Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

Could you explain this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

Beasty

TheValeyard wrote: »

Card process works. Over reaction is not a great idea and would create extra work in dispute resolution. Anyway pretty sure mods do ban if rules were nuked by a user.

Mods do have the power to siteban (albeit for a relatively short period), but that power should only be used in exceptional circumstances when there are no Admins about and someone is on a rampage across the site

Equally though there are plenty of users who play the "victim" card in the Dispute Resolution Process, claiming mods are unfairly targeting them. In most cases it's simply a matter of saying anything they believe will get the "viewing public" on their side and trying to put mods in a bad light

Most people can see through this, but equally some mods, quite understandably, do not want to become the target of some of the arrogant/aggressive users who try and adopt such a stance. Of course that then puts a bit more of an onus on CMods and Admins, who typically will deal with such troublemakers in an appropriate manner whatever those users do to try and stir things for Mods, CMods or Admins

Quantum Erasure

Overheal wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

Are we in America? Is that the official boards.ie stance?

Overheal

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Are we in America? Is that the official boards.ie stance?

Are you allowed to discriminate for race and sex in Ireland? News to me

Annasopra

Discodog wrote: »

Any Mod should have the power to immediately ban any user posting something that unacceptable - the decision can then be reviewed at a later date.

Mods can and do but it should be used in very limited circumstances - I think I only used maybe once in approx 10 years as a mod

Overheal

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Mods can and do but it should be used in very limited circumstances - I think I only used maybe once in approx 10 years as a mod

Because of time zones I used to do it on a nearly nightly basis for a while, back when we had late night regular spambots more than a few years ago. It’s been a couple years I think since I’ve done any one-off so in any case. The admin team is bigger and more round the clock than it used to be and site infrastructure/cloud flare/captcha upgrades put the kibosh on a shedload of bot activity.

Quantum Erasure

Overheal wrote: »

Are you allowed to discriminate for race and sex in Ireland? News to me

Discriminate how?...

Overheal

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Discriminate how?...

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1998/act/21/enacted/en/html

Perhaps you could be more granular on what the forum-specific problem is here?

Quantum Erasure

How does that apply to Boards.ie?

Overheal

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

How does that apply to Boards.ie?

Again is there a rampant sexism problem on the forum? You seem to be arguing past what I’m saying.

Anthony Patch

Anthony Patch wrote: »

I believe you sympathise with pedophiles.

This entire thread has become pages of people lobbing around accusations about users... Seems to be plenty of posters who think it's fine. Know it's Sunday but it's pretty out of control.

2u2me

Deleted User wrote: »

This entire thread has become pages of people lobbing around accusations about users... Seems to be plenty of posters who think it's fine. Know it's Sunday but it's pretty out of control.

I just checked the thread for what you're talking about, seems that poster has been nuked and all of their posts deleted already? Yet here you are to complain about it within minutes?

Was it just a new user popping up to make one 'side' look bad?
It is quite interesting how that user's linguistics and posting style mirror(I can see as other users have quoted them) that often seen by Antifa supporters.

There have been numerous warnings that "If you can't behave this thread will be shutdown" maybe not in that thread but in several threads such as this and it seems the cohort have now got to work. They're even pulling in the big guns. On a Sunday when presumably most people are free. How easy is it to create a new account?

Actually this whole issues mirrors what I was posting about earlier, do we treat groups differently? That's where this woke ideology is pushing us, into identity politics and it's disgusting.

Are we to call gay men paedophiles and that is to be classed as homophobia?
To when we call straight men paedophiles that is not classed as a 'phobia'?

These are the very same crimes yet the wokes want them treated different. Different justice; different ethics. Wake up people, start making a stand and using some common sense.

@2u2me

@2u2me Think it's pretty reasonable to raise an issue where people are gone entirely off topic and making pretty questionable remarks about specific users. I'm not sure why exactly you feel the need to create a conspiracy around it, particularly since it wasn't limited to newly registered users..

