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

It may be only be a perception of another poster following other posters around. But in those cases the poster should definitely report them and if the mod doesn't agree just ignore them. Hitting the ignore button is easy and everyone is capable of doing that.

I think a quick PM to users who report a lot of posts that don't require moderation action would be easier than having to edit post that does given the shortage of moderators. Not everything that might annoy or offend me might be against the charter.

While a mod edit gives a clear example of what isn't appropriate, it might not be a realistic expectation in a busy forum.

Something is needed, anything would be a start, but it needs to be more than 'We're fine, you're not' that we've seen on two threads now.

100%.

No . Not talking about the two posters discussing the topic. I think you know I didn't say that tell me how.

A poster that posts on a thread solely to make snie remarks about another is goading and trolling .

"Now, if Poster B appears in a thread and their first and only posts are deriding Poster A, then it's different. But I genuinely don't know if that happens here. I haven't seen it."

This .

You don't see it if it doesn't pertain to you maybe but it is obvious to the person being trolled straight away .

It has happened a few days ago with two other posters and only became clear what was happening when a mod intervened .

Might make a few comments to cover their tracks but essentially always gets a dig in , or continues an old argument .. unprovoked.

That is what I am talking about and to name that poster or call it out to defend oneself can get a warning .

You are saying less intervention , but sometimes the only way to get poster like this off your back is to report .

As for ignoring , yes .

But then that post and poster can still carry on with that behaviour unabated . That isn't right either .

Posters who consistently troll a person or deride them need to be stood up to , called out and mods should take on board context if that gets a warning .

I am not promoting being uncivil but its a very fine line when one is up against repeated trolling and frustrating if its not dealt with .

There are posters on boards on all sides who have changed their names to get away from this behaviour .

Saying we are all mature adults who should be able to handle ourselves is fine .

In the real world if somebody was saying sxxx about you you have recourse . In the world of social media you are more reliant on the rules and the enforcers of those rules to protect against trolling stalking and online bullying .

Do we want a site where only the thick skinned or the trolls prevail ?

Edited to correct mistakes .

It needs a shift (back) in attitude from a lot of people if it's to be anything like it once was. It's not going to happen though. So moderation will need to change to combat that.

And that won't be well received either

Clarity is missing from everything boards wise right now.

The rules of the site are not clear.

Most of the forums individual charters are not clear, or visible.

Who moderates what is not clear.

What boards.ie's mission is, is not clear.

I'm relieved to see you acknowledging we need to shift back. I agree. It was a great, positive place that did an awful lot of good in the "Real World"™ to boot.

As for people not receiving the new moderation well, I believe the phrase, "our house party, our rules" is apt.

The rules just need to be clear.

It needs to be first owned by people that, well to be blunt, give a sh!t about it. It's a long way from a server or two set up under someone's bed that was the very quintessence of a passion project, it just seems to be an acquisition in a corner for some money interest now.

I thought the notion of boards turning into stormfront had been consigned to dustbin of history some time ago.

It was mentioned that mods and cmods have been part of the posting community here over the years and that's a positive thing for the most part. You yourself tend to get extremely heated in your engagements on political topics to the point where your own behaviour goes beyond simply being uncivil.

I found myself thread banned from a thread a few months ago for replying to people piling on me on thread, one of which was you, I went to Dispute Resolution to try and resolve it and ended up with you reviewing it for me, I understand there aren't limitless resources to attend to those dispute resolution threads but that was a massive conflict of interest to have someone who was ridiculing me in the thread subsequently reviewing my ban.

I don't believe you should be silenced from speaking your mind but as you are so entrenched in your views it's a big stretch to say you should be in a position to regulate other people's behaviour particularly when you are routinely curt with other posters on thread.

The idea that you feel boards is becoming stormfront is perplexing in the extreme. That statement implies that boards is openly encouraging hate speech and everyone knows that isn't the case and you as a category moderator should have more insight into that obvious truth than anyone.

At this point anyone moderating forums like CA should probably temper their engagement on thread and try to get a handle on clarifying the rules to all present.

I've seen some posts edited by big bag of chips in CA today informing users that a post received a warning which is a really positive step in the right direction. Continuing with that approach should be of benefit to how people interact with each other and hopefully dissuade some of the wild West elements where people feel there is no over sight until a post appears telling everyone a user has received a thread ban.

