Brexit discussions
Comments
-
Muttleythefrog wrote: »To be honest Andrea... I think admin have made a rod for their own back. There will always be people who whinge as a response to genuine debate... but because Admin seem to give credence to such it encourages more of it. It is frustrating trying to give an informed opinion and spending half an hour doing so only to click the post button and find the thread no longer exists. And clearly many have similar experience... the result is you get less well informed opinions... and more of the sorts of comments which will generate reports of complaint.....
Anyway.. my honest opinion... but if a massive issue like Brexit can't be discussed.. then i think you have to say it's not working.
This was exactly the point I was going to make. Some posters appear to use the draconian and inconsistent responses to complaints to 'game the system'.
However instead of shutting the forum down, I suggest adopting the following procedure:
If anyone is offended by a remark, they politely ask the author to remove/edit it, citing the rule that's been infringed.
If it's not been removed or edited to within the rules within 24 hrs, then it can be reported to admin.
Only if remarks are considered libellous or dangerous to MSE should they be reported immediately.
This serves a number of purposes.
a) it identifies the people complaining, making themselves subject to scrutiny. I don't think people who complain without reason would be popular, and this board is full of those seeking popularity.
b) it provides the chance for the author to correct a genuine mistake or uncharacteristic post contributed in a state of emotional stress.
both a) and b) will reduce the number of complaints being passed to admin.
I would also remove the like button for DT. If someone says something derogatory about a post, then lots of people like it, it seriously inflames the situation. It's effectively used as a dislike button.0 -
I tried this last night with a post which used an offensive term to insult fellow forum members. The poster denied that the remark was insulting anyone and didn't appear willing to accept the comment was offensive in its own right.If anyone is offended by a remark, they politely ask the author to remove/edit it, citing the rule that's been infringed.
If it's not been removed or edited to within the rules within 24 hrs, then it can be reported to admin.
To have pursued the point would have resulted in an argument (oh yes it is/oh no it isn't) of the type we are trying to avoid, so I dropped it.
This morning the post(s) have been removed. But it wasn't me that reported it.
In an ideal world your proposal would work cepheus, but this isn't anything like an ideal world and polite requests to comply with the rules will just be ignored or result in more arguments. And waiting 24 hours before reporting something genuinely offensive is too long... by then the damage has been done and it is 'old news'. How many regulars on the forum ever look at posts which are more than a day old?I would also remove the like button for DT. If someone says something derogatory about a post, then lots of people like it, it seriously inflames the situation. It's effectively used as a dislike button.
Which 'like button'? Not meaning to be pedantic but the button is for saying 'thank you'. There are plenty of discussions on DT where the nature is informative, and some of the contributions people make are genuinely worthy of praise. If someone has added something informative or helpful to a discussion, even if it is one on DT, it is just as worthy of a 'thanks' as a similar contribution on the main boards.
In some cases that 'thanks' may simply be that it has saved another poster from making the same point.
Removing the 'thanks' button would probably result in more people making posts saying 'I agree' or 'Thank you', and still risks inflaming a situation, perhaps even more so as the 'thanker' might add their own inflamatory commentary as well."In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
There are plenty of discussions on DT where the nature is informative, and some of the contributions people make are genuinely worthy of praise.
... and probably the majority of them have vanished..lol.. the posters and their posts or threads. If I were to pull out my top 100 posts I'll bet only a handful still exist on the site. Problem is a deep inconsistency of policing... it is almost random in nature... so rules are a nonsense... I'd expand on that with facts but I'd end up... oh.. let's not go there..lol"Do not attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence" - rogerblack0 -
Muttleythefrog wrote: »... and probably the majority of them have vanished..lol.. the posters and their posts or threads. If I were to pull out my top 100 posts I'll bet only a handful still exist on the site. Problem is a deep inconsistency of policing... it is almost random in nature... so rules are a nonsense... I'd expand on that with facts but I'd end up... oh.. let's not go there..lol
I must admit, it would be nicer if they closed troublesome threads rather than deleting them. That way at least the more interesting points would still be available and posters could see where/why it got closed.Truth always poses doubts & questions. Only lies are 100% believable, because they don't need to justify reality. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon, The Labyrinth of the Spirits0 -
Perhaps access to DT and Debate should be restricted to people who have
a) Been members for over a year, and
b) Made over 100 posts
That way people will take the ramifications of PPR far more seriously as they would t be able to pop up again the next day as an AE. Also they won't be able to have a batch of accounts pre registered and ready to go, as they will have had to invest time and effort to get to say 100 posts.