2u2me

Deleted User wrote: »

@2u2me Think it's pretty reasonable to raise an issue where people are gone entirely off topic and making pretty questionable remarks about specific users. I'm not sure why exactly you feel the need to create a conspiracy around it, particularly since it wasn't limited to newly registered users..

Well conspiracy or reality there is a loophole there that is easily exploitable, opening up a pandora's box load of work for the mod/admin team unnecessarily just by their framing of the rules.

The mod note most responsible "Quit the bickering or the discussion ends" instead of "Quit the bickering or we'll threadban the offending users"

2u2me

2u2me wrote: »

The mod note most responsible "Quit the bickering or the discussion ends" instead of "Quit the bickering or we'll threadban the offending users"

this as a general moderation approach is a real puzzler tbh.

given that the most popular request from one side of the general political spectrum is that discussion they dont like be shut down, it does tend to nudge some posters into brer rabbit/briar patch behaviour to get threads shut down or locked.

i know the mods try not to do this, but surely infracting posters early and often is the obvious step to take

Because I've been directly affected by it so am completely and unashamably biased, I move for threadbans escalating to permanent.

I'd rather take a week or even month ban from an entire forum than to be suddenly banned permanently from the main Covid-19 thread for telling a now-site-banned troll to simply fúck off when they denied the existence of the disease at all. I even deleted the post around three minutes later and replaced it with a regular one, and it was still a further seven minutes before anyone posted, and it was the troll responding to the second normal message. I had a bunch of normal posts following that.

Imo, permanent threadbans for posts that the user themselves has deleted because they realise they went too far is excessive as hell, and no, I don't think my history of warnings plays a part. If anything, it was my history of warnings that made me delete the post right away, so they were working. I just got pissed off at an obvious troll and now he got the victory he wanted by getting a positive contributor permanently banned. I tried resolution with the mod / admin in question and got no reply.

So yeah, "threadban for a week" > "threadban for a month" > "permanent threadban".

Timberrrrrrrr

2u2me wrote: »

Well conspiracy or reality there is a loophole there that is easily exploitable, opening up a pandora's box load of work for the mod/admin team unnecessarily just by their framing of the rules.

The mod note most responsible "Quit the bickering or the discussion ends" instead of "Quit the bickering or we'll threadban the offending users"

Sorry but that's not right, I see the card/ban warning all the time, I have never seen the discussion ends one.

Beasty

Deleted User wrote: »

So yeah, "threadban for a week" > "threadban for a month" > "permanent threadban".

I in always go for a permanent threadban, because that forces a poster to engage. They can sit out a 1 week ban and return to similar posting that triggered the first one. If they PM me it gives an opportunity to discuss the reasons directly, and if a poster provides assurance over their future behaviour, and there is no prior examples of threadbans for the poster I will agree to lift after typically a week, or possibly sooner depending on circumstances

Often we also see posters ignore a threadban - for me that's an automatic 1 week forum ban, but if a poster then agrees to observe the threadban I'll lift the forum ban

One thing to bear in mind though is that we cannot force posters to stop posting in a specific thread. The system allows us to ban at forum and site levels. We often see posters coming back from a 1 week ban for ignoring their threadban thinking they can post freely in the thread again. That's not the case threadbans are permanent unless stated otherwise or lifted by the mod issuing it in the first place (or successfully appealed in Help Desk)

One final point - although threadbans in a particular thread can escalate if ignored or after being lifted, threadbans carry no weight elsewhere on the site, and do not end up with any "permanent mark" on a user's record

Beasty

Deleted User wrote: »

This entire thread has become pages of people lobbing around accusations about users... Seems to be plenty of posters who think it's fine. Know it's Sunday but it's pretty out of control.

Just to be clear that was posted by one of our regular re-reg trolls. When banning we will typically delete all their posts, but it's much more difficult for posts that are quoted - they have to be deleted individually whereas we can delete all the posts made by a user via a single action

I would, therefore, encourage users not to quote anyone they think is a re-reg troll - just report and we'll get to them ASAP

2u2me

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Sorry but that's not right, I see the card/ban warning all the time, I have never seen the discussion ends one.

