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

you could say the same about say referees. All human but there are rules they must apply, evenhandedly, fairly and accurately. A referee usually has one look at a tackle, a split second decision….

A mod can read say a reported comment, subsequent replies, or preceding ones sit back for a minute in time…

“ ok, well the reported comment according to the charter I feel is worthy of a yellow, poster #2 shouldn’t have reacted though however they have reacted but to another poster #1’s comment which was absolutely designed to be provocative, it was also uncivil and in breach of the charter… yellow there too, for them both. “

not saying that hasn’t happened, it has but a whole lot more of looking at the context would be welcome, there are a few professional wind up merchants probing for reactions now and it’s beyond obvious to most regular posters who these are…. The poster reacting gets the sanction quite often…. But the originator of the conflict, often from this core group of about 4/5 posters can skip on without sanction…

But i just for curiosity had a browse of the last few pages and the word transgender has been mentioned several times.

A poster got banned on that page, so I am sure these discussions were ignored by the mod.

I can only draw the conclusion that discussing it brings a ban when it doesn't line up with the beliefs of the mod.

Also while not being a regular on the thread, I thought his refusal to use the pronouns of a transgender child was what led him to his actions, if so then why would that be off topic.

This mod notes on first page, well into a thread is a bit ridiculous, like anecdotes on immigration threads.

One of the things good about the site is it bringing you back to just your unread posts when you click into a thread, the site is hard enough to navigate despite forcing people to need to go to the first page to read a mod note once you have posted in the thread and then try find where you were.

It is ridiculous that a mod decides mid thread they want to stop people discussing something that has been a discussion point for whatever reason, if a poster misses the mod warning and is banned then it is ridiculous.

Did the mod even give a reason why it can't be discussed, other then they decided on a whim what can be discussed about the case, from what I see it is relevant to the situation.

I would be interested to know are decisions like this discussed at a mod level, or are mods allowed to go ahead and shut down discussions they personally don't like being discussed.

I have reported the posts in the discussion that got that poster banned, an easy way to confirm your guess.

I have seen it discussed before how hard it is to get someone appointed as a mod especially in current affairs, their should be a handful more mods added to such a busy forum, but nothing has happened in years.

I would be surprised they haven't been able to get anyone willing to do it in years unless they make it difficult to appoint a new one.

Like I said I don't really read the thread at all.

Considering Hamsterchop got banned for replying to a post where someone brought up transgender, then we can expect bans for the people who initiated the conversation.

That will put to bed any doubt on if the ban was for posting about it or not.

Do you understand that if you post about transgenderism in the Burke thread, you are not following mod instructions and will be thread banned?

Maybe you should read the first sentence in the post above and reflect on your advice?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122473049/#Comment_122473049

I think this is a fair statement, the poster mentioning Transgenderism in their question should be have been penalised too. Perhaps they were both warned for this conversation but, in this example, Hamsterchop had already built up a few prior warnings so was banned. The poster does seem to focus a lot on the issue so it would not surprise me if it was the case.

^^ That is very black and white.

Without addressing the Hamsterchop's posts specifically (as I don't want to be dragged into that, or accused of backseat modding).. context is important.

If I said "Enoch Burke's case is not related to trans issues" and someone replied "But I think it is, because…." and then started giving all their reasons why they think the case is about trans issues - despite a clear mod instruction not to - do you think I should also be threadbanned in that instance?

(If so, I think just about everyone on the thread would be threadbanned by now!)

I get you….

It seems to happen a lot on that particular thread. Every couple of pages someone (new, or not so new) will show up and start posting "This is about him refusing to use pronouns!" which will trigger a few responses about why it's not, and the cycle begins again.

Some are very obviously "flame-baiting" as you describe. (I've never heard that term before).

Maybe the issue of obvious "flame-baiting" needs to be raised with the Admins/Mods again.

I do like the idea of a yearly fee for current affairs and possibly after hours.

It would be a deterrent to reregs and probably reduce people who are here to troll.

Not sure how feasible it would be, and it might reduce the numbers, so probably not an option.

CA should be more accessible to the “types” prone to re-regging, and trolling. The forum provides a great “function” for the site, for the most part. It protects, more, normal forums like AH from truly odious opinions.

It doesn’t always work due to thread, and forum, bans in CA driving weird users to AH to dump whatever spite they can before they get “caught out” in there too.

A light touch moderation in CA would be a good start. Let the “types” who frequent that forum go at it. Let’s face it, there is a politics forum where grownups discuss current affairs in a, somewhat, civilised manner. CA is, mostly, where, angry, oddballs get to vent and are challenged by a few brave, compassionate, souls fighting the good fight.

Would go a way to freeing up the mods time so they could “focus” on parts of the site where normal users post.

As far as I am aware boards is liable for content on the site, their are I believe two mods who cover current affairs, it is ridiculous to say their should be light touch moderation.

I have seen you post many times about keeping people out of AH like you are some sort of owner, if you want weirdos out then report their posts.

I am assuming you don't read current affairs considering you don't want those type of posters in your AH, so you are talking a load of nonsense, the vast majority are normal people who are discussing current affairs in the country.

Your suggesting of turning it into something toxic like Twitter and where boards will be liable for content that should not be on the forum makes little sense.

Their have been some very good ideas put forward to make it better, your proposing making it worse.

I think it's noteworthy that the great example of mod bias brought to this discussion - turned out to be a poster specifically ignoring a mod direction which is a breach of forum rules.

Sort of holes the whole mod bias argument under the waterline.