagandists.

I would be all for this, although I understand AH isn't the place for it, and the mods there weren't chosen for that kind of stuff.

As has often been mentioned, a 'Current Affairs' forum, where the mods are chosen for that kind of stuff, might work.

But when this has been mooted in the past, the idea is that it would be AH-style current affairs, and one thing that came up is that posters would not be expected to provide sources or otherwise back up their claims.

And this is what I have never understood - why have a forum in which discussion of 'serious' topics is allowed, yet have no standard for the quality of discussion on those topics. It simply allows people to make any claim they like and have no onus on them to provide any evidence. The only posters who benefit are those who want to make claims without evidence.

So for me, the issue is not the topics themselves, or which forum the topics are discussed in, but the standard of discussion for serious topics.

dulpit

I see that the Margaret Cash thread is still going along actively, with people sharing her facebook posts and their opinions on travellers on a daily basis. I do have to wonder how this thread is allowed when the first rule here https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057770394 is don't be a dick. There's also a rule about discrimination that is ignored for every 2nd post in that thread...

Any comments on this mods/boards staff?

Omackeral

dulpit wrote: »

I see that the Margaret Cash thread is still going along actively, with people sharing her facebook posts and their opinions on travellers on a daily basis. I do have to wonder how this thread is allowed when the first rule here https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057770394 is don't be a dick. There's also a rule about discrimination that is ignored for every 2nd post in that thread...

Any comments on this mods/boards staff?

Margaret Cash has courted the media and has made herself a public figure. Stalking her FB is odd though.

Telling truths about Travellers, even if they're ugly truths, doesn't make posts discriminatory. Calling for them all to be killed off, however, deserves a ban.

robarmstrong

Omackeral wrote: »

Margaret Cash has courted the media and has made herself a public figure. Stalking her FB is odd though.

Telling truths about Travellers, even if they're ugly truths, doesn't make posts discriminatory. Calling for them all to be killed off, however, deserves a ban.

I think people stalk her Facebook to prove points to her "defenders", which is fair enough if it furthers points in an argument.

Agree completely that calling for violence against travellers is ban-worthy, wishing the majority (the criminals, the muppets - like Margaret) would f*ck off whinging isn't really ban/cardworthy.

Artifacting

<SNIP> Does not meet minimum posting standard of 100 posts AND member for 3 months

KyussB

osarusan wrote: »

I would be all for this, although I understand AH isn't the place for it, and the mods there weren't chosen for that kind of stuff.

As has often been mentioned, a 'Current Affairs' forum, where the mods are chosen for that kind of stuff, might work.

But when this has been mooted in the past, the idea is that it would be AH-style current affairs, and one thing that came up is that posters would not be expected to provide sources or otherwise back up their claims.

And this is what I have never understood - why have a forum in which discussion of 'serious' topics is allowed, yet have no standard for the quality of discussion on those topics. It simply allows people to make any claim they like and have no onus on them to provide any evidence. The only posters who benefit are those who want to make claims without evidence.

So for me, the issue is not the topics themselves, or which forum the topics are discussed in, but the standard of discussion for serious topics.

You can apply it to After Hours just by having an exemption, where posters can say they're posting for humorous effect or to take the piss out of something, not meant to be taken seriously - with the caveat, that they can't use this to persistently try and derail another posters arguments, or use it to try and toe the line between humour and presenting an argument that is meant to be taken seriously (i.e. it's not to be a 'get out of jail free' card for propagandising or bad faith argument).

I'd hate to see a well-executed/funny trolling of a serious post/position, rules-lawyered off of AH. Some posters definitely do fuck around though, and deliberately troll/derail discussions with arguments meant to be taken seriously, by pretending they just took a 'devils advocate' position - yet only saying this after the fact, as a get-out clause...

There is a lot of scope here, for redefining the rules in an extremely flexible way, that allows the full spectrum of serious/non-serious/pisstake posts - while completely excising bad-faith posting - and minimizing the need for mods to actually ban or censure anyone (as they can just softly intervene/redirect discussion, to nudge someone away from bad-faith posting, before they get the baton), making moderation more human and less inflexible/robot-like.

It might not be an easy balance to strike, and it might require more active participation/oversight into troublesome discussions from mods - but targeting bad-faith posting in a flexible way like this, can get rid of a lot of the shite that creates work for mods in the first place.

Ken.

Artifacting wrote: »

<SNIP>

Report it and wait for the mods to take action. We are not always around even if there are quite a few of us. The main thing is not to reply. You get in trouble if you rise to it. Report it for us to deal with and then ignore it.