(Site is a graveyard - How can boards save itself?) Any update?

MisterAnarchy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122527372#Comment_122527372

Why do they ask for proof of claims when they have no intention of looking at that proof, it just ruins threads.

Because they are bad actors.

All they really want to do is be argumentative, troll and try and upset other posters.

Thats how they get their kicks.

Its pathetic, they are pathetic.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122527642#Comment_122527642

I can see why it is beyond your comprehension to see how this would work, but the site is moderated in a fair and equitable way. The issue arises when one side of the argument cannot put forth their argument without wading into nonsense tactics and cannot discuss the topic in good faith.

When your argument relies on sources like Philip Dwyer and other "citizen journalists" then obviously you're going to have a hard time when you're counted by points supported by much more reputable sources of information.

Your argument here is that all sources of information should be given equal weight, this is obviously rubbish. If you want to bend the truth, deal in conspiracy theories and engage in soapboxing then Twitter seems like a much better platform for you to engage on, there's a pretty low bar over there for what is acceptable and what isn't.

If we take your contributions to the EU Patent thread in Politics for example, you went into that thread suggesting there was some conspiratorial motive for those changes. Posters who were much more knowledgeable than you on the subject corrected you, provided you with the facts and explained how your understanding of the issue was incorrect. Rather than discuss the subject in good faith, you continued to make the same unsubstantiated, ignorant point over and over and over and over again, until after 3 mod warnings you were finally removed from the thread.

This was not stifling an alternative point of view, this was removing someone from the thread who was ruining the thread for the other posters who were actually discussing the topic on merit, and weren't there trying to drag it into conspiracy theories. This is a familiar pattern when it comes to your posting on this site.

So yes, anyone who engages on boards in bad faith, doesn't discuss topics on merit and who soapboxes threads, anyone who expects moderators to force every source of information as being of equal merit should be concerned, as this is a discussion site that asks for a minimum standard of post to ensure the enjoyment of all.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122527658#Comment_122527658

I'm going to challenge this, because I've seen this play out too many times.

The request for proof is a valid request, as is the proof provided, but it doesn't have to be accepted as sufficient to prove the point implied.

It's acceptance is only to the extent you can say ' I have proof, and here it is'. But it doesn't mean that that proof has to be accepted in terms of the origin point being argued.

Person A claims Greta is funded by George Soros"s dog.

Person B asks for proof of that.

Person A shares a link from New York Post of Logan Paul claiming it on a video.

Person B Dismisses it out of hand as non sufficient because of the Person involved, the communication platform and the supposed topic.

Neither Person A or B is wrong to this point, in terms of Boards behavior in my view.

Person B is not obliged to consider something as fact just because Person A wants them to.

I know this can cause the conversation to drift in to the trustworthiness of various news sources, but that is a validtemporary detour on a lot of these conversations.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122527865#Comment_122527865

Again, surely someone who is an administrator on this site, should perhaps not post with such dismissive language and refrain from becoming personal with someone.

ancapailldorcha

Over the years, there's been a growth in the proportion of posters who just spout whatever conspiracy theories a portion of the American right indulge in like climate science denial, anti-vaxx, the great replacement, or whatever. When they're asked for proof, they get annoyed when they either can't produce any or whatever random tweet they've pasted is quite rightly rejected.

The problem isn't that people are rejecting evidence, it's that some people are so desperately clinging to an ideology that they can't bear to have it questioned and respond angrily when it is.

Packrat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122527902#Comment_122527902

This isn't an isolated set of biases on display either.

It's literally all of the currently active Mod/Admin team who involve themselves in CA.

As long the current team get to pick the replacements it's just a packed jury of buddies who are all of the same set of opinions.

They cover each other's arses, when the modding becomes too blatantly one-sided. They adjudicate when some poster tries to protest the lack of balance or fairness by their colleague.

It's like going to court in Russia. An utter waste of time.

