Can we talk about AH?

OldMrBrennan83

Beasty wrote: »

Is this AH moderation you are referring to?

If it's poor site-wide then it's going to be poor on AH too. Probably not right to be asking that question in the hope of shutting it down in the event the poster doesn't specifically mean AH.

Beasty

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

If it's poor site-wide then it's going to be poor on AH too. Probably not right to be asking that question in the hope of shutting it down in the event the poster doesn't specifically mean AH.

I have already stated that only Admins are able to determine re-regs. This thread is about AH, and not other forums. If AndrewJRenko has a specific example, I wish to investigate that example. If that specific example is not in relation to AH, then it is not relevant to this thread.

OldMrBrennan83

Beasty wrote: »

I have already stated that only Admins are able to determine re-regs. This thread is about AH, and not other forums. If AndrewJRenko has a specific example, I wish to investigate that example. If that specific example is not in relation to AH, then it is not relevant to this thread.

If terrible moderation is site-wide then it surely applies to AH too then? AH being part of the whole site and all.

So it will apply to AH then. It doesn't have to be an exception to be applicable.

Beasty

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

If terrible moderation is site-wide then it surely applies to AH too then? AH being part of the whole site and all.

So it will apply to AH then. It doesn't have to be an exception to be applicable.

Are you claiming you have site-wide experience of mods deciding who is a re-reg?

To date I have seen one example mentioned with no details. If it's site-wide it's worthy of it's own thread. If it's AH then fair enough for raising it here. If it's another specific forum then the process is to discuss with the relevant mod(s) then if necessary CMod(s) and if still not satisfied start a thread in Help Desk.

Now drop this here unless AndrewJRenko comes back indicating it is AH

AndrewJRenko

Beasty wrote: »

Is this AH moderation you are referring to?

Yes, it is - check your message sent on 16/10/18.

Beasty

Just to add, this part of the discussion started with complaints that mods were not banning re-regs, with examples given (which I deleted).

I was therefore indicating that's not their role. Yes they can ask us, and if someone is a clear out and out newly-reg'd troll they may ban from AH pending a review by Admins. It's the Admin who will ban at site level, and if they decree there is insufficient evidence the AH mod will reverse any action taken

Now mods do have a facility to temporarily site-ban spammers our blatant trolls (some, for example, with very abusive usernames), but even then Admins review and will upgrade the ban to permanent

Beasty

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, it is - check your message sent on 16/10/18.

My message sent on 16/10/18 was in my capacity of a Site Administrator

EDIT: and I can confirm that example is entirely in line with what I set out above - this is a nothing issue, but if you wish to discuss further please take it to PM

AndrewJRenko

Beasty wrote: »

My message sent on 16/10/18 was in my capacity of a Site Administrator

My mistake - apologies. I didn't realise that you were an Admin - I thought that all admins had the 'Boards' prefix in their username.

Beasty

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

My mistake - apologies. I didn't realise that you were an Admin - I thought that all admins had the 'Boards' prefix in their username.

No - you are thinking of Office staff. You will see "Administrator" beneath my username on the legacy and touch sites

B0jangles

I reported the above for the absolutely horrible dehumanizing language and blatant, undeniable-even-for-AH transphobia.


And do you know what the mod response was?

Pter wrote: »

Mod

Dont post in this thread again thanks. Pick a pronoun as you like (be it matching with what the target wants or not), but no need to be calling a person a thing.

No card, a incredibly polite ('thanks'!) request not to post in the thread again with the sweetener that the poster can refer to a trans person by whatever pronouns they feel like, but not to call them a 'thing'


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110131185&postcount=857


Are there any actual standards? Is there any point in reporting posts as we are all endlessly instructed to do when the result is so utterly toothless?

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

I reported the above for the absolutely horrible dehumanizing language and blatant, undeniable-even-for-AH transphobia.

I think the sentiment of the post was in response to the invitation by the author of the tweet that anyone who disagree with them was invited to suck on their penis. I think the same sentiment would be expressed in response to anyone who came out with such misogynistic comments.

I certainly wouldn’t regard the response as transphobic because it didn’t specifically relate to gender, it related to the nature of the comment made by the author of the tweet, and I can understand why it would be difficult to view anyone who came out with such vile comments as human, regardless of their gender.

dulpit

B0jangles wrote: »

with the sweetener that the poster can refer to a trans person by whatever pronouns they feel like, but not to call them a 'thing'

This is the most annoying part. I'm a guy, if somebody kept referring to me as "she" or "a girl" I'd quite rightly be pissed off. How is it any different if I was trans?

