Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Beasty

This is it wrote: »

You can say how clear you're being but at the end of the day it's simply untrue, and I know that having seen behind the scenes.

Left wing posters get away with far more than right wing posters, not due to rules being broken but because a majority of mods, and the site itself, are left leaning.

That's an interesting observation, but not one I would agree with. I think the majority of mods look at the post rather than the politics behind it

And if anything I would consider myself "right-leaning" (although I don';t think there's much evidence of my own politics anywhere on the site) with most mods somewhere in the middle based on what I see of them posting rather than "behind the scenes" - I really cannot recall any evidence suggesting what you claim "behind the scenes". Equally even if you were to frequent the mods forum you would probably find a majority of mods rarely post there and it's hardly ever with political motives/observations

2u2me

Baggly wrote: »

You assume the reason for closure is the 'popular' sway of the thread rather than the behaviour of those who hold that 'popular' sway. You are giving anyone who abuses the rules but is 'negative' towards the subject matter a free pass.

No I'm not, I would just expect you guys to threadban those users like you would in other threads, let's say the Gemma thread and the Trump thread.

But it continually doesn't happen in Antifa threads across this site they continually get shutdown. So that is a fact no matter how much you dress it up.

To be clear: discussions get shut down because of rule breakages and poster behaviour; not poster opinions. I cant be more clear on that.

I never said that the threads are being shutdown because of people's opinions. My claim is that users are forming a cabal and purposefully trolling the threads they want shutdown, and the users they want to shutdown. The first page of that Antifa thread has posters highly critical of Antifa, of them 4 have closed their accounts; one has been banned; 3 get constant abuse across these boards.

Re: Theories cannot be proven....well thats not right. Theories can be disproven having one been proved; but if you dont prove something in the first place; how can you establish the validity of gravity, as you attempted to do before? Any theory can be proven to a reasonable degree; and can then be disproven by further research and testing. Thats scientific theory.

That's not scientific theory. No theory in science has ever been proven, that's why it's called a theory. The closest possible theory we have to being a proof we still call theorems.

Nothing is provable, gravity has never been proven. It has only stood the test of time of not being disproven.

The first "fact" in your 'submission' is not correct; the other two fall apart as a result. You asked me to tell you if you are wrong; i have done so.

That's fair enough that you tell me I'm wrong. The thing is though you can't argue with facts. All the Antifa threads have been shutdown because of the enormous amount of reported posts generated. I previously linked to the moderator notes that shutdown these threads citing this reason, so you're just wrong here and to argue with facts is disturbing.

Having said that; my stance as things stand is that, based on the evidence you have provided to now, your theory and submissions are wrong. You would do well to actually take my comments on board before sending any further 'evidence'....because what you are posting here isnt proving what you claim it does.

Of course my theory is wrong if you can't even agree on the facts.

2u2me

In the thread in afterhours "Win for antifa" of the posters that were strictly critical of Antifa on the first page, 3 have been banned and 3 have deleted their accounts.


From the Antifa handbook:

It is true that the dynamics of “no platforming” changed significantly with the advent of the Internet. The Internet is a platform that anti-fascists cannot completely contest, though efforts to persuade Reddit and other forums to ban racist threads have borne some fruit.
[...]
Anti-fascists conduct researchon the Far Right online, in person, and sometimes through infiltration; they dox them, push cultural milieux to disown them, pressure bosses to fire them, and demand that venues cancel their shows, conferences, and meetings

Baggly

2u2me wrote: »

No I'm not, I would just expect you guys to threadban those users like you would in other threads, let's say the Gemma thread and the Trump thread.

But it continually doesn't happen in Antifa threads across this site they continually get shutdown. So that is a fact no matter how much you dress it up.

I never said that the threads are being shutdown because of people's opinions. My claim is that users are forming a cabal and purposefully trolling the threads they want shutdown, and the users they want to shutdown. The first page of that Antifa thread has posters highly critical of Antifa, of them 4 have closed their accounts; one has been banned; 3 get constant abuse across these boards.