Until this changes or is changed by the site owners, all 50 whatever pages of this thread are just pissing into the wind. It'll just blow back into your own face over the next few posts in other threads.

In fact this thread and the previous one are but a further insult to to those of us who try to suggest improvements.

It's a truly despicable state of affairs that a formerly great site which I joined 20 odd years ago has been allowed to become like this.

There is basically no hope for this place.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122527642#Comment_122527642

The problem is that I and many others I know haven't come across any "citizen journalists" who are anything other than Twitter lunatics and simpletons. There may well be "citizen journalists" out there somewhere who are rational, impartial and intelligent just like that there may be aliens out there in space. Thing is, I haven't seen any of those rational, impartial and intelligent "citizen journalists" and I suspect that if there are any, they quickly get a real job.

I can't prove what I belief, but somebody can disprove me by producing a cadre of rational, impartial and intelligent "citizen journalists" rather than the occasional exception to prove the rule.

nullzero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528159#Comment_122528159

My approach going forward is to just blanket ignore every one of these users.

I'd suggest others take the same approach and just stop interacting with them completely.

The mods want less work, that will give them absolutely nothing to do if we all do it.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528065#Comment_122528065

So it's true then? Do most moderators/administrators have the same opinions on contentious subjects and are pretty much in lockstep as to what is "alternative facts/conspiracy theories"?

I see that you are a mod too and also were unable to refrain from getting personal on a feedback thread with someone you obviously have a history with.

Do you believe that moderators should be held to a higher standard than regular posters? I do.

If some section of people are to moderate my comments and ensure I don't step over the line, but then I see a couple of them get personal and tell others that facts are facts and no other rubbish will be tolerated, it is disheartening. It seems obvious that people who think differently to those already in place will not get the opportunity to moderate so what you have is in fact an echo chamber masquerading as a discussion forum.

from my limited experience, I have to say that @Big Bag of Chips doesn't fit into my discription and seems to have the most fair and rounded approach.

nullzero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122527885#Comment_122527885

You're using outlandish examples.

How is this in any way honest?

Again, people you disagree with are beneath your contempt so they all must believe conspiracy theories shared by logan Paul or whatever nonsense you're claiming that is never actually witnessed on the site.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528232#Comment_122528232

If somebody isn't able to provide credible proof for their claims and the claims are particularly outlandish, it's fair to label them as conspiracy theories. Eg a poster recently posted claims of migrants having a failed kidnapping attempt. Their source was some angry racists, no news articles or garda statements. Just "citizen journalists". Similarly the anti vax crap etc all basically sang from same hymn sheet. You'd see the exact same claim reiterated over and over with no proof. justifications for Russia's invasion was the exact same. It's less so a shared opinion but being able to spot blatant propaganda.

Leg End Reject

Has the criteria for what is actionable changed?

I see moderation was retrospectively applied to a closed thread and things like typing "FFS" or "f*cking" are now being warned as uncivil based on feedback on this thread.

Surely if this is deemed actionable now posters should have been informed and it shouldn't be used on posts that predate the change? Yes, there's a swear filter but this has never been an issue before.

These have been used on the site for years, I'm sure if anyone cared to search they'd find examples of a mod using them too. None of us can be expected to observe criteria that might be applied in the future.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528275#Comment_122528275

Thats fair so.

sydthebeat

ive never seen so many people complain about the rules of site which:

1. cost them nothing to join
2. they did not have to join
3. they do not have to post in

if you think the rules are "out to get you", well the obvious answer is to…….

Packrat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528232#Comment_122528232

It's far far worse than that. See my previous post, or read what goes on in Helpdesk or Dispute Resolution and how the 'non-correctthink' people are dealt with.

You're correct to say that BigbagofChips isn't an active part of it, but they rarely get involved below admin level and nearly as guilty by abdication of duty.

Posting platitudes here and arguing tiny side issues is part of the problem of ignoring the glaring issue.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528305#Comment_122528305

Yep I don't think bad language has ever been the issue.