The only thing that referring to a trans person by the wrong pronoun does it make it clear you are being a dick. And I thought that was against the charter of AH?

B0jangles

Oh really? You think that if someone like say, Frankie Boyle* used similarly crude language to mock critics on Twitter, that that poster would call him a 'thing' and say theyd like to beat him unconscious for being so disgusting? Its just a coincidence that a transgender person was referred to as a 'thing'?

*not saying he does, but it's within his style of humour

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

Oh really? You think that if someone like say, Frankie Boyle* used similarly crude language to mock critics on Twitter, that that poster would call him a 'thing' and say theyd like to beat him unconscious for being so disgusting? Its just a coincidence that a transgender person was referred to as a 'thing'?

*not saying he does, but it's within his style of humour

Knowing jimgoose’s form for having short shrift with that sort of ignorance, I’d suggest it would be entirely likely :pac:


EDIT: Yes btw, it was a coincidence, as scumbags are often referred to as things when someone is trying to find adequate words to convey the idea that they don’t regard someone as human, again - regardless of their gender, and entirely because of their behaviour, like responding to people who disagree with them that they are invited to suck their penis.

Fr_Dougal

Beasty wrote: »

Repeating something I've just set out above

Moderators (and users) can only alert us to their suspicion over re-regs. Only Office staff or Admins can act on re-regs. Only they have the tools to check. Equally we will not ban without evidence. You may think someone is a re-reg, but you cannot prove anything about an anonymous poster on this site. Only a very limited number of us are allowed to access information which is considered personal including e-mail addresses and IPs. This has also been covered in discussions surrounding the GDPR rules

Well they need to look at this thread: <snip>

Blatantly obvious who the posters are, and the subject matter? Do we really need this vile rubbish in AH?

Baggly

B0jangles wrote: »

I reported the above for the absolutely horrible dehumanizing language and blatant, undeniable-even-for-AH transphobia.


And do you know what the mod response was?





No card, a incredibly polite ('thanks'!) request not to post in the thread again with the sweetener that the poster can refer to a trans person by whatever pronouns they feel like, but not to call them a 'thing'


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110131185&postcount=857


Are there any actual standards? Is there any point in reporting posts as we are all endlessly instructed to do when the result is so utterly toothless?

I'm not here to decide what the correct pronouns for people to use are, no matter my own beliefs. If people want to use a binary system, that's their business and I can't and won't ban them for it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion even if one doesn't agree with it.

I'm here to try and keep things civil. So I acted on the uncivil language. It would also be hypocritical of me to punish uncivil behaviour if I can't remain civil myself. I write thanks in most of my mod actions because of this reason.

Also it wasn't a request, it was an instruction.

B0jangles

Pter wrote: »

I'm not here to decide what the correct pronouns for people to use are, no matter my own beliefs. If people want to use a binary system, that's their business and I can't and won't ban them for it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion even if one doesn't agree with it.

I'm here to try and keep things civil. So I acted on the uncivil language. It would also be hypocritical of me to punish uncivil behaviour if I can't remain civil myself. I write thanks in most of my mod actions because of this reason.

Also it wasn't a request, it was an instruction.

It was the very barest of bare minimums.

It is apparently acceptable to talk to and about transgender people on boards in the same sort of manner as it used to be acceptable to talk about gay people back in the 1970's. It is totally shameful.

Baggly

B0jangles wrote:

It is apparently acceptable to talk to and about transgender people on boards in the same sort of manner as it used to be acceptable to talk about gay people back in the 1970's. It is totally shameful.

I can't control what people think. Even if I could I shouldn't and wouldn't! If you think someones opinion is wrong it's there to be discussed, not quashed by a mod, imo.

Baggly

B0jangles wrote:

It was the very barest of bare minimums.

Also both technically and literally, it wasn't. Barest of minimums for me is an on thread warning. This was a thread ban.....for life. So a significant step up from an on thread warning.

B0jangles

Pter wrote: »

I can't control what people think. Even if I could I shouldn't and wouldn't! If you think someones opinion is wrong it's there to be discussed, not quashed by a mod, imo.

No-one is asking you to control people's thoughts. You can and should require people to follow the charter which explicitly tells people 'don't be a dick'; even if that means forcing them to treat trans people with the bare minimum of respect.

If someone showed up here to argue that gay people were deluded and perverted and a likely threat to children, they'd rapidly and rightly be banned for being repulsively homophobic. The same cannot be said for people saying the same sorts of things about trans people.