That's not scientific theory. No theory in science has ever been proven, that's why it's called a theory. The closest possible theory we have to being a proof we still call theorems.

Nothing is provable, gravity has never been proven. It has only stood the test of time of not being disproven.

That's fair enough that you tell me I'm wrong. The thing is though you can't argue with facts. All the Antifa threads have been shutdown because of the enormous amount of reported posts generated. I previously linked to the moderator notes that shutdown these threads citing this reason, so you're just wrong here and to argue with facts is disturbing.



Of course my theory is wrong if you can't even agree on the facts.

I can agree on facts - you just haven't presented many that are actually facts. As i have said, please PM me on whatever you feel would help and ill give it an earnest appraisal, as i do for all users.

Im gonna let this go after this because its largely irrelevant but when you prove a theory it stops being a theory and becomes a fact / principle / law. So you are right, if something is a theory it isnt proven. But you are wrong in that theories cannot be proven. You are conflating things (and i have no idea why; but in an effort to clarify things, this site will explain the difference between a theory and a law (of which broadly speaking gravity is both) better than i can.

Outlaw Pete

Baggly wrote: »

I dont know your experience but ive been modding multiple fora (including the busy ones) for years now and im only seeing rule breakages being actioned.

Nobody is saying that Boards' mods just ban and action users without citing a reason. They're not that stupid. The point is that a right leaning user will get actioned for rule breeches which you will rarely if ever see left leaning users actioned for. Or, if they do get moderated, it will be a slap and the wrist for them whereas the right leaning user will get threadbanned/forumbanned.

It's absurd to the point of laughable to act as there is no truth to that. The disgraceful moderation of threads leading up to the 8th Amendment referendum left even fence sitters in no doubt to just how willing many mods were to apply the "rules" when it suited them in order to ensure that those threads remained as free from prolife views as possible.

Its how i mod and i would greatly enjoy you trying to prove otherwise for me. If there is any effort to moderate opinions, i have never ever seen it discussed or encouraged or coordinated in any way. And as ive said here in this thread previously, if i did see opinions being moderated, you can be damn sure id be calling it out / quitting as mod / leaving the site.

It goes on all the time. What it takes for left leaning users to get moderated is a hell of a lot more than what it takes for right leaning ones to. It's sitewide, not just CA by the way. The Politics forum is by far the worst in that regard. For years you had the mods there banning anyone that dared say anything about the Clintons that they couldn't fully back up with evidence (some of which was understandable - the Pizzagate nonsense a good example) but yet carte blanche has pretty much given for the left leaning members of Boards to say what they hell they liked about Trump since his election. Anyone that says that the moderation around what you can say about Trump is the same as the moderation around what you can say about liberal politicians, has to be having a laugh.

I would further request of you to give an examples of someone being actioned for their opinion(s), rather than behaviour. If its as common as you are suggesting, it should be fairly easy find some examples?

No mod is ever going to action a user and say they actioned them for their opinions. No, what they will do instead is just cite a charter rule that you have apparently broken and if you point out that other users, the ones with opposing viewpoints, do the same thing all the time without issue, you will generally just be told that what other users do is not important, that it is your posts that are being discussed. This goes on all the time in the DR forum. If the user persists they will generally be obtusely told that they are now guilty of "rules lawyering". Almost impossible then for any user to be able to make an argument that mods moderate in a biased way when you [collective you] have effectively made it impossible for them to make an argument based on moderation inconsistency.

I'll give you one example from CA (given that's the forum in question in this particular thread): two months ago I posting the following post:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This won't do the narrative that Shokin was removed for corruption purposes any good and will absolutely affect Biden's run for office.

Poroshenko: "Joe, I have a second positive news for you: Yesterday I met with the General Prosecutor Shokin and despite of the fact that we didn't have ANY corruption charges, we don't have ANY information about him doing something wrong .. I especially ask him to resign as his position as a state person .. as a finish of my meeting with him he promised me to give me the written statement of his resignation and one hour ago he bring me the written statement of his resignation.."

Biden: "Great.."

The mod deleted it and posted "No Video Dumps" despite my post being a million miles from being a video dump.

