Can we talk about AH?

Zorya

I thought what happened to JohnMc1 in the drag kid thread was wrong. He was a member since 2005. I don't know him from Adam and could not say what his viewpoints are like on any subject as i don't have a great memory that way, but he posted an image that was all over the internet at the time - everywhere on Twitter for example - and the image was pertinent to the discussion, and did not actually show any genitalia. In fact there are people in the beautiful woman/man threads wearing g-string bikinis that are as revealing. But he was banned outright. Thought that was mean. I nearly closed my account because of it - just thought, no warning? no suspension? just ban! That's some bad voodoo there.

osarusan

Omackeral wrote: »

but they openly admit that the mods can realistically just dole out any punishment they want ''depending''. Depending on what? Depending on what side of the bed the mod got out of? Depending on if he/she has a vested interest in a topic? If they like or dislike the poster they're sanctioning? How can you be thrown out of an entire forum for something one day that would simply get you a yellow card from a given thread on a different day.

Seems obvious to me that what they meant is that any mod action is "depending" on what was posted in each case.

Some things are more serious than others, so some things get a warning, some get a red card, some get a ban, some get a site ban. It would all depend on what is posted.

I wouldn't disagree about inconsistency and subjectivity and favouritism and so on in general, but I don't think you have interpreted that comment the right way to be honest.

Omackeral

osarusan wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree about inconsistency and subjectivity and favouritism and so on in general, but I don't think you have interpreted that comment the right way to be honest.

Fair enough if that's your take but still

osarusan wrote: »

Some things are more serious than others, so some things get a warning, some get a red card, some get a ban, some get a site ban. It would all depend on what is posted.

That's the crux of the point. I got a forum wide ban for something that, upon appeal, didn't even warrant a yellow or a warning from the mod. That's the problem. There seems to be zero criteria on what punishment fits. How can a forum wide ban be converted into nothing. Does that not tell you that the original infraction was just a reactionary response and very OTT?

osarusan

Omackeral wrote: »

That's the crux of the point. I got a forum wide ban for something that, upon appeal, didn't even warrant a yellow or a warning from the mod. That's the problem. There seems to be zero criteria on what punishment fits. How can a forum wide ban be converted into nothing. Does that not tell you that the original infraction was just a reactionary response and very OTT?

I haven't seen what you posted - you might be right in your case. As I said, in general I agree that inconsistency, subjectivity and so on are a problem (albeit inevitable to some extent).

I was just suggesting that the 'depending' bit in the specific thread you highlighted didn't mean what you think it meant.

Mr. CooL ICE

Omackeral wrote: »

That's the crux of the point. I got a forum wide ban for something that, upon appeal, didn't even warrant a yellow or a warning from the mod. That's the problem. There seems to be zero criteria on what punishment fits. How can a forum wide ban be converted into nothing. Does that not tell you that the original infraction was just a reactionary response and very OTT?

Not everything is black and white though. It is impossible to set up guidelines or a charter that covers each and every single scenario that arises on a discussion forum. I challenge anyone to attempt to do this. Mod discretion is going to have to come into it at some point.

I saw your comment that got you (initially) banned and I had never heard it before. I grew up in an area that has a lot of travellers and have watched, I dunno, a handful of traveller callout videos on youtube and it was new to me. Maybe that quote isn't as common as you think? It's no "sh1te in a bucket" anyway. IMO, it's understandable that the mod banned you based on that post alone and not getting the reference.

Beasty

Omackeral wrote: »

Now, not only is there a really snarky attitude on display (IMO anyway) but they openly admit that the mods can realistically just dole out any punishment they want ''depending''. Depending on what? Depending on what side of the bed the mod got out of? Depending on if he/she has a vested interest in a topic? If they like or dislike the poster they're sanctioning? How can you be thrown out of an entire forum for something one day that would simply get you a yellow card from a given thread on a different day.

OK, firstly this is absolutely nothing to do with AH

Secondly you have no idea (and I am not at liberty to inform you) what was going on in the background here. There is certain information the CMod is not aware of (and will not be informed of) that is important in getting the full picture

Omackeral

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

I saw your comment that got you (initially) banned and I had never heard it before. I grew up in an area that has a lot of travellers and have watched, I dunno, a handful of traveller callout videos on youtube and it was new to me. Maybe that quote isn't as common as you think? It's no "sh1te in a bucket" anyway. IMO, it's understandable that the mod banned you based on that post alone and not getting the reference.