Doesn't need to be 1 year and 100 posts, could equally be 6 months and 50 posts, or 3 months and 25, the latter may well be fairer, it's the deterrent effect that counts.Please stay safe in the sun and learn the A-E of melanoma: A = asymmetry, B = irregular borders, C= different colours, D= diameter, larger than 6mm, E = evolving, is your mole changing? Most moles are not cancerous, any doubts, please check next time you visit your GP.
0 -
vivatifosi wrote: »Perhaps access to DT and Debate should be restricted to people who have
a) Been members for over a year, and
b) Made over 100 posts
That way people will take the ramifications of PPR far more seriously as they would t be able to pop up again the next day as an AE. Also they won't be able to have a batch of accounts pre registered and ready to go, as they will have had to invest time and effort to get to say 100 posts.
Doesn't need to be 1 year and 100 posts, could equally be 6 months and 50 posts, or 3 months and 25, the latter may well be fairer, it's the deterrent effect that counts.
This is actually a brilliant idea.
First up, let me make clear that I think the balance of opinions on these boards regarding Brexit does genuinely reflect the overall makeup of the site, and I say that despite not liking the balance of opinions on these board and having on occasion fallen into some of the aforementioned categories.
But while many people on both sides have strong opinions and find themselves discussing it a lot, I believe there are several posters, also on both sides in each regard, who are literally just here just to talk about Brexit, Scottish independence, terrorism and other similar topics in which there will always be irreconcilable differences. This proposal would solve that problem.
As for an all-out ban, MSE has the right to choose to do as it pleases, but I don't understand how it will work. How can we not discuss the financial upsides and downsides to the individual before and after March 2019, and before and after the end of the transitional period? And, assuming that discussions directly relevant to the core aim of moneysaving are allowed, how could these possibly not turn into opinions on the trade-offs?0 -
HornetSaver wrote: »As for an all-out ban, MSE has the right to choose to do as it pleases, but I don't understand how it will work. How can we not discuss the financial upsides and downsides to the individual before and after March 2019, and before and after the end of the transitional period? And, assuming that discussions directly relevant to the core aim of moneysaving are allowed, how could these possibly not turn into opinions on the trade-offs?
I completely agree with this. As Brexit day approaches and passes there will be endless 'money saving' questions about jobs, housing, holidays, investments, etc etc.
If discussing Brexit is banned then a lot of people are going to fall into the trap of saying something in response to a question which is deemed to be Brexit discussion. E.g.
Q: My flight to Spain has been cancelled because the pilot is a UK national and her licence is no longer valid for flights in EU27 airspace. Can I get compensation or will my travel insurance cover it?
A1: No, this was a predictable outcome of Brexit. Tough luck.
A2: It didn't have to be an outcome of Brexit.... blah blah, continues for 100 pages.
At what point in that exchange does a 'money saving' answer become 'Brexit discussion'?"In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
If it's not been removed or edited to within the rules within 24 hrs, then it can be reported to admin.
I think the elephant in the room that appears to be sorely missed by many is that the admins are looking to decrease work for themselves, rather than increase it.
They want us to play nice so they don't have to keep coming over and telling us off. That leaves ultimately two options:
1. Banning certain topics outright (and anyone who mentions them)
2. Asking people to grow up.
As someone who has never reported anyone for anything and an advocate for free speech over censorship and can't abide snowflakes on either side of the fence, If we had to choose I would always opt for option 2 as I hope most grown ups would.0 -
The mistake some people here make is believing what they type influences or changes the minds of anyone. Posters here are a tiny percentage of a tiny minority who publicly argue for what they believe, and most of the writers and audience are not going to have their minds changed by a brilliantly crafted persuasive post...or by name calling.Been away for a while.0
-
Running_Horse wrote: »The mistake some people here make is believing what they type influences or changes the minds of anyone. Posters here are a tiny percentage of a tiny minority who publicly argue for what they believe, and most of the writers and audience are not going to have their minds changed by a brilliantly crafted persuasive post...or by name calling.
Thats why as a poster, you are not trying to change your opponents mind (theirs is set), more just present you case to a wider audience.
Hence why just insulting someone on its own often doesn't strengthen your case.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards