Please be more honest and quicker to deal with bad stuff

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

This was once a thread on website feedback looking at implications from moderation of a recently deceased thread.

It's turning into a left-wing sponsored witch hunt aimed at those who don't espouse left-wing views, complete with partisan generalisations and barnum statements, and if continued would be better merged with the intolerance thread as an example in support of the OP.

All political views should be welcome here, without the stereotyping attempted above including from any and all political directions.

- if somebody has a view on UKIP there are UKIP bashing threads elsewhere
- if somebody has a view on climate change there are at least two threads
- if somebody has a view on the other inverted comma topics there are other threads
- if those on the political left want yes-yes-yes to anything there's CIF

What hope this thread gets back to the useful role it could have; not much apparently.

What a load of old bks.

The irony meter is off the scale: how can "all political views be welcome here" when what it appears you want is the left wing views to be shut up and moved somewhere else (presume you mean CTF as the home of "up yes-yes-yes to anything" political leftism). You end up with PH forever a right wing echo chamber. You want the so-called lefties to zip it just as much as they want to xenophobic/misogynists to keep their thoughts inside their heads.

In the end no one is forced to post here or read posts. If people don't like what they see, they will drift away and not come back. Trying to prevent this place turning into a nirvana predominantly for white men who who revel in Mail/Express prompted outrage and anger is what this thread is about.

[FiF]

Wtf has CTF got to do with anything?

CIF Comment is Free - Guardian blog and comment site. HTH.

[turbobloke]

Greg66 said:

turbobloke said:

This was once a thread on website feedback looking at implications from moderation of a recently deceased thread.

It's turning into a left-wing sponsored witch hunt aimed at those who don't espouse left-wing views, complete with partisan generalisations and barnum statements, and if continued would be better merged with the intolerance thread as an example in support of the OP.

All political views should be welcome here, without the stereotyping attempted above including from any and all political directions.

- if somebody has a view on UKIP there are UKIP bashing threads elsewhere
- if somebody has a view on climate change there are at least two threads
- if somebody has a view on the other inverted comma topics there are other threads
- if those on the political left want yes-yes-yes to anything there's CIF

What hope this thread gets back to the useful role it could have; not much apparently.

What a load of old bks.

Charming.

Greg66 said:

The irony meter is off the scale: how can "all political views be welcome here" when what it appears you want is the left wing views to be shut up and moved somewhere else.

Misplaced your reading specs? I said nothing about what I want. The point about CIF was if the left want eberyone to agree with them "yes yes yes" then CIF will do the job. CIF is over at The Guardian website.

Greg66 said:

You end up with PH forever a right wing echo chamber.

I don't end up with it, nor do I want it, you're attributing views to me when you should be offering your own, you have no idea what I want, and I don't post it because it's irrelevant.

Greg66 said:

You want the so-called lefties to zip it just as much as they want to xenophobic/misogynists to keep their thoughts inside their heads.

In the end no one is forced to post here or read posts.

Where have I said that - nowhere. Now you're well info fiction.

Greg66 said:

If people don't like what they see, they will drift away and not come back.

It's the same for everyone and a matter of individual choiuce. PH isn't here to placate the needy.

Greg66 said:

Trying to prevent this place turning into a nirvana predominantly for white men who who revel in Mail/Express prompted outrage and anger is what this thread is about.

You seen to have an axe to grind about white men reading newspapers. As to anger, you're ahead of most people judging by this post.

[turbobloke]

FiF said:

turbobloke said:

This was once a thread on website feedback looking at implications from moderation of a recently deceased thread.

It's turning into a left-wing sponsored witch hunt aimed at those who don't espouse left-wing views, complete with partisan generalisations and barnum statements, and if continued would be better merged with the intolerance thread as an example in support of the OP.

All political views should be welcome here, without the stereotyping attempted above including from any and all political directions.

- if somebody has a view on UKIP there are UKIP bashing threads elsewhere
- if somebody has a view on climate change there are at least two threads
- if somebody has a view on the other inverted comma topics there are other threads
- if those on the political left want yes-yes-yes to anything there's CIF

What hope this thread gets back to the useful role it could have; not much apparently.

Quite, no chance really. One has to note that the thread referenced also has a mod ripping off the odd one liner into the fray.

The job as they say is stuffed.

Regardless of the fact that we don't see eye to eye on some topics TB yet agree on others will just be more evidence of coordinated attack dogs pack hunting the poor little lambs.

There are too many ironies to catch them all. The left pack is gathering in this thread having repeated pops at people whose views they don't like, just to vent because quite a few people don't agree with them, going off on other topics when there are threads on those areas. This one was supposed to be about moderation.

