Is it time to kill Politics Café?

RandomName2

OOhh look, a forum suggestion that isn't going into the forum suggestion forum. Controversial. Is it because nobody except admin go to the forum suggestion forum?

Partially, but here's a bigger point. It makes sense that there's a separate Politics forum for serious political discussion. After Hours is for topical discussion (and low brow). Politics Cafe is for.. for non-serious political discussion that is handled in a serious fashion? Why does it exist? It is way more difficult to post in the light-weight Politics Cafe forum than it is to post in the super serious Politics forum.

You can go to Politics Cafe 2.0 and see popular threads threads.
THE SYSTEM WORKS!
But does it? These popular threads were popular because they were in After Hours. They died when they got forcibly moved into Politics Cafe.

BUT de trolls and rereg users destroyed the original politics cafe!
What? A measure of a forum's success or failure is its usage (not necessarily number of users, but high numbers are good too).
Even if you accept the premise that it makes sense to separate out current events and current politics/political incidents into separate After Hours and Politics Cafe forums, the failure of 'original' Politics Cafe is not clear. Go there. Look for the terrible threads or posts in the frozen, archived forum. You'll probably have to keep looking for a while, because I spent a couple of minutes before giving up.

Why is Politics Cafe 2.0 in existence? Is it just there to kill discussions in After Hours?

kneemos

Look. There's rules,this goes here and that goes there.

Seriously though,they haven't a clue.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Moving to Feedback, as feedback should be kept in Feedback

Harry Palmr

What I find weird beyond that it exists at all is the need to apply to join.

Boards.ie: Mark

The Politics Cafe handles threads that wouldn't meet the posting standards required within Politics (and caters for political threads which After Hours is not supposed to). There is a misunderstanding that the Politics Cafe is stricter. Its charter is:

In this incarnation of the Cafe, the moderation will take a hands-off approach.

There are 2 rules, in addition to the site Terms of Use:
Don't be a dick.
No discussion of illegal activities

Other than that, the floor is open to discussion.

It is more difficult to gain access initially than Politics. But less is expected when framing your point within a debate or discussion. If one was to post in Politics with the kind of throwaway comments that are more acceptable in the Cafe, they wouldn't last long. The access request requirement then helps ensure that those posting in the forum are likely to contribute to actual discussion (i.e. it is harder to gain access as a serial re-reg user (avoiding bans) or troll).

While more difficult to gain access to than a general forum with no access requirements, it is still quite straightforward to request access: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057753734. Moving threads to PC2.0 is not an attempt to kill off a thread; they are being moved to a more fitting place. One way to ensure that threads don't just die off is to request access and continue the discussion.

kneemos

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

The Politics Cafe handles threads that wouldn't meet the posting standards required within Politics (and caters for political threads which After Hours is not supposed to). There is a misunderstanding that the Politics Cafe is stricter. Its charter is:



It is more difficult to gain access initially than Politics. But less is expected when framing your point within a debate or discussion. If one was to post in Politics with the kind of throwaway comments that are more acceptable in the Cafe, they wouldn't last long. The access request requirement then helps ensure that those posting in the forum are likely to contribute to actual discussion (i.e. it is harder to gain access as a serial re-reg user (avoiding bans) or troll).

While more difficult to gain access to than a general forum with no access requirements, it is still quite straightforward to request access: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057753734. Moving threads to PC2.0 is not an attempt to kill off a thread; they are being moved to a more fitting place. One way to ensure that threads don't just die off is to request access and continue the discussion.

Here's one that's never actually looked at the PC.

Every thread that goes there dies immediately.

Boards.ie: Mark

kneemos wrote: »

Here's one that's never actually looked at the PC.

Every thread that goes there dies immediately.

I can't disagree that PC2.0 is quieter than AH. But what I see is that there are often posters interested in a topic that don't follow a thread across from AH to PC. In fact, many have never have never even applied for access.

If people would like to provide feedback on the requirements themselves, I'm all ears (as I've said before).