I did PM the mod but they never replied. Would seem to me some mods just act on volume of reported posts over all else and reports from certain left leaning users (that have been around a long time) are given a level of credence when they perhaps shouldn't be These would be the same left leaning users that thank mod posts when users are threadbanned. Of course they do, sure that was their objective in reporting the users to begin with. Well, that and the hope that if they report enough posts the thread might get locked and then they won't have to deal with something being discussed when they'd rather wasn't.

I would say posting a ten minute video with no actual summary or opinion is a bit of a video dump.

Outlaw Pete

Course you would, Mike - and your political leanings have nothing to do with your view here I suppose. Would you be on here calling a video of a conversation with Trump a "video dump". Not a chance.

As for saying I posted "no opinion" - what's this, scotch mist?

Outlaw Pete wrote:

This won't do the narrative that Shokin was removed for corruption purposes any good and will absolutely affect Biden's run for office.

The video was included as a source for the Biden quote I used. Had I not included the clip, I would just have been asked for a source.

Oh and the video is timestamped at the quote by the way. Press play.

2u2me

Baggly wrote: »

I can agree on facts - you just haven't presented many that are actually facts. As i have said, please PM me on whatever you feel would help and ill give it an earnest appraisal, as i do for all users.

Im gonna let this go after this because its largely irrelevant but when you prove a theory it stops being a theory and becomes a fact / principle / law. So you are right, if something is a theory it isnt proven. But you are wrong in that theories cannot be proven. You are conflating things (and i have no idea why; but in an effort to clarify things, this site will explain the difference between a theory and a law (of which broadly speaking gravity is both) better than i can.

No in fact you are wrong. Theories can not be proven in science. NEVER. They can only be disproven. What you are thinking about is a 'law' in science.

From the link that you provided:

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded because of new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law of gravity that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory of gravity that describes why the objects attract each other.

A theory explains the fact.

Here's another definition:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

A theory explains the facts.

Baggly

2u2me wrote:

No in fact you are wrong. Theories can not be proven in science. NEVER. They can only be disproven. What you are thinking about is a 'law' in science.

You are wrong but I think it's better we discuss it via pm than further detail the thread.

circadian

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Course you would, Mike - and your political leanings have nothing to do with your view here I suppose. Would you be on here calling a video of a conversation with Trump a "video dump". Not a chance.

As for saying I posted "no opinion" - what's this, scotch mist?



The video was included as a source for the Biden quote I used. Had I not included the clip, I would just have been asked for a source.

Oh and the video is timestamped at the quote by the way. Press play.

I'd agree with Mike on this one and I have no idea of your political leanings or whatever.

Chips Lovell

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's sitewide, not just CA by the way. The Politics forum is by far the worst in that regard. For years you had the mods there banning anyone that dared say anything about the Clintons that they couldn't fully back up with evidence (some of which was understandable - the Pizzagate nonsense a good example) but yet carte blanche has pretty much given for the left leaning members of Boards to say what they hell they liked about Trump since his election. Anyone that says that the moderation around what you can say about Trump is the same as the moderation around what you can say about liberal politicians, has to be having a laugh.

I've gone to great lengths to explain to you before that this allegation is completely untrue, and you've repeated it again. The rules apply to all posters and we don't play favourites with any particular position.

I've practially got RSI from moderating the Trump threads and most of those mod actions have been directed at anti-Trump posts in fact, mainly because they're far more numerous than pro-Trump posts.

The moderation record for those threads is there for any Admin or Community Manager to see and I think will demonstrate that we've been nothing but even-handed.

Baggly

Pete I don't think it's fair to tar all mods with the same brush as you did, and I also think it's unfair to call a comparison between multiple fora, all of which have bespoke rules, as representative. I also think your hypothesis around one side or the other being actioned more because of their leanings to give the same carte Blanche that I described to 2me2u.

If you are trying to say (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that mods are actioning with ulterior motives to do with one side of the argument, then all I can say is that is literally unprovable, and it's not what happens with my modding. And that's all anyone can actually say to something like that.