A forum wide ban though? Would you have done the same, for example? Why not a thread ban? Or a warning. That's what I don't get. Where are the lines? How is what I said comparable to calling for ethnic cleansing for example? Or shooting every Traveller. I just don't get the levels that are supposed to exist.

FWIW, I said I understood the Mod's point of view as far as an infraction goes. However was disappointed it was a straight ban and that I didn't get a chance to defend it or anything until the punishment was essentially served. Why not a thread ban or warning before a forum wide one for something a lot less awful than other things that would incur the same penalty?

Omackeral

Beasty wrote: »

OK, firstly this is absolutely nothing to do with AH

Secondly you have no idea (and I am not at liberty to inform you) what was going on in the background here. There is certain information the CMod is not aware of (and will not be informed of) that is important in getting the full picture

You're right, I don't know what was going on behind the scenes so I left all of that off. I also personally think that poster is/was a bit of a dick too if we're being honest. However, the line concerning the mods handing out whatever infraction they feel like on a given day for whatever wrong is still relevant IMO and is relevant to AH, as well as other areas. That's my opinion. You don't have to agree with it obviously.

Omackeral

Look, to be honest I think the moderation is actually fine on After Hours for the most part. I do. I probably wouldn't even have waded in here if not for my own ban, I can admit that.

I guess what I'll say is that to me it sometimes feels like AH doesn't really know what it wants to be anymore. Is it news? Is it a chat with mates? Is it silly? Is it serious? Is it a mix of all that? I don't think anyone really knows anymore.

Mr. CooL ICE

Omackeral wrote: »

A forum wide ban though? Would you have done the same, for example? Why not a thread ban? Or a warning. That's what I don't get. Where are the lines? How is what I said comparable to calling for ethnic cleansing for example? Or shooting every Traveller. I just don't get the levels that are supposed to exist.

FWIW, I said I understood the Mod's point of view as far as an infraction goes. However was disappointed it was a straight ban and that I didn't get a chance to defend it or anything until the punishment was essentially served. Why not a thread ban or warning before a forum wide for something a lot less awful than other things that would incur the same penalty?

Can't comment on why the mod did that, but two things I will say:

1) Mod actions are generally incremental. Generally speaking, if you were banned for one day last month and did something today to warrant a ban, it would be 2-3 days. On the other hand, same situation but you were last banned for one day 5 years ago, that's a fairly long time and would not be an incremented ban; probably just a yellow, depending on severity.

2) That thread was started on a Sunday evening and kinda exploded in no time and a rake of reports flooded in. The mod needed to close it to prevent it getting out of hand, clean it up a bit and would have been under pressure to get it reopened. Lack of familiarity of the quote aside, a mistake could have been made and your details could have been mixed up with someone elses. Not saying that's what happened, but it's possible.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

KyussB wrote: »

Just to back this up - I don't know this posters personal views, so I don't back them - but I can absolutely first-hand back up that people are targeted on Politics for their views, and the moderation system is designed to be so easy to run into, that mods can pretty much make up any reason for targeting you, other than your views - despite your views being the 100% most consistent reason for you being targeted.

I can also attest to the double standards this poster describes - if you have past run-ins with mods, they justify applying different standards, in a way that leads to them ignoring the ways in which other posters reply to you, yet sanctions you for replying in-kind - this is most especially pronounced, if you're getting brow-beaten by a large number of posters holding a shared ideological-view/disposition, and if you hold the minority view - it is carte blanche for a larger group to abuse a poster, yet receive no sanction for it, and being able to trigger sanction for that poster if they respond in-kind.

It's a pain in the arse, and it's why I don't post here anymore. This is not a site for political discussion, as the moderation system directly leads to the warping of political discussion, in a way that severely curtails/limits the free range of discussion, the more it ideologically offends a large/forceful-enough group of posters. You point out the problems here in Feedback, and you get the mod/admin version of 'fuck off' while waving a mod stick/baton at you.