Where a forum is quiet, people can help be the change they want to see. Apply for access, post on threads that interest them (whether they are started in AH and moved or have an origin in PC), and create threads that might be of interest to themselves and/or others.

padd b1975

The original Café was destroyed by the appointment of a totally unsuitable Mod.

Dravokivich

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

I can't disagree that PC2.0 is quieter than AH. But what I see is that there are often posters interested in a topic that don't follow a thread across from AH to PC. In fact, many have never have never even applied for access.

If people would like to provide feedback on the requirements themselves, I'm all ears (as I've said before).

Where a forum is quiet, people can help be the change they want to see. Apply for access, post on threads that interest them (whether they are started in AH and moved or have an origin in PC), and create threads that might be of interest to themselves and/or others.

I applied to post on boards. I'm not going to apply to post on other sections within the very same website. It doesn't make sense.

kneemos

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

I can't disagree that PC2.0 is quieter than AH. But what I see is that there are often posters interested in a topic that don't follow a thread across from AH to PC. In fact, many have never have never even applied for access.

If people would like to provide feedback on the requirements themselves, I'm all ears (as I've said before).

Where a forum is quiet, people can help be the change they want to see. Apply for access, post on threads that interest them (whether they are started in AH and moved or have an origin in PC), and create threads that might be of interest to themselves and/or others.

It's been going two years and has eighteen pages (and eleven mods??) surely it's obvious at this stage that nobody wants to use it,despite the admins constant protestations that it's easy to join.

This is an out there concept,but how about listening to what your customers have been saying for ages and go with what they actually want rather than what makes life easier.

Boards.ie: Mark

Dravokivich wrote: »

I applied to post on boards. I'm not going to apply to post on other sections within the very same website. It doesn't make sense.

To be pedantic, there's no application process to join Boards. Once you have an email address and a username that's not in use, you're in.

There are some topics that are divisive or contentious. There are some where people revel in winding up others. And there are people who are quite happy to take a ban and will reregister and start all over again. Politics happens to be one of these topics.

Restricting access helps to ensure that you'll get users who want to engage with a discussion while minimising the impact of rereg trolls, etc.

If someone wishes to post about Politics on Boards their current options are to post in the Politics forum and abide by its charter or apply for access to PC2.0 if they want a more hands-off moderation experience.

Dravokivich

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

To be pedantic, there's no application process to join Boards. Once you have an email address and a username that's not in use, you're in.

There are some topics that are divisive or contentious. There are some where people revel in winding up others. And there are people who are quite happy to take a ban and will reregister and start all over again. Politics happens to be one of these topics.

Restricting access helps to ensure that you'll get users who want to engage with a discussion while minimising the impact of rereg trolls, etc.

If someone wishes to post about Politics on Boards their current options are to post in the Politics forum and abide by its charter or apply for access to PC2.0 if they want a more hands-off moderation experience.

Signing up / application makes no odds what way you describe it. It's the same thing, I was just keeping to the phrasing you were using to show how mundane it is. I find it very off putting as a user to need to go through it to post somewhere else. So I dont.

Politics isn't the motivation of wind up merchants. Other posters on boards are. Take politics away and they'll find something else to smack you over the head with. Theres been no shortage of that. This very thread is opened trivialising the outcome of politics cafe. And theres nothing to indicate its success or any sense of a positive spin to be put on it in anyway. Most threads kicked out of AH with a healthy discussion just get left in the corner.

end of the road

pc2.2 is a complete failure. there are no 2 ways about it as far as i can see.
as i see it the choices are remove the access requirement or kill it. trying to work around the edges is just not going to work. if it means a few rereg trolls get in for a time, so be it. they can be ignored and banned accordingly. other forums manage in that manner, why is the pc different? i don't believe it is or should be.
i posted the odd time in the old pc and i used to read it quite a bit. i don't believe that the issues it did have, which from my point of view weren't that big really, couldn't have been solved without shutting the forum and replacing it with a locked down ghost town which nobody wants to post in.
was there a feedback discussion with the userbase during the time of the old pc, or 1 to discuss the changes that lead to pc 2.0 before it was implimented?