Outlaw Pete

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I've gone to great lengths to explain to you before that this allegation is completely untrue, and you've repeated it again. The rules apply to all posters and we don't play favourites with any particular position.

I've practially got RSI from moderating the Trump threads and most of those mod actions have been directed at anti-Trump posts in fact, mainly because they're far more numerous than pro-Trump posts.

The moderation record for those threads is there for any Admin or Community Manager to see and I think will demonstrate that we've been nothing but even-handed.

Chips, the Politics forum is the most biased moderated forum on Boards. Just because you're getting away with it, doesn't make it not the case. The Trump thread there reads like a liberal chat room for heaven sake and that's because you have allowed the left leaning users to control the thread by way reporting posts.

Here's an example of just how biased the place is. I was forum banned for posting a Trump tweet on the Trump thread. You also threadbanned me and used the pathetic laughable excuse that my opinions were "conspiracy theories" - even though the view you highlighted is an oft expressed view and pretty common, to the degree that many liberals would even agree with it. Yet here is a clear example of personal abuse and the liberal user just got a slap on the wrist. So forum bans and thread bans for opinions and 'now now' moderation for vile abuse and you can't see the inconsistency in that?

Come on, who do you folks think you're kidding. You may all have each other's back but please don't think we're all buying this 'We're not politically biased' nonsense. Not suggesting all Politics/CA mods are incapable of being impartial, as that's not the case as some clearly try damn hard to be fair, but there are so bloody many that don't even try to hide their bias as they know admin have their back given the vast majority of them are on the very same page.

Locking that Antifa thread was a disgrace by the way. There are circular arguments on every longstanding thread. It's no excuse.

Chips Lovell

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Here's an example of just how biased the place is. I was forum banned for posting a Trump tweet on the Trump thread. You also threadbanned me and used the pathetic laughable excuse that my opinions were "conspiracy theories" - even though the view you highlighted is an oft expressed view and pretty common, to the degree that many liberals would even agree with it. Yet here is a clear example of personal abuse and the liberal user just got a slap on the wrist. So forum bans and thread bans for opinions and 'now now' moderation for vile abuse and you can't see the inconsistency in that?

As I explained to you before, that ban came after you'd previously gotten five cards and a ban in Politics. The user who directed personal abuse at you, it was their first moderator action. In other words, they were receiving the same treatment you received, where we started with warnings and infractions and progressed to bans. If both of your track records had been the same, I'd agree it would have been inconsistent, but they weren't.

Also, note, nobody gets actioned for posting Trump tweets in Trump threads. More correctly, people get actioned for posting tweets in threads. As mods, we're blue in the face stressing that its a discussion forum and simply posting links to news stories, tweets and videos isn't a contribution to the debate. That rule applies to all topics and all viewpoints.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nobody is saying that Boards' mods just ban and action users without citing a reason. They're not that stupid. The point is that a right leaning user will get actioned for rule breeches which you will rarely if ever see left leaning users actioned for. Or, if they do get moderated, it will be a slap and the wrist for them whereas the right leaning user will get threadbanned/forumbanned.

It's absurd to the point of laughable to act as there is no truth to that. The disgraceful moderation of threads leading up to the 8th Amendment referendum left even fence sitters in no doubt to just how willing many mods were to apply the "rules" when it suited them in order to ensure that those threads remained as free from prolife views as possible.

Seeing as you brought up the 8th amendment threads and I was one of the mods in AH for that period, I'll answer this one for you.

As a mod there and one who posted against the repeal (feel free to check it if you wish), there was no effort whatsoever made by any mod, Cmod, Admin or office staff member to instruct, coerce or force any mod at the time to favour any one side in the discussion over another.

There was every effort possible made to allow a discussion of the 8th amendment referendum. Despite the eventual majority in the country and an even higher proportion in favour of the repeal on the site, a huge effort was made by mods, and discussed with Cmods and Admins behind the scenes, to allow a discussion to continue. It extended as far as allowing those against the referendum a huge, massively huge, ginormous amount of rope in the discussion. In part, this was because this is a discussion site and because opposing views do need to be heard. Fair play to those posting against the majority consensus, many of them gamely held out to the end despite huge efforts made to overwhelm them with accusations of them not answering questions when they may already have or simply found it difficult to cope with the sheer volume of opposing views and sometimes bile thrown their way.