Another irony is that it arose from a thread I had noted in passing but basically ignored. I have an interest in how the site is moderated for no other valid reason than it will help PH to remain a good place to be when modding is timely and impartial and - for example - uses judgment not some arbitrary Report quota. The idea that mods can't work it out by taking a look after one Report and need half a dozen or whatever is silly and invites strategic cliquery.

[SpeckledJim]

turbobloke said:

There are too many ironies to catch them all. The left pack is gathering in this thread having repeated pops at people whose views they don't like, just to vent because quite a few people don't agree with them, going off on other topics when there are threads on those areas. This one was supposed to be about moderation.

Another irony is that it arose from a thread I had noted in passing but basically ignored. I have an interest in how the site is moderated for no other valid reason than it will help PH to remain a good place to be when modding is timely and impartial and - for example - uses judgment not some arbitrary Report quota. The idea that mods can't work it out by taking a look after one Report and need half a dozen or whatever is silly and invites strategic cliquery.

The problem isn't left or right.

The problem is that the site is now as nasty and mean-spirited as anywhere on the mainstream internet.

It is basically youtube comments with better spelling.

[Lucas CAV]

turbobloke said:

FiF said:

turbobloke said:

This was once a thread on website feedback looking at implications from moderation of a recently deceased thread.

It's turning into a left-wing sponsored witch hunt aimed at those who don't espouse left-wing views, complete with partisan generalisations and barnum statements, and if continued would be better merged with the intolerance thread as an example in support of the OP.

All political views should be welcome here, without the stereotyping attempted above including from any and all political directions.

- if somebody has a view on UKIP there are UKIP bashing threads elsewhere
- if somebody has a view on climate change there are at least two threads
- if somebody has a view on the other inverted comma topics there are other threads
- if those on the political left want yes-yes-yes to anything there's CIF

What hope this thread gets back to the useful role it could have; not much apparently.

Quite, no chance really. One has to note that the thread referenced also has a mod ripping off the odd one liner into the fray.

The job as they say is stuffed.

Regardless of the fact that we don't see eye to eye on some topics TB yet agree on others will just be more evidence of coordinated attack dogs pack hunting the poor little lambs.

There are too many ironies to catch them all. The left pack is gathering in this thread having repeated pops at people whose views they don't like, just to vent because quite a few people don't agree with them, going off on other topics when there are threads on those areas. This one was supposed to be about moderation.

Another irony is that it arose from a thread I had noted in passing but basically ignored. I have an interest in how the site is moderated for no other valid reason than it will help PH to remain a good place to be when modding is timely and impartial and - for example - uses judgment not some arbitrary Report quota. The idea that mods can't work it out by taking a look after one Report and need half a dozen or whatever is silly and invites strategic cliquery.

In your opinion....

[turbobloke]

Lucas CAV said:

turbobloke said:

FiF said:

turbobloke said:

This was once a thread on website feedback looking at implications from moderation of a recently deceased thread.

It's turning into a left-wing sponsored witch hunt aimed at those who don't espouse left-wing views, complete with partisan generalisations and barnum statements, and if continued would be better merged with the intolerance thread as an example in support of the OP.

All political views should be welcome here, without the stereotyping attempted above including from any and all political directions.

- if somebody has a view on UKIP there are UKIP bashing threads elsewhere
- if somebody has a view on climate change there are at least two threads
- if somebody has a view on the other inverted comma topics there are other threads
- if those on the political left want yes-yes-yes to anything there's CIF

What hope this thread gets back to the useful role it could have; not much apparently.

Quite, no chance really. One has to note that the thread referenced also has a mod ripping off the odd one liner into the fray.

The job as they say is stuffed.

Regardless of the fact that we don't see eye to eye on some topics TB yet agree on others will just be more evidence of coordinated attack dogs pack hunting the poor little lambs.

There are too many ironies to catch them all. The left pack is gathering in this thread having repeated pops at people whose views they don't like, just to vent because quite a few people don't agree with them, going off on other topics when there are threads on those areas. This one was supposed to be about moderation.

Another irony is that it arose from a thread I had noted in passing but basically ignored. I have an interest in how the site is moderated for no other valid reason than it will help PH to remain a good place to be when modding is timely and impartial and - for example - uses judgment not some arbitrary Report quota. The idea that mods can't work it out by taking a look after one Report and need half a dozen or whatever is silly and invites strategic cliquery.

In your opinion....

Yes my opinion is that mods have a brain and can work it out when something is reported even once, your opinion is?

[Lucas CAV]

turbobloke said:

Lucas CAV said:

turbobloke said:

FiF said:

turbobloke said:

This was once a thread on website feedback looking at implications from moderation of a recently deceased thread.