The message is pretty clear, if there is controversy or someone says something not nice, the thread gets shut down.

Please do not comment on moderation in thread

I'm closing this thread permanently. It appears we have a combination of amateur sleuths and US legal experts speculating about what happened and how. I'm sure the US legal system will assess and address the relevant issues. As and when this episode comes to a conclusion hopefully you will all be able to educate yourselves further

In the meantime, the bickerfest is stopping now

Mod

What a vile thing to say,Take a little holiday for yourself, I'm going to lock this thread, feel free to start a new one.

I was going to issue a couple of threadbans as some of you seem incapable of interacting in a civil manner

But TBH this topic has been done to death, and it's long outlasted any usefulness, so I'm closing it

Morning all. The CA/IMHO mods have decided that this thread has run it's course.
A handful of posters are dominating this thread and generating a colossal amount of reported posts.

Our options were some thread bans, or close the thread. Closing the thread was unanimous.

Baggly

2u2me wrote: »

The message is pretty clear, if there is controversy or someone says something not nice, the thread gets shut down.

Thats not the message at all. The message is if cards / warnings / bans arent getting the message across, or if the thread has run its course, then thread closure is the next step in the process.

Highlighting the bits that suit your theory and not looking at the rest of the mod notes isnt helpful tbh. Its editorialising and it is, imo, undermining your feedback.

2u2me

Baggly wrote: »

Thats not the message at all. The message is if cards / warnings / bans arent getting the message across, or if the thread has run its course, then thread closure is the next step in the process.

Highlighting the bits that suit your theory and not looking at the rest of the mod notes isnt helpful tbh. Its editorialising and it is, imo, undermining your feedback.

If the thread has run its course why would bickering be mentioned at all?

The thread that 'ran it's course' was the george floyd thread yet the madeleine mc cann thread is still running (which has turned into just speculation).

Your argument holds no water at all except trying to undermine me the person making it. Typical around these parts.

If you're going to shut a thread because it ran it's course just say that. Yet twice when that was done in the examples I provided the bickering was also SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO.

I thought you wanted the conversation about theories in private, yet here you are again bringing it up again when it suits you.

Baggly

2u2me wrote: »

If the thread has run its course why would bickering be mentioned at all?

The thread that 'ran it's course' was the george floyd thread yet the madeleine mc cann thread is still running (which has turned into just speculation).

Your argument holds no water at all except trying to undermine me the person making it. Typical around these parts.

I outlined two scenarios - the thread running its course OR warnings / cards / bans not having the required effect.

The mention of bickering falls under the latter.

Im debating your posts - thats how discussions work and is a key tenet of the site.

2u2me

Baggly wrote: »

I outlined two scenarios - the thread running its course OR warnings / cards / bans not having the required effect.

The mention of bickering falls under the latter.

Im debating your posts - thats how discussions work and is a key tenet of the site.

Can you answer why would bickering be mentioned in a thread that is being closed because it ran it's course?

What does 'ran its course' mean?

Please do not comment on moderation in thread

I'm closing this thread permanently. It appears we have a combination of amateur sleuths and US legal experts speculating about what happened and how. I'm sure the US legal system will assess and address the relevant issues. As and when this episode comes to a conclusion hopefully you will all be able to educate yourselves further

In the meantime, the bickerfest is stopping now

I was going to issue a couple of threadbans as some of you seem incapable of interacting in a civil manner

But TBH this topic has been done to death, and it's long outlasted any usefulness, so I'm closing it

Be honest here.....

Baggly

You will have to ask the mod(s) who closed them, but to speculate, I'd say its in the hope that behaviour elsewhere in the forum in other threads doesn't get to that stage.

FYI I haven't been dishonest anywhere, I don't know why you feel you need to ask me to be honest.

Overheal

Baggly wrote: »

FYI I haven't been dishonest anywhere, I don't know why you feel you need to ask me to be honest.

Gaslighting.

2u2me

Baggly wrote: »

You will have to ask the mod(s) who closed them, but to speculate, I'd say its in the hope that behaviour elsewhere in the forum in other threads doesn't get to that stage.