The only bias shown was in favour of allowing a discussion to continue. Cards and bans were applied to both sides but to my recollection, any bias shown was in favour of the losing side. I myself sanctioned a good number of contributors who were on the same side of the debate as me because they were well beyond the pale in terms of discussion and debate and many having had repeated warnings to tone down their posting style. Many felt provoked into responding to jibes and would have lesser sanctions applied than similar posts from the opposing side.

And many, many pro appeal posters were sanctioned also.

From a mods perspective, it was a horrific debate to moderate.

It goes on all the time. What it takes for left leaning users to get moderated is a hell of a lot more than what it takes for right leaning ones to. It's sitewide, not just CA by the way.

This debate about wings is one I find very silly. Who exactly determines where the line is drawn in left and right wing debates? Is it yourself or is there a central Wing Register that we check in our credentials on a range of criteria and are then told where on this mythical aeroplane we find ourselves?

The majority of people I come in contact with on a daily basis have a range of views on different subjects and some of their views would be far to the right of either of ours on particular subjects and some far to the left. There is no mandatory list of beliefs and levels of belief one has to have to be pigeonholed into a particular belief syatem.

After all, what would happen if the Wing Resister, on average, finds my overall views were to the left of yours?

Would that make you right wing then?

It's mad, Ted.

I did PM the mod but they never replied. Would seem to me some mods just act on volume of reported posts over all else and reports from certain left leaning users (that have been around a long time) are given a level of credence when they perhaps shouldn't be These would be the same left leaning users that thank mod posts when users are threadbanned. Of course they do, sure that was their objective in reporting the users to begin with. Well, that and the hope that if they report enough posts the thread might get locked and then they won't have to deal with something being discussed when they'd rather wasn't.

Posts are dealt with on their merit. If a sanction is required, it's applied, regardless of which 'wing' the reporter or reported wish themselves to be. On volume reporting, it's fairly clear after a short period which posters are attempting to carry on as you state above. If anything, it detracts from the gravity with which their reports are treated. They will be looked at, certainly, and actioned if necessary but many posters have been warned about abusing the report post function.

But at the end of the day, Pete, it's all down to beliefs. I doubt anything is going to convince you of anything other than a left wing conspiracy on Boards whereas in reality it's more to do with the demographics and relative maturity of posters on the site, with the younger generations generally being to the left of the older generations.

Hotblack Desiato

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's absurd to the point of laughable to act as there is no truth to that. The disgraceful moderation of threads leading up to the 8th Amendment referendum left even fence sitters in no doubt to just how willing many mods were to apply the "rules" when it suited them in order to ensure that those threads remained as free from prolife views as possible.

Wow. Just wow.
You cannot be serious. Can you?

Of course it would have helped their cause if certain pro-life posters could have refrained from using terms like "murderers" and posting pics of miscarried foetus parts, but the pro-life viewpoint was extremely well aired on every single abortion thread on this site and to claim otherwise is bizarre in the extreme.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The Trump thread there reads like a liberal chat room for heaven sake and that's because you have allowed the left leaning users to control the thread by way reporting posts.

Boards thankfully isn't run the BAI, pro-Trump view is not entitled to 50% of posts. The vast majority of Irish people have an extremely negative opinion of him and Boards threads will reflect that.

osarusan

Baggly wrote: »

And a lot of people can't distinguish between putting a point across and putting it across civilly: and as a result assume mod actions are about moderating opinions rather than what they are: moderating discussion.

I can't comment on what goes on behind the scenes in terms of moderation obviously, but the above quote describes a lot of CA (and AH before it) for me.


In a thread about say Travellers, there will be a few posts along the lines of 'forcible sterilisation for every one of them' and others in similar vein, and then when the thread gets locked, we get same old moans about how 'you can't have a discussion on Traveller behaviour any more'.


