Banned from immigration thread.

"the warning about anecdotes is relatively new"??

I was threadbanned over a year ago for mentioning the amount of Ukrainians and asylum seekers in towns close to me in Kerry. I was previously warned for talking about Ukrainians in my workplace who had issues with their host. This was considered "anecdotal".

Fair enough if it was the rules, I actually had no idea what an anecdote meant in terms of posting (now I do) but its grossly unfair to threadban stories of real life situations from some posters and not from others simply because they do not tally with the narrative. The immigration conversation is happening everywhere, on the street, on all media channels, all radio channels, in most homes in the country.

Posters are not trying to stir up anything, they are simply trying to be heard, to have a voice. If you suppress dialogue that's when it turns to anger. People are looking for fairness here.

Is your official stance that only the perceived "negative" anecdotes are being reported?

Really?

I was speaking generally.

Mods can’t sanction anyone for posting within the rules. If a poster gets aggressive and goes after a poster, instead of “attacking” the post, they are liable to be sanctioned.

Being civil with your points and adhering to forum, or site, rules and in-thread moderator instructions will mean you can put any point across you want and you won’t get any “warnings”.

Again, it’s quite simple and, yet, some people just refuse to “get it”.

That first paragraph has to be the most condescending thing I've read in ages.

I've been on the receiving end of the lefts "compassion" on this site and I can atest to the fact that what you're saying there has no basis in fact whatsoever.

I'm a centrist, I've stated this consistently and I'm constantly told I'm far right or a fascist or whatever other nonsense by the "compassionate" left for not agreeing wholeheartedly with their opinions. I'm also subjected to tirades of abuse that goes unpunished from the deep wells of "compassion" of the left.

These posters don't get sanctioned because of bias, not because of a lack of reporting of posts or differing levels of aggression. I've observed this over years of posting on this site, reporting posts seeing people who've abused me and others free to continue posting while other people are banned.

All anyone wants is an equal application of the rules across the board, no special treatment, no filtering based on personal opinion, just the rules being implemented the same way for everyone all the time.

I would just like to point out that the most aggressive poster in that thread by far is a "left" person who refers to everyone in anyway conservative/right-minded as scumbags. Some laughing acronym for a name I can't remember without looking. I'd say 75% of their posts has the word scumbag in it.

Is this the same poster who makes claims about funding for the far right from all sorts of foreign groups with absolutely no evidence?

Your posts are aggressive. Calling someone's post 'bullshit' is aggressive. It's pretty straightforward. I'm not sure how you can't see that.

Post aggressively and you'll eventually fall foul of the rules.

Is that person referring to other posters as scumbags or people doing scumbag things in reality as scumbags?

These two things are not the same.

They can be implicitly both … if you phrase it as people who say X about Y are scumbags… when posters on the thread have said it. They don't name names to try to avoid "don't attack the poster" infraction, but it is obvious what they are doing.

More moderators yes - but as alluded to above, there doesn't seem to be a queue of CA mod candidates.

I don't think moderators need to follow every thread and every post.

Even if the current moderators could follow sample threads of different types (one of immigration, one of foreign affairs, one woke etc) I think they would get a sense of posters engaging in such low level context based infractions, a pattern to posts.

But capacity is the limit.

Again, you're really not getting this, it's got nothing to do with anyone being 'offended'.

Boards.ie has a rule where posters are meant to show each other some courtesy. It's a site for reasoned debate, not a soapbox to shout your opinions from, everyone else be damned.

If you come in fists swinging, calling everyone's posts 'BS' if they disagree with you and so on, then that's just not what the site is for and I'd suggest you maybe stick to Facebook.

They certainly don't need to follow every thread alright but perhaps keep their finger on the pulse of the more contentious ones?

I've no idea how many CA moderators they are BTW, is it just Beasty and Shield? That's entirely unsustainable.

Seems like a weird hill to want to die on tbh.

ancapailldorcha for CA mod 😁

Page 1 on threads offline on a lot of long running threads, has been flagged as a bug.

They were in immigration threads, their has been a few so I don't know which posts were in which thread.

I don't know why you don't update the charter to state no anecdotes in immigration threads.

It must be confusing for a new user who reads the charter and then gets a warning or ban.

Is there a “warning in OP” in the thread title? Any new users should be reading the OP before they post in a thread so a warning there would be helpful.

It does seem that a fair number of “new users” are well up on navigating the site, it’s very possible they aren’t as new to the site as their “join date” might suggest.

Your last paragraph is another great example of what new users face when they don't have the right opinions.

Another tactic of the handful of posters who try to shut down people's opinions.

Thanks for that, I never thought of mentioning it.

Well you can't even view Page 1 on these threads now to see warnings and list of thread bans.

Last time I looked at the 'Refugee' thread, there was only one poster with ban lifted………….

Oh there's plenty with threadbans lifted, some even had to be banned again!