Boards.ie: Mark

The access requirement helps to minimise the impact of wind up merchants (regardless of whether politics in and of itself is their motivation). It helps to ensure that the posters within the forum will engage in some sort of reasonable discussion, and helps to keep out serial reregs. A healthy discussion is about more than simply quantity; the quality of posts is also important.

The current access requirement was implemented after issues arose with the previous guise of the Politics Cafe and after much deliberation and discussion. As I have said, if people would like to suggest viable alternatives, please do and they can be taken into consideration.

McMurphy

padd b1975 wrote: »

The original Cafas destroyed by the appointment of a totally unsuitable Mod.

Unsuitable how?

Because he or she made decisions in a mod capacity that made no sense? (We've a DRP procedure on this site, so there's a safety net mechanism via catmods/admin to highlight any poor decisions)

Or unsuitable because they might have different political persuasions to yourself?

That's the thing about politics, there's always differing opinions and outlook's.

RandomName2

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

The access requirement helps to minimise the impact of wind up merchants (regardless of whether politics in and of itself is their motivation). It helps to ensure that the posters within the forum will engage in some sort of reasonable discussion, and helps to keep out serial reregs. A healthy discussion is about more than simply quantity; the quality of posts is also important.

The current access requirement was implemented after issues arose with the previous guise of the Politics Cafe and after much deliberation and discussion. As I have said, if people would like to suggest viable alternatives, please do and they can be taken into consideration.

I honestly appreciate the reason for restricting access but there's a few problems.

• First, it doesn't assume good faith.
• Second, it can't be just a rubber stamp. If the application process was just a rubber stamp it wouldn't exist in the first place. It means you get a human to look at the person making the application and making a decision if they think that person is going to be a windup merchant.
• Third, chicken and egg. The lack of people there means less of an inclination to join. The lack of inclination to join means there's less people there.
• Fourth, it sends a really weird tone. Hey guys, have fun, just play nice and don't do anything illegal. Actually first guys, mind if I see all of your IDs, and would you mind each sending me a formal membership application that I can inspect?

If you want to stop spam, or simple rereg, or people with multiple forum bans from posting there, you can just have the computer block such users automatically. Minimum post number of 250 seems excessive as well, and unlikely to do what is intended.

Edit: finally, I don't entirely trust the reason given for winding up the first politics cafe. Call me a cynic, but this impacts my view of politics cafe 2.0.

Edit edit: I also think there's probably too many separate forums in Boards anyway, but that's a different issue. People hate looking around for things. They are lazy and ficke. I nearly didn't bother posting this reply because I couldn't find the Feedback forum quickly.

kneemos

RandomName2 wrote: »

I honestly appreciate the reason for restricting access but there's a few problems.

• First, it doesn't assume good faith.
• Second, it can't be just a rubber stamp. If the application process was just a rubber stamp it wouldn't exist in the first place. It means you get a human to look at the person making the application and making a decision if they think that person is going to be a windup merchant.
• Third, chicken and egg. The lack of people there means less of an inclination to join. The lack of inclination to join means there's less people there.
• Fourth, it sends a really weird tone. Hey guys, have fun, just play nice and don't do anything illegal. Actually first guys, mind if I see all of your IDs, and would you mind each sending me a formal membership application that I can inspect?

If you want to stop spam, or simple rereg, or people with multiple forum bans from posting there, you can just have the computer block such users automatically. Minimum post number of 250 seems excessive as well, and unlikely to do what is intended.

Edit: finally, I don't entirely trust the reason given for winding up the first politics cafe. Call me a cynic, but this impacts my view of politics cafe 2.0.

Edit edit: I also think there's probably too many separate forums in Boards anyway, but that's a different issue. People hate looking around for things. They are lazy and ficke. I nearly didn't bother posting this reply because I couldn't find the Feedback forum quickly.