As long as I've been on boards, it's the posters moaning about how you can't have a mature/honest/serious discussion on topic X who actually have the least inclination for such a discussion.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

I can't comment on what goes on behind the scenes in terms of moderation obviously, but the above quote describes a lot of CA (and AH before it) for me.


In a thread about say Travellers, there will be a few posts along the lines of 'forcible sterilisation for every one of them' and others in similar vein, and then when the thread gets locked, we get same old moans about how 'you can't have a discussion on Traveller behaviour any more'.


As long as I've been on boards, it's the posters moaning about how you can't have a mature/honest/serious discussion on topic X who actually have the least inclination for such a discussion.

The same type of posters always seem outraged at something while constantly claiming that others are.

The same type of posters complaining about left wing bias from mods when a non CA mod regularly posts and opens threads complaining about immigrants.

Same type of poster stating that they hoped that the Eid celebrations in Croke park would get the national party more votes. While of course ignoring the fact that the national party and their followers have strikingly similar attitudes to women, homosexuals, killing people etc that most Muslim extremists would have. The only obvious differences would be nationality, skin colour and the religious dictatorship that they want.

That's the sort of mentality that you find a lot of in CA and those complaining about it being left wing biased.

DubInMeath

DubInMeath wrote: »

The same type of posters always seem outraged at something while constantly claiming that others are.

The same type of posters complaining about left wing bias from mods when a non CA mod regularly posts and opens threads complaining about immigrants.

Same type of poster stating that they hoped that the Eid celebrations in Croke park would get the national party more votes. While of course ignoring the fact that the national party and their followers have strikingly similar attitudes to women, homosexuals, killing people etc that most Muslim extremists would have. The only obvious differences would be nationality, skin colour and the religious dictatorship that they want.

That's the sort of mentality that you find a lot of in CA and those complaining about it being left wing biased.

i mean

i dont believe that theres a bias tbh, but all this post seems to be is a complaint that a mod (or anyone) can hold those opinions.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

i mean

i dont believe that theres a bias tbh, but all this post seems to be is a complaint that a mod (or anyone) can hold those opinions.

Big swing and a miss

fair enough, must have picked it up wrong.

as i say, i wouldnt be of the opinion that theres a big mod conspiracy or bias anyway.

i do think that there is a big push from posters who would identify as true lefties to have discussion shut down, though, which can affect how things play out

Muahahaha

osarusan wrote: »

I can't comment on what goes on behind the scenes in terms of moderation obviously, but the above quote describes a lot of CA (and AH before it) for me.

In a thread about say Travellers, there will be a few posts along the lines of 'forcible sterilisation for every one of them' and others in similar vein, and then when the thread gets locked, we get same old moans about how 'you can't have a discussion on Traveller behaviour any more'.

As long as I've been on boards, it's the posters moaning about how you can't have a mature/honest/serious discussion on topic X who actually have the least inclination for such a discussion.

Ain't that the truth. At this stage I'm convinced that it is actually physically impossible to have a rational and civil discussion on Boards about Travellers. I just dont bother clicking into those threads anymore because you just know what way it is going to go every time without fail.

Even the thread Omackeral started 'Say something good about Travellers' started off fine for a few pages but then quickly descended into the usual bile, rhetoric and traveller bashing and had to be locked by the mods. And then the posters whose bile got it locked in the first place will be the very ones complaining about mod bias and their opinions are being censored and their free speech being infringed and blah de blah de blah :rolleyes:

Faugheen

Is there anything that can be done about posters who just do not do so in good faith?

They’ll make a wild claim, with no evidence, someone goes through all the hard work to refute it, and the OP comes back, completely ignores what was said, and will make another nonsense, unsubstantiated claim.

If a claim is made a poster should be made to back it up. It completely derails threads.

