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

I certainly don't recall any overwhelming vote of any sort, or any vote at all for that matter. What's this all about?

What gets posters riled is inconsistent and biased (BBOC uses the term discretion) moderation.

Debating any issue will inevitably result in a certain level of dispute (bickering if you wont) and that is surely fine, discussing points, learning a bit, changing views.

What is proposed above is more 'choose you own expletive' moderation, not less moderation as the site needs.

We have too much over moderation and I've instanced it above. We have posters engaging civilly and being warned and banned because moderators accuse them of being off topic, in their opinion (ie discretion or bias). We have long lists containing many ordinary decent posters thread banned off threads, total opposite of the basic concept of boards. This type of moderation is a failure.

We have a voluntary moderation group that seem to find it impossible to simply say they made a mistake, apologise etc. Instead they circle the wagons, palm posters off with excuses and dig ever deeper holes.

I and I'm sure the vast majority appreciate the work that moderators put in but that doesn't justify incompetence, bias and abuse of those positions.

Saying another poster who is not even posting here is lying on a thread somewhere is so unfair , those that do this sort of thing are exactly the posters that should be sanctioned I think .

It's not be very fair to be saying that about a poster here on this thread especially when they are not here to defend themselves

Notice these posters using this feedback thread to air grievances about petty squabbles and every warning they get that they think they shouldn't .

There is no hope of improving or suggesting improvements if people that petty are allowed to rail continually on feedback .

I think you are correct - peoples views on most matters are not black & white. They are not binary or in group A or B exclusively. Based on their life experiences they have one opinion on one matter that might be considered very liberal but conservative on other issues.

And therein lies an issue with both how posters interact but also how moderators take a view of posters. I can only properly speak for myself but it's clear to me that several moderators have formed an opinion of me and slotted Furze into one category. They have jumped to conclusions and failed to correct their prejudices. But I also have a good idea from others that they experience the same type of categorisation.

What will or can be done about it? So that posters who contribute from all sides of an issue can do so without looking over their shoulders continuously. Who mods the mods in any effective way?

Come Play and Let it all Out 😉😊

Is that not a touch patronising?

I and I believe others do post within the 'rules' as they are understood and we don't need to rehash them.

Problems arise in the interpretation, implementation of these 'rules' and justification for actions based on these 'rules' by those moderating threads. This has been said again & again by many different posters. Is that not well understood at this stage? What prevails currently is not fit for purpose.

It's true for sure that some are able to post away and stay within 'the lines'. Isn't that the whole point, because..

It's also not possible for others to post moderate opinions and stay within 'the lines'.

Why? Moderator bias and thread shaping. What's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.

Look at any half controversial threads on CA / Politics etc. There are people posting away in a manner that has resulted in many others being warned and banned.

For example, I glanced at the Enoch Burke thread earlier - the same group posting sexual innuendo and slurs at the objects of their derision. Going on many months now.

Your characterization of the site is far from generally accepted as true.

I don't ever see a need for bad language [aka fancy French] but bad tempered posters are a serious turn off. A lot of that kind of thing on the sports threads. Some folks just need to take a kitkat and stop of the Internet for a day or three.

I guess part of the issue is that there is a number of controversial, or contentious, threads but the same “cadre” of posters populate the side of contention.

A thread on trans or immigration “issues” will have the same posters taking the anti trans or anti immigrant side but various, different, users on the, more, compassionate side. This goes for a host of other threads too.

This, then, leads to the same posters getting “sanctioned”, or threadbanned, on these threads so the posters on that side of the “argument” feel unfairly treated, as the same names pop up constantly. Whereas, the users, on the other side, getting similar treatment across the forum aren’t noticed as much.

Now, it should be pointed out that a large element of posters can post their opinions without attracting mod/admin attention and stay within the rules. Or they get a warning, learn from it, and move on. Other users seem unable to keep their “cool” and continue to ignore the rules then feel attacked when those same rules are applied.

Then they blame the mods.

Can I ask a genuine question?

Why if you think the site is biased and editorialized and I think you mentioned having 100+ others users on ignore why continue to use the platform?

Thanks for the reply. Just a follow up, these posters who abuse you do you not report them instead of responding?

In the second half of your reply you appear to want an echo chamber so back to my original question why bother use the platform?

Thanks for the insight and enjoy your weekend.