Couldn't agree more. Either close the CA and Politics parts of the site or change the entire moderation team. Far too many with axes to grind as you instance, trying to run with the hare and then hunt with the hounds. Moderation first & foremost should aim to protect the site from legal jeopardy. Once that base is covered, moderators need to be firstly well informed and up to date with the topics under discussion. After that they need to stick to the basic principles of the site charter, they need to be aware of and leave their own biases out, be polite, even handed and transparent. Finally thread bans should expire after a set period for posters with a set history, say six months or 500 posts or something like that.

Current affairs and politics are two of the most popular areas of Boards. If you close them, you may as well shut the site. I don't think there are any easy answers apart from mods being posted to monitor contentious threads instead of relying on posts being reported. A swift cop on can do a lot to keep a thread civil and can prevent people being railroaded by cabals which does happen on occasion. I appreciate it may not always be possible, but even if it was known that it sometimes occurs would likely keep some of the sharper trolls in line.

Well there's no point in having them, if as we increasingly see, they are influenced by a cabal of activists who are in broad synchronicity with moderators. When you reach the stage where the ordinary everyday views of middle ground Irish citizens are being suppressed, there's no point. This part of the site then becomes an irrelevant echo chamber, with an occasional flurry from re reg posters or those who make the error of trying to engage.

We're mostly aware of the current government & establishment tactic of painting ordinary Irish citizens as 'right wing' in order to suppress negative commentary and protest against state actions and policies. These parts of boards have become a mirror of this.

Out of curiosity @Tell me how what is your definition of piling on

I think we have established that mods actively monitoring threads won't happen.

What the hell is "a cabal of activists"? Whatever it is, I'm fairly sure it doesn't exist.

Has anyone said it's a policy? Can you show me this policy?

Personally, I would prefer if the far right didn't exist on this website.

Maybe apply to Catherine Martin for funding, Boards would be cheaper than RTE 😁

As for merchandise, make Boards great again baseball caps, tshirts, cups, umbrellas, flip flops, hell yes

Does Boards make money from adverts?

I think flip flops got us into this mess

Ahem

Edited to add: I think I'd settle for, "make boards.ie relevant again"

Disagree 100%. All mod actions are appealable. If a mod gets overturned too many times, their modship gets removed.

Asking a user to no longer have an interest or to deflate their interest in a subject they have been offered a modship in, lest it upsets some people that break the rules, is a completely unfair request to make of a volunteer.

Mods can mod without their personal views interfering. It should be perfectly acceptable for mods to post in whatever threads they are interested in and just 'put on a mod hat ' when they need to.

Im not surprised you disagree.

A moderator should not be seen to have outspoken or prejudiced views on a subject they moderate.

Even if they do, those views should be tempered and they should not act in an aggressive manner towards differing viewpoints.

For example if I repeatedly said all Liverpool supporters were fascists or racists could I expect to moderate in the soccer forum ? Or Man Utd supporters were as dumb as rocks, how would that go down.

The difference is that Trump's public racist comments are on record, as is his involvement with fascist acts and policies.
Why would someone be going around saying that about Liverpool supporters? It would be absurd.

That's where your analogy falls down completely.

Wheres the policy?

I'm just reading about the Online Safety Code that is supposed to be brought in by the end of year. I know it's being discussed primarily in relation to Facebook and Twitter, but it's bound to have a knock on effect on Boards.ie - how it is regulated/moderated.

The "era of self-regulation is over" apparently.

There are many places on the internet you can air unpleasant views. Theres nowhere where it's written that they have to happen on here.

Letting each other have their say was the policy. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and all that.

We now have years of evidence to show that it doesn't work.

They don't engage.

They don't argue in good faith.

They dump videos without explanation.

They never admit when their wrong after it's been pointed out.

They never apologise.

"Unpleasant views" (as you put it) doesn't need an outlet here. It needs a lack of oxygen.

I used "unpleasant views" as it was used in the post I quoted. I don't share these views but I don't think it's fair, or conducive to discussion, for one group to dictate what can and can't be discussed.

Each side thinks their views are the right ones, and each side is capable of posting in bad faith, refusing to openly engage, being curt, being passive aggressive and every other description that's been used in this thread to describe "the other side". The only difference between each side is their underlying beliefs.