Packrat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528349#Comment_122528349

Nobody - literally nobody is complaining about the rules.

Ya know, just like nobody is complaining about Filipino nurses, but people love pretending that they are.

But you already know all this.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528159#Comment_122528159

Would you expect the Gardai, judicial or other bodies in Ireland to act with total impartiality or with some guideline as to what constitutes acceptable behaviour.

All societies, groups, bodies develop rules as they grow and evolve. A great many of them unwritten.

Posters who are right leaning have already said on this thread that Ireland leans left, and so too does Boards.

So is it reasonable for them to then ask that this natural inclination is discarded so as to assess content differently.

I'm not suggesting outright bias should be acceptable, but a mod reacting or speaking broadly in a manner consistent in the environment in which the users and the site largely exists should not be seen as problematic.

A functioning DRP should separate what may be unacceptable behaviour from acceptable, but it should also broadly reflect consistent norms.

This isn't the high court where impartiality and 'to the letter of the law' can be applied.

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528354#Comment_122528354

There's enough use of this in my posting history to trigger a site ban from an accumulation of retrosepctively applied warnings.

Why wasn't I warned before? Why weren't others?

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528392#Comment_122528392

Can you send me an example of someone being warned for using bad language?

Not doubting you, just curious to check.

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528305#Comment_122528305

Yeah, I did noticed this and I don't remember it been part of any feedback either. It's seem ridiculously prudish and just way ott.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528253#Comment_122528253

For someone who has moaned relentlessly in this thread about people twisting things out of context you're putting on quite a show here.

"This site has had years of being dicked around by these users, taking things others have said out of context, inserting narratives into discussions that have no place there, gaslighting, posting ad homenim crap to bait people into pointless arguments that derail threads and drive users away from the site."

Taking what he said about Logan Paul out of context and gaslighting the user with ad hominems that 'people you disagree with are beneath your contempt'

But it's not you, no, it's those hundreds of people you have to keep on ignore to keep yourself from getting into trouble with nonsense like this.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528382#Comment_122528382

"Would you expect the Gardai, judicial or other bodies in Ireland to act with total impartiality"

yes?

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528498#Comment_122528498

You should caveat that with "in accordance with the law".

MisterAnarchy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122527885#Comment_122527885

Thats just a terrible analogy.

As another poster has said its an outlandish example, and a conspiracy theory.

A ridiculous topic, George Soros's dog.

New York Post, pillored as far right by Left based people.

Logan Paul, a grifter.

Its clear why such an outlandish and disengenuous example was chosen.

pjohnson

People really shouldn't be getting so upset over being asked to provide credible sources to their outlandish claims. Credible sources would only validate their point.

Now obviously if its being pulled outta their arse and there is absolutely zero crediblity I can see the cause for upset. But rather than getting upset maybe it'd be better to have a look at the nonsense they are swallowing?

MisterAnarchy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528823#Comment_122528823

Outlandish claims like this one for example ?

June 26th 2024 Posted in the Joe Biden Presidency thread a poster simply says

Newspaper article the other day- speculation that Clinton and Obama paving the way behind the scenes for him (Biden) to retire and not run for re-election .

Lets see the response this poster gets

So you can't even be bothered to dump the link as per standard practice?

We're done here.

Few more replies

It's not even speculation, it's purely hypothetical garbage.

May yet become a reality says the OP

Keep buying those lottery tickets, dreams do come true (at odds of millions to one)

Will the Democratic party force him out against his will over concerns about his mental health?

No , there is no realistic scenario where that happens despite the GOP trying to wish that into existence for the last 5 years.

These rumors persist because the right doesn’t want to race against Biden. They’d prefer anyone else but the clean nosed Catholic they can’t even lay an email server on. And ain’t it just a treat that these rumors swirl around every name on the left that the right has built its entire base around despising and getting out their vote for?