The entire site management/admin/mod team has been told by its userbase for years, blue in the face, that the moderation on the site is a problem - and the site has a reputation (going back well over a decade+) of heavy handed moderation and general moderation being a pain in the hole - but the people running things actively don't want to hear it or do anything about it (evidenced by how such criticism is often reacted to in a heavily managerial way "we hear and appreciate your concerns, but are not going to do anything meaningful about them" on this subforum).

But for others (me included), the moderation is a draw. Have you ever been on an unmoderated messageboard? They are chaos. The chaff greatly outnumberers the wheat when it comes to posts on unmoderated boards. On moderated boards, it’s hard to get the balance right.

And people say that moderators shouldn’t really use “We’re just volunteers and we’re human” as an excuse but the fact is, nobody would do the moderator gig if they got too much grief from higher-ups. We all need to accept that there is a limit on the criticism that can be meted out to moderators because nobody would take the job if it came with even a modest amount of grief attached. Moderators kind of have the site by the balls in this regard. They’re not being paid but that gives them the freedom to fück off any time they want too. I think people are little unrealistic in their demands of what moderators should and shouldn’t do. The moderation will never be perfect. It doesn’t pay. What are people expecting?

KyussB

I've been on all sorts of message boards going back more than 20 years, discussing all ranges of topics - I've never encountered a single one that comes even close to Boards, in terms of how strictly it's moderated.

Discussion of the most contentious political/economic topics, is inherently going to be chaotic. The only manageable way to moderate them, is to excise people who post in bad faith - forum moderation should be focused around that, rather than arbitrarily dinging people, for breaching often arbitrarily defined/enforced rules.

OldMrBrennan83

KyussB wrote: »

I've been on all sorts of message boards going back more than 20 years, discussing all ranges of topics - I've never encountered a single one that comes even close to Boards, in terms of how strictly it's moderated.

Discussion of the most contentious political/economic topics, is inherently going to be chaotic. The only manageable way to moderate them, is to excise people who post in bad faith - forum moderation should be focused around that, rather than arbitrarily dinging people, for breaching often arbitrarily defined/enforced rules.

That's because most other message boards moderate according to rules, here you have a lot of moderation based on personal opinions. Crazy that they're allowed get away with it but they seem to be untouchable.

dulpit

The issue seems to be that the rules that are laid out in the charter aren't necessarily being adhered to by moderation, which I appreciate is a hard thing to do anyway. But if the charter was being followed then the forum would be a different place - the question then becomes whether or not the traffic would remain or would it move elsewhere?

For me it comes down to 2 choices:
1) Update the charter to reflect the wishes of the very vocal posters now, and allow the current feminist-bashing, traveller-bashing, dole-bashing, etc continue - but then rename it from AH perhaps?
2) Follow the charter. Ban the trolls. Ban the obvious re-regs. Ban the threads that are specifically about 1 person (e.g. Louise O'Neill thread, Margaret Cash thread).
Either are valid options to take. I wouldn't agree with option 1, but equally a lot won't agree with option 2 either. This halfway house is crummy though, I think something should be done.

retro:electro

KyussB wrote: »

I've been on all sorts of message boards going back more than 20 years, discussing all ranges of topics - I've never encountered a single one that comes even close to Boards, in terms of how strictly it's moderated.

Just to flip this for a second, I was a member on a different site for a while last year which was for the most part unmoderated and it ended up turning into complete and utter chaos. Troll accounts were popping up every two minutes (some members even had their private info like names and business posted) and there was absolutely no one around to clean up the mess. There was a forum admin who we messaged constantly and our concerns went unanswered, so we eventually had to move to a private forum and allow only a select few members access.
It’s ironic because the reason we moved over there was because the moderation was so strict here but it did make me appreciate how quick mods are at acting to chaos and abuse, you’re not long missing it when the shlt hits the fan.