It's turning into a left-wing sponsored witch hunt aimed at those who don't espouse left-wing views, complete with partisan generalisations and barnum statements, and if continued would be better merged with the intolerance thread as an example in support of the OP.

All political views should be welcome here, without the stereotyping attempted above including from any and all political directions.

- if somebody has a view on UKIP there are UKIP bashing threads elsewhere
- if somebody has a view on climate change there are at least two threads
- if somebody has a view on the other inverted comma topics there are other threads
- if those on the political left want yes-yes-yes to anything there's CIF

What hope this thread gets back to the useful role it could have; not much apparently.

Quite, no chance really. One has to note that the thread referenced also has a mod ripping off the odd one liner into the fray.

The job as they say is stuffed.

Regardless of the fact that we don't see eye to eye on some topics TB yet agree on others will just be more evidence of coordinated attack dogs pack hunting the poor little lambs.

There are too many ironies to catch them all. The left pack is gathering in this thread having repeated pops at people whose views they don't like, just to vent because quite a few people don't agree with them, going off on other topics when there are threads on those areas. This one was supposed to be about moderation.

Another irony is that it arose from a thread I had noted in passing but basically ignored. I have an interest in how the site is moderated for no other valid reason than it will help PH to remain a good place to be when modding is timely and impartial and - for example - uses judgment not some arbitrary Report quota. The idea that mods can't work it out by taking a look after one Report and need half a dozen or whatever is silly and invites strategic cliquery.

In your opinion....

Yes my opinion is that mods have a brain and can work it out when something is reported even once, your opinion is?

No comment about whether people have a brain or not.....

But either the reporting system isn't being used (fine - others don't have an issue) or it IS being used and mods are therefore not acting or are making judgements at odds with what I (just my opinion) and (some) others consider to be appropriate -


What is your opinion of the content, direction and language in the original Calais thread?

[WinstonWolf]

Lucas CAV said:

turbobloke said:

Lucas CAV said:

turbobloke said:

FiF said:

turbobloke said:

This was once a thread on website feedback looking at implications from moderation of a recently deceased thread.

It's turning into a left-wing sponsored witch hunt aimed at those who don't espouse left-wing views, complete with partisan generalisations and barnum statements, and if continued would be better merged with the intolerance thread as an example in support of the OP.

All political views should be welcome here, without the stereotyping attempted above including from any and all political directions.

- if somebody has a view on UKIP there are UKIP bashing threads elsewhere
- if somebody has a view on climate change there are at least two threads
- if somebody has a view on the other inverted comma topics there are other threads
- if those on the political left want yes-yes-yes to anything there's CIF

What hope this thread gets back to the useful role it could have; not much apparently.

Quite, no chance really. One has to note that the thread referenced also has a mod ripping off the odd one liner into the fray.

The job as they say is stuffed.

Regardless of the fact that we don't see eye to eye on some topics TB yet agree on others will just be more evidence of coordinated attack dogs pack hunting the poor little lambs.

There are too many ironies to catch them all. The left pack is gathering in this thread having repeated pops at people whose views they don't like, just to vent because quite a few people don't agree with them, going off on other topics when there are threads on those areas. This one was supposed to be about moderation.

Another irony is that it arose from a thread I had noted in passing but basically ignored. I have an interest in how the site is moderated for no other valid reason than it will help PH to remain a good place to be when modding is timely and impartial and - for example - uses judgment not some arbitrary Report quota. The idea that mods can't work it out by taking a look after one Report and need half a dozen or whatever is silly and invites strategic cliquery.

In your opinion....

Yes my opinion is that mods have a brain and can work it out when something is reported even once, your opinion is?

No comment about whether people have a brain or not.....

But either the reporting system isn't being used (fine - others don't have an issue) or it IS being used and mods are therefore not acting or are making judgements at odds with what I (just my opinion) and (some) others consider to be appropriate -


What is your opinion of the content, direction and language in the original Calais thread?

It appears some previously banned posters popped back and kicked up a st storm...

[Lucas CAV]

My apologies..

I thought it was a previously banned poster who returned to highlight the daft comments -

[turbobloke]

In a previous post I said:

Yes my opinion is that mods have a brain and can work it out when something is reported even once, your opinion is?

Lucas CAV said:

No comment about whether people have a brain or not.....

Speaking for yourself as a person or the mods as people? As your reply was to a post about mods having a brain that looks close to being naughty in terms of open forum content and the posting rules.

Lucas CAV said:

What is your opinion of the content, direction and language in the original Calais thread?

I didn't go there enough to see it all or anything close to all, I already posted that I didn't visit the thread much maybe once or twice and I can't recall posting in it. From what's been said since, and from examples quoted, it would only take one Report to show there was material that breached posting rules.