Like you say , anything could happen to anyone at any time , but the repeated claims by the GOP and their flacks that "the Democrats are planning to replace Biden any day now" are utter nonsense

OP comes back with

I can give you Boston globe and NYTIMES articles too if you wish

Everyone seems to be getting terribly upset just because some members of the Democratic Party might be a little bit forward thinking having observed certain behaviours over the last year and are saying “what if..”

Pile on begins

Nobody's taking anything badly. You made a hysterical claim and pasted a link to the Daily Mail, a well known spreader of fake news. People gave it the curt dismissal it warranted.

OP again

I made no claim whatsoever - hysterical or otherwise so get your facts right.

I referenced an article and clearly stated that it was “speculation”- you do understand the difference between claim making and referencing an article clearly stating that it’s speculation?

More responses

There has never been any discussion outside of Republican fever dreams of anyone "forcing" Biden out or there being "secret plans to remove him" etc. which is what all those articles claim is happening or being discussed and it simply isn't true.

The idea that there are discussions ongoing to remove Biden against his will "because he's not up to it" is a complete fallacy and a whole cloth creation by the GOP and their media allies feeding their storyline that Biden is not for for office.

Less than a week later the debate happened and the rest, well lets just say those lottery tickets paid off.

The OP merely mentioned that there was speculation of Biden being stepped down for re election and what occured was a pile on.

These tactics are deplorable and ruining many threads on this once great site.

Smee_Again

Now do all the claims that didn't come true.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528854#Comment_122528854

I've learned today not to go onto any thread relating to american politics. It really is just an echo-chamber.

MisterAnarchy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528869#Comment_122528869

You are a fast learner.

Yvonne007

This thread really is a must-read for new signups.

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528854#Comment_122528854

If the OP had just provide a link to the newspaper article making the claim there'd have been no questioning.

They obviously didn't hence the questions.

No pile on whatsoever, just an OP clearly refusing repeatedly to back up/source a questionable claim.

I think everyone agrees the OP's tactics of making a wild claim and refusing to source it and instead spend a page or two whining about wild unverified claim being questioned are deplorable and ruining many threads on this once great site.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528557#Comment_122528557

You see, its a terrible analogy for you guys, for those of us who have spent years on here dealing with incredibly weak and biased content attempting to prop up viewpoints, it is all too familiar.

And I backed out of the Covid thread fairly early but by all accounts some of the stuff on there that people demanded is paid attention to makes the above look reasonable.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528498#Comment_122528498

All areas of pretty much every society involved the subjective interpretation and application of rules.

That's a fact, it impacts right and left equally.

You could argue that that shouldn't be the case, but if that is the case, then really all you can advocate for is AI fully taking over these roles.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting people can just carry out their duties on a whim, just that human input is part of who we are and it I would much rather retain it than lose it.

Headshot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528949#Comment_122528949

And cases they provide a link to a newspaper article or a link to a news media site

Oh that's fake news, they're not a legitimate news media site and so on, just so it fits their agenda.

We've already seen in this thread when the likes of GB News or GRIPT are labeled as fake news etc.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528967#Comment_122528967

I don't agree.

I don't want someone's personal bias against my beliefs or opinion being the deciding factor of how they judge if I have broken the law.

And I disagree with you also on that it impacts the right and left equally.

If a white person said "I hate blacks" and a black person said "I hate whites", do you really think that both obvious cases of racism would be treated with the same severity or condemnation?

The police should treat everybody in accordance to the law, not swayed by their own belief.

I think you believe that too

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528854#Comment_122528854

The thing is the debate was the turn in public perception and the point where the Dems decided he couldn't run. Post debate plenty of posters had their doubts about him being suitable to run. But equally the idea of switching out a candidate at such a late stage was unprecedented. Sample of a post post debate below but still you'd have had plenty that didn't see it as realistic to achieve a switcheroo. Also worth noting that a lot of the posters that don't tend to get on well in those threads are ones who jump in but have no real intent in having a discussion. But posters that are critical of Biden can and do get on perfectly fine if they intend to have an actual discussion.