Succubus_

Succubus_ wrote: »

I honestly think that the moderation has relaxed an awful lot in After Hours and I'm glad, at least the "chatty" threads aren't so heavily moderated and I prefer that atmosphere, but those threads tend to be friendly anyway. It is very annoying seeing the same topics come up over and over again with the same hate, bile and vitriol. It makes me weary. For whatever reason some people enjoy arguing and who am I to stand in their way. I think AH should be what you make it, but I'd prefer more light hearted threads and less nastiness. I don't agree with more heavy moderation, maybe we can just sedate the more angry posters?

Maybe give them a few I hate X sub forums and leave them to the circle jerk?

The re-reg's are a pain. I understand that putting a limit of 100 posts before you can start a thread or post in AH might put off new users, but I'm not sure there are many genuine new users any more so it might be worth it to keep the ones there are.

It's a hostile place these days, unfriendly, angry and openly bigoted. That's not really something anyone can be proud of or want to continue.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

KyussB wrote: »

I've been on all sorts of message boards going back more than 20 years, discussing all ranges of topics - I've never encountered a single one that comes even close to Boards, in terms of how strictly it's moderated.

Discussion of the most contentious political/economic topics, is inherently going to be chaotic. The only manageable way to moderate them, is to excise people who post in bad faith - forum moderation should be focused around that, rather than arbitrarily dinging people, for breaching often arbitrarily defined/enforced rules.

Well, like I said, not everyone dislikes that. I don’t and I’ve received infractions and bans myself in the past. You kinda spoke for everyone there. Out of turn, IMO. There’s always been criticism of the moderation but it has always has its defenders too. Like retro:electro said, unmoderated forums are a nightmare and, honestly, I think forums with lax moderation wouldn’t be much better. I’d rather things erred on the side of being too strict seeing as it would be practically impossible to get the balance right. On a site where there is nothing stopping moderators downing tools and closing their accounts, you have to be realistic. When moderators are unpaid, their individual foibles have to be tolerated just that little bit.

And, well, seriously, some of the threads started in Dispute Resolution, I cannot believe. People feigning befuddlement that they weren’t allowed to act like a jackass on some thread or other. Colour me shocked. And, like I said, I’ve been reprimanded myself before. I know what it feels like to get infractions. Nobody likes it. I didn’t but it doesn’t mean those infractions weren’t deserved.

prinzeugen

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, nobody posted in it. Hard to justify keeping it open on that basis which was a shame given how much enthusiasm there was for it in the Forum Requests thread.

More people might have posted if the mods were not so bias :-)

prinzeugen

KyussB wrote: »

Just to back this up - I don't know this posters personal views, so I don't back them - but I can absolutely first-hand back up that people are targeted on Politics for their views, and the moderation system is designed to be so easy to run into, that mods can pretty much make up any reason for targeting you, other than your views - despite your views being the 100% most consistent reason for you being targeted.

I can also attest to the double standards this poster describes - if you have past run-ins with mods, they justify applying different standards, in a way that leads to them ignoring the ways in which other posters reply to you, yet sanctions you for replying in-kind - this is most especially pronounced, if you're getting brow-beaten by a large number of posters holding a shared ideological-view/disposition, and if you hold the minority view - it is carte blanche for a larger group to abuse a poster, yet receive no sanction for it, and being able to trigger sanction for that poster if they respond in-kind.

It's a pain in the arse, and it's why I don't post here anymore. This is not a site for political discussion, as the moderation system directly leads to the warping of political discussion, in a way that severely curtails/limits the free range of discussion, the more it ideologically offends a large/forceful-enough group of posters. You point out the problems here in Feedback, and you get the mod/admin version of 'fuck off' while waving a mod stick/baton at you.

The entire site management/admin/mod team has been told by its userbase for years, blue in the face, that the moderation on the site is a problem - and the site has a reputation (going back well over a decade+) of heavy handed moderation and general moderation being a pain in the hole - but the people running things actively don't want to hear it or do anything about it (evidenced by how such criticism is often reacted to in a heavily managerial way "we hear and appreciate your concerns, but are not going to do anything meaningful about them" on this subforum).

You summed up the politics forum perfectly.

Its like a crows court. You get mods thanking posts that should have been carded.

As I said, Look at the mods history, not mine. Look at every card/infraction/ban they have issued.

There is a pattern. And then look at their other posts. Its clear to see!