It's a victory for the wind up merchants basically.

Beasty

kneemos wrote: »

It's a victory for the wind up merchants basically.

I don't disagree. This is to some extent linked to the recently closed AH thread in Feedback, and the Current Affairs forum we've been considering. It has re-ignited discussion about a new forum with the Admin team and Office staff, and I would hope we can make some progress on this before too much longer

end of the road

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

The access requirement helps to minimise the impact of wind up merchants (regardless of whether politics in and of itself is their motivation).

the thing is mark, the system for dealing with trolls/reregs etc seem to work fine for the majority of the site, so i can't subscribe to the idea that the current system is doing anything other then keeping what could and should be a busy lively forum, anything other then a dead one where nobody wants to give their time. so essentially, it is effectively keeping everyone out.

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

It helps to ensure that the posters within the forum will engage in some sort of reasonable discussion, and helps to keep out serial reregs.

the problem is mark, in practice those of us in the forum are not discussing and we don't see the forum as 1 that is worth giving our time to, as essentially it will just be our very own political diary, which is not what the forum is about.
potential users seem to feel the same as we do. we see the forum as unfit for purpose, whereas i would imagine many users (i know i do) would see the old cafe as mostly fit dispite the issues, and would be something we could give our time to, as people can come in and discuss. if they are a windup, they can be ignored and banned, or preferibly they might flounce out in a huff if they are challenged sufficiently.

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

A healthy discussion is about more than simply quantity; the quality of posts is also important.

agreed but while an access system remains, then realistically neither quantity or quality of posts will happen because hardly anyone will waste time requesting access or even discussing if they have access already. especially when there are other forums outside boards which allow for political discussion, some even dedicated to it. we don't want people to go to the other forums, we want them to come here or even stay here.

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

The current access requirement was implemented after issues arose with the previous guise of the Politics Cafe and after much deliberation and discussion. As I have said, if people would like to suggest viable alternatives, please do and they can be taken into consideration.

KyussB

The access requirement in practice, isn't simply used against wind up merchants. In practice, it's there to put user posting rights, up to completely arbitrary mod discretion.

Further, there is a mix up between those who have not been approved to post, and those under legacy bans who were never banned from the new forum - as if both are the same...(with cop outs about it being a 'moved' forum, and such - even when bans on original forums have gone)

Basically, it's another area of Boards where the rules are made up and enforced in completely arbitrary fashion - and is one of the many parts of Boards symbolic of that - as if it's ruled over by authoritarian teachers in a devout catholic primary school, who get a thrill over disciplining pupils in a petty manner.

Timberrrrrrrr

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

The access requirement helps to minimise the impact of wind up merchants (regardless of whether politics in and of itself is their motivation). It helps to ensure that the posters within the forum will engage in some sort of reasonable discussion, and helps to keep out serial reregs. A healthy discussion is about more than simply quantity; the quality of posts is also important.

The current access requirement was implemented after issues arose with the previous guise of the Politics Cafe and after much deliberation and discussion. As I have said, if people would like to suggest viable alternatives, please do and they can be taken into consideration.

Every time this subject comes up this same line is trotted out.

You then get god knows how many people explaining to you (not personally) why this system is not working and that the access request should bebremoved (maybe replaced with a minimum post/join date). This suggestion is never taken seriously or tried.

Im another page or 2 and this thread will be locked and we will be assured that all suggestions have been taken on board and discussion is ongoing behind the scenes yadda yadda yadda.

2 months time the subject is raised again and the circle continues. Meanwhile PC 2.0 dies a slow death and once vibrant discussion/threads rot away due to being moved to a forum with little/no traffic.

Boards.ie: Mark

As discussed in the previous feedback thread regarding the Politics Cafe, simply removing the access restriction and changing nothing else will not work. It was tried in the past which is how we have come to this point - this was outlined in the closing message of the first Politics Cafe: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057752604 - as such, it isn't a viable alternative.