The thing about refusing to sanction this kind of shít is that pretty quickly the only posters you have left are the ones who want to post this shít.



Everyone else leaves.



(how are boards sign-ups looking these days? - lots of new users who definitely aren't the same old reregs coming back for the 50th time?)

Baggly

B0jangles wrote:

If someone showed up here to argue that gay people were deluded and perverted and a likely threat to children, they'd rapidly and rightly be banned for being repulsively homophobic. The same cannot be said for people saying the same sorts of things about trans people.

If someone had argued that about a trans person they would have been sanctioned by me. That didn't happen here. You are making a false equivalency imo.

Fr_Dougal

B0jangles wrote: »

The thing about refusing to sanction this kind of shis that pretty quickly the only posters you have left are the ones who want to post this sh



Everyone else leaves.



(how are boards sign-ups looking these days? - lots of new users who definitely aren't the same old reregs coming back for the 50th time?)

Or conversely, ban everyone who doesn’t agree with your views and end up with an echo chamber.

Everyone else leaves.

Baggly

B0jangles wrote:

(how are boards sign-ups looking these days? - lots of new users who definitely aren't the same old reregs coming back for the 50th time?)

Couldn't tell you. I just try to find the reregs that need banning.

B0jangles

Pter wrote: »

If someone had argued that about a trans person they would have been sanctioned by me. That didn't happen here. You are making a false equivalency imo.

It's common enough here on boards to argue that trans people are mentally ill, that letting transgender women use the bathroom of their choice is a threat to the safety of other women, that recognising that being transgender is real and not just some perverse attention-seeking behaviour is madness.


Try imagining the discussion is about gay people and see how comfortable you'd be with the content of the threads that are so very apparent in After Hours.

Baggly

I don't agree that all of these issues are for mods to stop. A lot of these points I would disagree with, but they are there to be debated.

Mods have a fairly straight forward set of things we action. Being uncivil in discussing a point is the one that was being addressed with the mod action you quoted. I'm sorry if you feel that the above topics are beyond discussion but a lot of people have divided opinions on this topic, and as I've said i can't and won't ban people for their opinions. You may think that's not the primary issue here, but it is imo.

B0jangles

It makes the most publically visible part of Boards an intolerably ugly place for anyone who the great minds of AH decide to target.

These are real people who deserve to be treated with a little respect and consideration, not just imaginary concepts to be bandied about for the entertainment of the usual crowd.

Baggly

B0jangles wrote:

It makes the most publically visible part of Boards an intolerably ugly place for anyone who the great minds of AH decide to target.

I agree but again I don't think it's in my remit to control that. I'm here to keep things civil and moderate discussion. On a personal level I wish more people were more considerate and tolerant, but that's because they are mindsets I value. Other people value different things and I can't/won't/shouldn't punish them for that.

B0jangles wrote:

These are real people who deserve to be treated with a little respect and consideration, not just imaginary concepts to be bandied about for the entertainment of the usual crowd.

I agree people deserve respect and consideration, but not to the exclusion of open discourse.

end of the road

B0jangles wrote: »

It makes the most publically visible part of Boards an intolerably ugly place for anyone who the great minds of AH decide to target.

These are real people who deserve to be treated with a little respect and consideration, not just imaginary concepts to be bandied about for the entertainment of the usual crowd.

hence the community will challenge the usual crowd's views.

Signore Fancy Pants

B0jangles, you're "being a dick" at this stage.

The Mod made a decision and backed it up with his reasoning. Get over it.

You're just soapboxing now.

Beasty

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Well they need to look at this thread: <snip>

Blatantly obvious who the posters are, and the subject matter? Do we really need this vile rubbish in AH?

I've removed that link as it's unfair to the user in question to have the glare of a Feedback thread directed at them

The AH mods asked me to look at that specific link you suggested. Whatever your own thoughts, there is absolutely no direct evidence to support a link. In this specific case you were suggesting a link to a poster that was permanently sitebanned not that much shy of a decade ago. Again I appreciate you may feel some similarity in posting but the trail to that banned poster went cold many years ago. Of course we are further hampered by GDPR and a lot of info that was previously retained is no longer available

I would also add that if the poster you reported was causing problems, they would quickly build up a "record" on this recent account. I'm not going to comment on the specifics of that poster, but I would just point out another current Feedback thread where posters are complaining about mods, Admins and the like going back and looking at past behaviour when considering sanctions against users

Having said all of that, we do actually appreciate such alerts. It allows us to consider the question you raised when reviewing current activities, and that could alert us to a more definitive link