FYI I haven't been dishonest anywhere, I don't know why you feel you need to ask me to be honest.

I did ask the mods that closed them. They said it ran its course, even after I argued that new footage had been released and discussion about the cops being arrested and charged was still a large point of interest. I was told speculating on a case like this is not wanted on boards. I then pointed to the Madeleline McCann thread and I got no more reply.

Previously when you've pinned the word 'theory' on me you've refused to accept what the scientific meaning of theory means.

It's the facts you're in disagreement with me about, not any 'theory'.

I outlined two scenarios - the thread running its course OR warnings / cards / bans not having the required effect.

The mention of bickering falls under the latter.

If bickering had anything to do with it at all then a thread has not ran it's course, since running it's course means dying a natural death.

To your part in bold; honestly have no idea what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?

Again my point is that there is a glaring loophole easily exploitable by Antifa & anti-free speech types.
They advocate that they want discussions to end and there is a loophole where if threads descend into bickering mods will close them.

It's not rocket science.

Baggly

2u2me wrote:

I did ask the mods that closed them. They said it ran its course, even after I argued that new footage had been released and discussion about the cops being arrested and charged was still a large point of interest. I was told speculating on a case like this is not wanted on boards. I then pointed to the Madeleline McCann thread and I got no more reply.

I'm going to have to repeat what I said before.... We follow a procedure of escalating sanctions. Antifa was further along. Hence it was closed.

2u2me wrote:

Previously when you've pinned the word 'theory' on me you've refused to accept what the scientific meaning of theory means.

I am not going to derail this thread again with that discussion. As I said before if you want to debate the point you can pm me, an option you chose not to take.

2u2me wrote:

It's the facts you're in disagreement with me about, not any 'theory'.

You have presented 'facts' in this thread before which i have refuted and debated. You chose to ignore that discussion so I will not be drawn further on that. Again, if you want to debate those facts, pm me.

2u2me wrote:

If bickering had anything to do with it at all then a thread has not ran it's course, since running it's course means dying a natural death.

If all that is left is bickering then no, it doesn't mean there is fuel left in the tank. The bickering was cyclical and repeating. That's not the same as healthy discussion.

2u2me wrote:

To your part in bold; honestly have no idea what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?

If you have a specific query please ask me. I don't understand what you don't understand, so I can't reasonably be expected to clarify things for you.

2u2me wrote:

Again my point is that there is a glaring loophole easily exploitable by Antifa & anti-free speech types. They advocate that they want discussions to end and there is a loophole where if threads descend into bickering mods will close them.

There is no loophole and that isn't what is happening. I can't make it plainer than that for you.

2u2me wrote:

It's not rocket science.

First fact you have posted and I don't disagree with it.

2u2me

Baggly wrote: »

If you have a specific query please ask me. I don't understand what you don't understand, so I can't reasonably be expected to clarify things for you.

I queried you to specifically explain what you wrote in the part in bold that I highlighted.

In case there was any confusion let me quote it for you again and bold it again for you, they're your words after all I felt you wouldn't have any trouble explaining them, perhaps it is rocket science.

Baggly wrote: »

I'd say its in the hope that behaviour elsewhere in the forum in other threads doesn't get to that stage.

When you tell me you don't understand when I ask you what this means, this is the behaviour from you that leads to me to ask you to be honest; because it seems you are just being purposefully obtuse.

There is no loophole and that isn't what is happening. I can't make it plainer than that for you.

Perhpas you could offer me the same courtesy I have been offering you by providing evidence and facts and logic, but instead you prefer just to screech 'it's not happening' like the rest of them.

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

Perhpas you could offer me the same courtesy I have been offering you by providing evidence and facts and logic, but instead you prefer just to screech 'it's not happening' like the rest of them.

He's told you:

Baggly wrote: »

As I said before if you want to debate the point you can pm me, an option you chose not to take.



You have presented 'facts' in this thread before which i have refuted and debated. You chose to ignore that discussion so I will not be drawn further on that. Again, if you want to debate those facts, pm me.