Boards.ie: Mark

Mod Note: This thread is in relation to After Hours. If you would like to discuss the Politics forum, and more particularly the moderation of the forum, please start a thread in Help Desk. As always, it's worth reminding people to use the report post where you feel posts should be sanctioned, appeal in the Dispute Resolution Forum (after trying to discuss things with the Moderators) where you feel that your ban (and not the lack of action elsewhere) wasn't warranted, and highlight concerns to the Moderating team or the CMods.

dulpit

I'd be interested in hearing (and don't know if possible/appropriate in this forum) whether boards as a business are concerned about the general tone of the various fora here? Is it up to each forum to decide for themselves within an over-arching set of global rules? Or does the business get involved in this side of things?

Beasty

dulpit wrote: »

I'd be interested in hearing (and don't know if possible/appropriate in this forum) whether boards as a business are concerned about the general tone of the various fora here? Is it up to each forum to decide for themselves within an over-arching set of global rules? Or does the business get involved in this side of things?

I have not experienced the office interfering with or indeed providing direction to how forums should be run

Of course they provide advice on issues cropping up and indeed may promote certain ideas. I perfect example of that occurred yesterday when they prompted us to look at and if agreed fast track a "Brexit" forum. But even that was only after someone had started a forum request thread

droidman123

dulpit wrote: »

I'd be interested in hearing (and don't know if possible/appropriate in this forum) whether boards as a business are concerned about the general tone of the various fora here? Is it up to each forum to decide for themselves within an over-arching set of global rules? Or does the business get involved in this side of things?

The answer to your question about if boards as a business are concerned,is they dont care.an example which i have used before is banter and jokes being made about the london tube bombings a few years ago.they have mods and admins working for them for no pay whatsoever they are a profit making business and once they are making money they couldnt care less about whats going on on this site.

KyussB

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, like I said, not everyone dislikes that. I don’t and I’ve received infractions and bans myself in the past. You kinda spoke for everyone there. Out of turn, IMO. There’s always been criticism of the moderation but it has always has its defenders too. Like retro:electro said, unmoderated forums are a nightmare and, honestly, I think forums with lax moderation wouldn’t be much better. I’d rather things erred on the side of being too strict seeing as it would be practically impossible to get the balance right. On a site where there is nothing stopping moderators downing tools and closing their accounts, you have to be realistic. When moderators are unpaid, their individual foibles have to be tolerated just that little bit.

And, well, seriously, some of the threads started in Dispute Resolution, I cannot believe. People feigning befuddlement that they weren’t allowed to act like a jackass on some thread or other. Colour me shocked. And, like I said, I’ve been reprimanded myself before. I know what it feels like to get infractions. Nobody likes it. I didn’t but it doesn’t mean those infractions weren’t deserved.

You and others are falsely pretending it's a case of 1: No moderation, or 2: The present levels of moderation.

I'm not interested in debating a false dichotomy, that I never argued in the first place. There's nothing else I want to add to this thread, so I'd prefer that people not misrepresent what I have said - drawing me in to correcting that.

kneemos

AH is full of childish predictable gibberish,is unreadable for the most part.

TheValeyard

kneemos wrote: »

AH is full of childish predictable gibberish,is unreadable for the most part.

Didn't you have to be stopped from constantly creating threads?????

kneemos

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Didn't you have to be stopped from constantly creating threads?????

Rest my case.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

KyussB wrote: »

You and others are falsely pretending it's a case of 1: No moderation, or 2: The present levels of moderation.

I'm not interested in debating a false dichotomy, that I never argued in the first place. There's nothing else I want to add to this thread, so I'd prefer that people not misrepresent what I have said - drawing me in to correcting that.

No I’m not. I said that I don’t think more lax moderation would work either. I think erring on side of strict is better and what needs to happen, IMO, because getting a perfect balance would be impossible. It’s right there in the very post of mine that you quoted. Did you read my post before quoting it? There is no false dichotomy presented. You’re the one misrepresenting what I wrote! You seem sensitive to misrepresentation. Then don’t misrepresent people yourself.

Would it be unfair of me to suggest that perhaps those with an issue regarding over moderation have found themselves at the receiving end of many a card and/or ban?