It's difficult to see how Biden can go forward as the candidate. In the history of televised Presidential debates (they started in 1960 I think), we've never seen a candidate so far off the pace and struggling even to make a coherent sentence - he was really 'that' bad and this was not even a a one off.

And it appears that moves are already afoot:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058151352/joe-biden-presidency-thread-please-read-op-threadbanned-users-added-4-5-21

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528984#Comment_122528984

So, in your example, a white person is treated more harshly than a black person for expressing racist views? Correct. And you think that that is unfair?

Who do you feel is treated more harshly for say, low level driving offences?

Now, you might say that they should both be treated exactly the same in EVERY instance but my view is that that is not possible to legislate for and we need people to be able to form opinions themselves within reason.

The alternative leads us to situations like what we had recently where a Garda was suspended for 3 yrs for giving an abandoned bike to someone who had bo node of transport.

Who did that outcome benefit?

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528977#Comment_122528977

Both GB News and Gript have huge credibility issues so if they are your only source for a story then it's pretty reasonable that posters would have their doubts.

MisterAnarchy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528949#Comment_122528949

Thats a complete misinterpretation of what occured.

The OP provided the link 4 posts after their initial post.

The OP didnt spend a page or two whining, thats just completely false.

It really is something that you would try to blame the OP for this.

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122528977#Comment_122528977

Because they have repeatedly been shown to be unreliable in the past they are naturally seen as being unreliable.

Thats why a credible source would be needed.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122529014#Comment_122529014

There are a couple of questions there.

Question 1) Yes I do think it's more socially acceptable to be racist towards white people. And I do think it's unfair. Racism is terrible and nobody should be subject to abuse based on the colour of their skin.

Question 2) Not sure about low level driving offenses. I don't drive myself and the OH has never commited an offense so I can't offer any valid or constructive input to this.

Question 3) I don't think a Garda should be suspended for giving an abandoned bike to someone, but also, he should not absolutely have the authority to decide who gets abandoned property without it going through official channels. But I think the suspension was excessive.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122529045#Comment_122529045

"Unreliable" is frankly quite generous. I've seen GB News encourage actual violent fascism and I've seen several examples of gript spreading actual fake news.

Media is like anything else that's regularly consumed. It's reputation hinges on people's tastes and how well it meets those. Anyone who suggests disregarding regulated, accountable though albeit deeply flawed legitimate media for fake news-spreading peddlers of hate isn't someone whose views I would respect.

Drugs are a good comparison. Like, any big pharma firm has a long history of dodgy dealings, corporate subterfuge and causing real medical harm but the idea that some dodgy website flogging who knows that from God knows where without oversight is moronic.

thomas 123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122529045#Comment_122529045

We live on an island where the non print news comes from two “credible” sources. Namely Independent news and media who sell the news to every entity going and Rte who are well, let’s just say… compromised due to their funding arrangement.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122529101#Comment_122529101

I'd be the last to champion GB News, but other "respected" news organisations are equally as culpable.

I don't care if a news company lie to me once or 100 times. The minimum I expect from any news outlet is to tell me the truth. If they break that trust once without issuing a full apology or retraction, then why bother at all.

Journalism is dead at this stage. Any gombeen with a cameraphone can be a citizen journalist and realistically, you'll find as much "truth" as you want, depending on what "truth" you want to hear.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122529159#Comment_122529159

Frankly thats rubbish. There are standards and citizens journalists are at the bottom of the barrel with zero consequences for lying.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122529159#Comment_122529159

No, they're not. That's patently ridiculous.

Spear

Drop the stuff about the reliability of various news sources. It's off-topic and nothing to do with the thread, which is feedback about the state of this site.

Arghus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122529095#Comment_122529095

As someone who used to mod here up until pretty recently - how much of this is this simply down to a lack of resources in your view?

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122529210#Comment_122529210

In your opinion do moderators act with an obvious bias? And is the bias prevalent throughout the majority of the moderators (and admins I suppose)?