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

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)?

JP Liz V1

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

Thanks for your honesty

Big Bag of Chips

Weepsie has been sitebanned on points.

thomas 123

I read a comment here that said users should paint a picture of what they are reporting by linking multiple comments - I think that is insane to put on a user. I’ve only ever reported individual posts post by post but it explains why I’ve gotten a few questionable “uncivil” messages, obviously the more effort put into a report the higher the chances of getting a desired outcome.

question:

Are over zealous reporters sanctioned for wasting moderator time at all?

Overheal

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

a completely fictitious example was entirely the point. But I think you knew that and are just looking to nitpick

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122529362#Comment_122529362

I think that was suggested in the context of trying to show a pattern of posting where a single post might be ok but as a repeated pattern derails threads. Not something expected for most reporting situations.

flyer_query

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122525305#Comment_122525305

thats interesting to read.

Spear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122529362#Comment_122529362

Yes, there's been a few instances where users have abused the report post option to generate needless amounts of spurious reports, e.g. for minor/borderline issues or just being petty. It's not common and doesn't get entertained.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122529028#Comment_122529028

then is this not a complete misrepresentation of your own??

your OWN representation of the exchange doesn’t indicate where the link got shared:

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

care to revise, post links?

thomas 123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122529381#Comment_122529381

glad to hear it.

Furze99

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

I think we can usefully ignore the first part of above, the insult.

But the latter part is I believe pertinent to this thread. You refer to a fairly short lived thread on a referendum proposal and that I "went into that thread suggesting there was some conspiratorial motive for those changes."

This is the thread in question:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058340381/eu-patent-court-referendum

It would be useful if those interested in the ills of boards go read the few pages of this and make up your own minds as to what the moderators on that thread and AWEC here allege as regards my participation in it.

• it starts by other posters claiming they will vote no to give the government a kicking. Nothing to do with me, I never offered this opinion at all.
• it's a Politics thread. I ask very simple & relevant questions: whose benefit is the proposed constitutional change for, who is lobbying for it etc
• there's a polite exchange of views back & from without this being answered. I'm seeking information in perfect good faith and with moderate language throughout.
• then poster/ moderator ancapailldorcha (again) steps into the frame on page 3 and twists the narrative by stating "It sounds like you're trying to spread some sort of conspiracy narrative as opposed to educating yourself."
• this was a projection entirely on the moderators part, an assumption of my motives. I clearly stated that I have an interest in intellectual property rights.
• on page 4 moderator Seth Brundle comes and states - use Google, don't drag a thread off topic (which I wasn't) because you don't understand, don't ask questions in other words. What an extraordinary statement for a moderator on a politics forum!
• we debate and work out a few points over next few posts with ancapailldorcha rowing in again until we get to
• page 5 when moderator Quin_Dub jumps in and says essentially you've asked too many questions, thread ban.
• the thread peters out as the government decides that running this referendum is unwise at the moment for unexplained reasons.

There were several other moderators posting on this short thread which was completely over moderated for unexplained reasons. On the basis of this AWEC claims I was 'soap boxing' and that I went in with a 'conspiratorial motive'. Complete fabrication. I challenge anyone to read that thread and point out where I posting in an unacceptable manner, it was all to the point of the thread and in moderate language, no slurs or attacks on other posters. If I asked for clarification, it was because the basic questions of why we holding this referendum were not answered and where they were, we were teasing out the reasons. Is that not what a politics forum on boards is for?

The conspiracy motive was nothing to do with me, that was a pure invention on ancapailldorcha's part.

Why would anyone bother to engage with topics on boards when moderators treat a poster like this, not one but three or four. That thread is a disgraceful example of moderator shaping and bias.

As for 'soapboxing', take a look at the refugee/ asylum thread any day over the past several weeks and it's bloody obvious who the 'soapboxers' are and the chief protagonist is.

But I wouldn't argue to ban them, let them at it. They hold honest views if you take them at face value. But don't go then threadbanning others of honest views who choose to challenge the 'soapboxers'.

thomas 123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122529432#Comment_122529432

Re the first part . I’ve been pinged by beasty for much much less, I don’t argue back but it’s pretty poor coming from a representative of the site - it really turns you off taking part in any conversations.

JP Liz V1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122529344#Comment_122529344

Wow is a complete site ban not a bit harsh