You have mentioned possibly replacing the current requirements with a minimum post/join date. This is something that we can discuss and if there were suggestions as to what seems reasonable, that would be great.

Timberrrrrrrr

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

As discussed in the previous feedback thread regarding the Politics Cafe, simply removing the access restriction and changing nothing else will not work. It was tried in the past which is how we have come to this point - this was outlined in the closing message of the first Politics Cafe: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057752604 - as such, it isn't a viable alternative.

You have mentioned possibly replacing the current requirements with a minimum post/join date. This is something that we can discuss and if there were suggestions as to what seems reasonable, that would be great.

Minimum of 1 month on boards and 50 posts seems fair enough, others may want more (less?) But i dont think many rereg trolls would last a month before being found out.

Dravokivich

That just sounds like stretching for a compromise. It's still putting conditions on how someone can get in, to post there. A new comer cant just enter into it. Which was a big focus on re-aligning boards a couple of years ago, to make this website more accessible. So what's the point in it?

kneemos

The thing has eleven mods waiting for action, don't see what the problem is opening it up.

Timberrrrrrrr

Dravokivich wrote: »

That just sounds like stretching for a compromise. It's still putting conditions on how someone can get in, to post there. A new comer cant just enter into it. Which was a big focus on re-aligning boards a couple of years ago, to make this website more accessible. So what's the point in it?

Reregs will create new accounts and spam AH as there is no control. 50 post or 1 month minimum will allow posters who are here a while to post whereas reregs won't/don't usually last that long.

end of the road

kneemos wrote: »

The thing has eleven mods waiting for action, don't see what the problem is opening it up.

to be pedantic pc has 5 forum specific mods, with 6 cmods presumably for the whole politics section.

Dravokivich

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Reregs will create new accounts and spam AH as there is no control. 50 post or 1 month minimum will allow posters who are here a while to post whereas reregs won't/don't usually last that long.

A new person comes in. They've an interest in a topic there they want to contribute to. They cant. Boards reset itself a few years back with the intention to increase accessibility, yet everything new since hinders it. Becuase of a few morons?

Tokyo

kneemos wrote: »

The thing has eleven mods waiting for action, don't see what the problem is opening it up.

5 mods.

It would be preferable to foster an environment where moderators didn't have to be "waiting for action". A recurring theme in these threads is that the onus seems to get placed on the mods to mod better, but no similar responsibility put on posters to behave better.

Anyhow. We are discussing a few possible solutions to this in the admin forum at the moment, and as soon as we have decided on a course of action, we'll let you know here.

_Kaiser_

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

The Politics Cafe handles threads that wouldn't meet the posting standards required within Politics

Translation: notions by the regulars and mods as to what is "quality posting" :rolleyes:

It was very clear first time round that the locals didn't like "their" domain being invaded by Average Joe with his opinions (and bearing in mind that this was during the recession years when people generally were more interested in political shenanigans as it was directly impacting them), hence why the Cafe was setup in the first place. Simultaneously they also started labelling/categorising every thread which made navigation a complete pain IMO

Then, when the Cafe became too popular and muppetry increased, the complaint was that it was diverting discussion and the redirecting and moving of threads started,complete with restrictions on access (because rather than deal with the primarily handful of posters acting the tool, let's make it harder for everyone).

That's where the Cafe has failed. Poor moderation, over-zealous "filing" of everything by other mods, and failure to keep up with the demands/expectations of the users who are generating the threads/traffic in the first place.

Timberrrrrrrr

Dravokivich wrote: »

A new person comes in. They've an interest in a topic there they want to contribute to. They cant. Boards reset itself a few years back with the intention to increase accessibility, yet everything new since hinders it. Becuase of a few morons?

I thought there was already a minimum post count/join date for PC 2.0 already along with the access request?


Edit: There is a 3 month and 250 post count restriction

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057753981/1/#post103836472