Mods are busy people, the role is voluntary in effect and often a thankless task, and I still hold that one Report is enough and that setting an arbitrary number of Reports to result in automatic sanction is merely inviting collusion to close down debate by censoring views that a clique may not want to see expressed but are legitimate and expressed within the posting rules.

[WinstonWolf]

Lucas CAV said:

My apologies..

I thought it was a previously banned poster who returned to highlight the daft comments -

It was at least two, there was a fair bit of "high fiving" going on elsewhere in the 'net.

[Lucas CAV]

turbobloke said:

In a previous post I said:

Yes my opinion is that mods have a brain and can work it out when something is reported even once, your opinion is?

Lucas CAV said:

No comment about whether people have a brain or not.....

Speaking for yourself as a person or the mods as people? As your reply was to a post about mods having a brain that looks close to being naughty in terms of open forum content and the posting rules.

Now you've gone back into Turbobloke Turbowaffle --- it would, I would've thought, be obvious that my point was that I have no comment/opinion/knowledge/need to include mention about whether (unknown to me) Mods have or don't have a brain ---

turbobloke said:

Lucas CAV said:

What is your opinion of the content, direction and language in the original Calais thread?

I didn't go there enough to see it all or anything close to all, I already posted that I didn't visit the thread much maybe once or twice and I can't recall posting in it. From what's been said since, and from examples quoted, it would only take one Report to show there was material that breached posting rules.

That may be true but it appears from posts made in other threads to not be the case.

turbobloke said:

Mods are busy people, the role is voluntary in effect and often a thankless task, and I still hold that one Report is enough and that setting an arbitrary number of Reports to result in automatic sanction is merely inviting collusion to close down debate by censoring views that a clique may not want to see expressed but are legitimate and expressed within the posting rules.

I have not expressed an opinion on any of these points but my contention would be that there is a clique of right wing posters espousing daft/offensive opinions that while they may be within some arcane interpretation of the posting rules or free speech are actually offensive/unnecessary/over the line.

PH presumably agreed as the thread was taken down.

[Lucas CAV]

WinstonWolf said:

Lucas CAV said:

My apologies..

I thought it was a previously banned poster who returned to highlight the daft comments -

It was at least two, there was a fair bit of "high fiving" going on elsewhere in the 'net.

I don't know what the real story is -- it seems that a load of offensive stuff was posted and was visible for quite a while -

I read it -- it was sub Britain First stuff -


Why does it matter who posted it?

[otolith]

Lucas CAV said:

daft/offensive opinions that while they may be within some arcane interpretation of the posting rules or free speech are actually offensive/unnecessary/over the line.

Daft, offensive, unnecessary, "over the line", all entirely subjective. A matter of judgement by the moderators, and one with which inevitably some people will disagree.

[WinstonWolf]

Lucas CAV said:

WinstonWolf said:

Lucas CAV said:

My apologies..

I thought it was a previously banned poster who returned to highlight the daft comments -

It was at least two, there was a fair bit of "high fiving" going on elsewhere in the 'net.

I don't know what the real story is -- it seems that a load of offensive stuff was posted and was visible for quite a while -

I read it -- it was sub Britain First stuff -


Why does it matter who posted it?

Because the person had already been banned by PH for breaching the rules. It wasn't their opinion, it was posted with the express intention of shutting down a debate that wasn't going how that person wanted.

As I say, lots of high fiving going on elsewhere for getting the thread closed.

[turbobloke]

WinstonWolf said:

Lucas CAV said:

WinstonWolf said:

Lucas CAV said:

My apologies..

I thought it was a previously banned poster who returned to highlight the daft comments -

It was at least two, there was a fair bit of "high fiving" going on elsewhere in the 'net.

I don't know what the real story is -- it seems that a load of offensive stuff was posted and was visible for quite a while -

I read it -- it was sub Britain First stuff -


Why does it matter who posted it?

Because the person had already been banned by PH for breaching the rules. It wasn't their opinion, it was posted with the express intention of shutting down a debate that wasn't going how that person wanted.

As I say, lots of high fiving going on elsewhere for getting the thread closed.

Blimey. First off, the posting of material by banned persons is not a slur on PH as they have already been removed. Naturally the sooner this is spotted and acted on, the better. In terms of wider implications it demonstrates my point about people setting up strategic cliques, whether already banned or not. It's too simplistic to use Report quotas, as otolith points out it has to be a matter of judgment by mods in view in the context of the posting rules.

[Lucas CAV]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[WinstonWolf]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

There was more than one fake profile contributing the racist crap. If you look a bit further afield you'll see that someone was banned, set up a tag team posting even more offensive crap then waited for complaints about the stuff that they posted.

Some people have too much time on their hands...

[Lucas CAV]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

From what I saw there was racist stuff posted by established members too -

MGjohn?