KiKi III

A user is suggesting the indiscriminate killing of people arriving in dinghies to the UK. This clearly violates the forum charter which says you shouldn’t wish harm on an individual or group. I’m deeply disappointed that this hasn’t been actioned even though it’s been reported and a mod is discussing it with the user on the thread.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058075749/45

Tokyo

KiKi III wrote: »

A user is suggesting the indiscriminate killing of people arriving in dinghies to the UK. This clearly violates the forum charter which says you shouldn’t wish harm on an individual or group. I’m deeply disappointed that this hasn’t been actioned even though it’s been reported and a mod is discussing it with the user on the thread.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058075749/45

Site issues are also affecting moderation.

However, the mod "discussing it with the user" is a) not a mod of that forum, and b) discussing it insofar as to say "I'm going to be honest, that's absolutely disgusting."

You are expressing your disappointment at 8:30 am over something that was posted late yesterday evening. Feedback should be for actual feedback, not the go-to because a poster doesn't feel their reported post was acted upon quickly enough. I don't think it's unfair to expect that mods be given a reasonable amount of time to deal with forum issues, as well as have a life outside of here.

It will be addressed as soon as I also don't have to deal with 503s.

KiKi III

mike_ie wrote: »

Site issues are also affecting moderation.

However, the mod "discussing it with the user" is a) not a mod of that forum, and b) discussing it insofar as to say "I'm going to be honest, that's absolutely disgusting.

You are expressing your disappointment at 8:30 am over something that was posted late yesterday evening. Feedback should be for actual feedback, not the go-to because a poster doesn't feel their reported post was acted upon quickly enough. I don't think it's unfair to expect that mods be given a reasonable amount of time to deal with forum issues, as well as have a life outside of here.

It will be addressed as soon as I also don't have to deal with 503s.

On your first point fair enough. On your second point, I wasn’t suggesting An Capaill Dorcha had said or done anything wrong - just that it’s clear Mods on the site have seen this and it still hasn’t been actioned.

Beasty found the time to close the thread about the Eid celebration in Croke Park but this has been ignored even though it’s far more egregious. You found the time to go and read the thread but decided to come back here and reply to me defensively instead of taking some action.

Is there ever an occasion here when instead of getting defensive you’d say “Yeah, that was a mistake on our part, that should have been actioned as soon as it came to any moderators attention given how egregious it is in terms of violating the charter”?

Wanderer78

KiKi III wrote: »

On your first point fair enough. On your second point, I wasn’t suggesting An Capaill Dorcha had said or done anything wrong - just that it’s clear Mods on the site have seen this and it still hasn’t been actioned.

Beasty found the time to close the thread about the Eid celebration in Croke Park but this has been ignored even though it’s far more egregious. You found the time to go and read the thread but decided to come back here and reply to me defensively instead of taking some action.

Is there ever an occasion here when instead of getting defensive you’d say “Yeah, that was a mistake on our part, that should have been actioned as soon as it came to any moderators attention given how egregious it is in terms of violating the charter”?

Mods are struggling to use the site as ourselves, I'm sure the poster involved will be dealt with correctly, truly disgusting posts

KiKi III

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Mods are struggling to use the site as ourselves, I'm sure the poster involved will be dealt with correctly, truly disgusting posts

I’m sure that’s true, yet Mike chose to come back here and get snappy with me, taking the time to read through the thread and check what time I lodged a report at so he could do so, instead of doing something about it.

Rodney Bathgate

A CMod like an capaill dorcha going around using words like ‘r*tard*d’ is fairly sickening.

Tokyo

KiKi III wrote: »

You found the time to go and read the thread but decided to come back here and reply to me defensively instead of taking some action.

Yes, I did. And I stand by my statement that feedback isn't the immediate go to without giving the mod team a realistic window of opportunity to deal with the situation, particularly in light of the fact that there have been technical issues overnight.

Feedback should be used to address prevailing issues, not because a reported post hasn't been dealt with to someone's satisfaction, and frankly I'm tired of seeing members of the mod team being called out because they aren't jumping through hoops quickly enough.

As to your opening comment regarding where my priorities lie, I haven't taken action simply because the tools I would use to do so are also being affected by site issues, and I'm not going to simply nuke the thread or indiscriminately action posters without being able to look at the posts and surrounding conversation properly.