Politics and stuff

[Bruce Wayne]

As some of the longer term members know, we've had long-running discussions about the merits of political threads on GOT as they tend to result in disagreements and in-fighting amongst Blues.

They, and other similarly 'hot' topics, do tend to be discussed however, so we're going to trial putting them all into the upgraded member lounge, where moderation is more relaxed on account of it being primarily used by members who have shown a willingness to support the site.

Threads that will be put there include topics such as politics, religion, guns and so on. Any existing threads on these topics will be moved over to the upgraded lounge by Sunday evening.

 

[Clint Planet]

Just having a quick look down the recent/new active (in the last 24 hours) threads in the Ale House, Bruce is basically saying that all of these are now suddenly banned:

Donald Trump POTUS
The Orgreave Enquiry
Basic Income For All
Vietnam '67
BBC News
The "Another Shooting in America" thread

And these are only the threads which are blatantly political/"hot topics" based on their subject matter. As people have mentioned, there are plenty of others with a lot of "political" content.

It's basically going to wipe out half of the interesting discussion in the Ale House so that we are just left with cat GIF threads and Carlos's quick reply box. Easy to moderate, sure, but Jesus...

I'm sure they've done it to coincide with Donald Chump taking over the Free World™ as some sort of symbolic statement about freedom of speech and the possible loss, thereof.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I'd like to know the rationale behind this particular rule. Frankly, there are alternative fora out for every possible conversation topic, so why are those singled out? Sure, they're some of the more polarizing topics and likely get more heated than discussions around films and John Stones, but why does that mean they need to be banned?

Is it simply that the level of moderation would need to be raised, and the GOT crew ain't got time for that? Or is there another reason why contentious topics are banned?

From experience, there are certain topics whereby people are deeply entrenched in their positions, and therefore discussions around them tend to be talking at others rather than listening. Religion is one example, politics another. As such, it's certainly not uncommon for discussions on these topics to be barred from forums.

That's fair enough, you can't see everything I get that.

Just as long as the rules are enforced fairly in the 'free' part of the forum then if people want to disregard them they know they can simply pay for the privilege. It just seems to me that those who pay for the privilege to play in an unmoderated forum also get to play by their special rules in the 'free' boards too.

To be clear, it's very rare for someone new to the site to become a forum supporter. It's much more common for someone to be here for a prolonged period of time, and because they appreciate the site they help out with the running costs a little bit.

For sure, those who have been around a long time and contributed a lot to the site do get cut more slack than newbies that don't have the 'credit in the bank', but that's never anything to do with financial contributions, and it's not an exhaustive level of leniency either.

 

[Goat]

Well, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, you're basically you're saying the politics threads are the most important parts of the site to you ?

Now Bruce is quite a political animal, as was Esk, and Roydo likes to natter politics too.

But Esk is no longer moderating and Bruce is effectively saying he's fed up with moderating them which leaves it all on Roydo ( If any of the other mods are interested in moderating them then I'd be surprised ).

So what I'm seeing from my pedestal in Chorley is about a dozen posters moaning that it's not fair, but not one of them has shown any real interest over the last few years in actively helping moderate the place because "That's something someone else does"

Forgive me for being blunt, but all those complaining come across as a set of cry-arses.

To be fair a few people stuck their hands up in this thread.

You filthy little pixie you, I get your game.

 

[Woolly Blue]

Keep locking the political threads, and those that wish to have hours of debate, on whatever they like, will find a suitable forum.

Spot on MrGrumpy, but here's the rub, the folk on here moaning about Bruce's idea ( all of whom are plainly bright guys ) can't be arsed setting up www.blueschatabarpolitics because they'd have to moderate said site, and they'd much rather someone wipes their arses for them.

Not that there's owt wrong with having someone gently running their hand across your arse

 

[The Cowboy]

To be fair a few people stuck their hands up in this thread.

You filthy little pixie you, I get your game.

Plus I never knew there was a moderator supply crisis developing. Never seen any explicit calls before this thread.

 

[jal123]

From experience, there are certain topics whereby people are deeply entrenched in their positions, and therefore discussions around them tend to be talking at others rather than listening. Religion is one example, politics another. As such, it's certainly not uncommon for discussions on these topics to be barred from forums.



To be clear, it's very rare for someone new to the site to become a forum supporter. It's much more common for someone to be here for a prolonged period of time, and because they appreciate the site they help out with the running costs a little bit.

For sure, those who have been around a long time and contributed a lot to the site do get cut more slack than newbies that don't have the 'credit in the bank', but that's never anything to do with financial contributions, and it's not an exhaustive level of leniency either.

I know that and respect that.

If all this is because the site needs funds for server costs or whatever why not just ask people to donate? £20 is unrealistic for most people to use a board that your most prominent member has admitted is a ghost town so why not just put a thread in the ale house and ask for donations.
I'd lash a fiver or so in every now and then to help with server cost or whatever expenses you accrue running a site this size, but £20 for 6 months access to a dead board? Nah

 

[Blues Harp]

Would rather support the whole forum for what it is ...a gathering of EFC nutters who like to chat and argue about our club and worlds beyond..loved the mug but I tend to not use the UG forum as I find the other forums interesting, frustrating, thought provoking and.......GET IN LUKAKUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.....YERRRRRRRRRRSSS !! lollol

 

[jal123]

Spot on MrGrumpy, but here's the rub, the folk on here moaning about Bruce's idea ( all of whom are plainly bright guys ) can't be arsed setting up www.blueschatabarpolitics because they'd have to moderate said site, and they'd much rather someone wipes their arses for them.

Not that there's owt wrong with having someone gently running their hand across your arse

There are enough members on here that the mods could pick some new mod blood if that's what they want. I've never known a message board that accepts people as mods who simply volunteer, normally you have to contribute to the site in a positive way for a decent amount of time and then you get invited to help out

 

[Goat]

I know that and respect that.

If all this is because the site needs funds for server costs or whatever why not just ask people to donate? £20 is unrealistic for most people to use a board that your most prominent member has admitted is a ghost town so why not just put a thread in the ale house and ask for donations.
I'd lash a fiver or so in every now and then to help with server cost or whatever expenses you accrue running a site this size, but £20 for 6 months access to a dead board? Nah

Ohhh er, I didnt mean its not worth it!!

I dont even believe its done for money reasons, BAH!!!!

 

[chrismpw]

Hmm so free speech for those who can afford it, irrelevant of insight or knowledge. Very Orwellian. The first time I have disagreed with the ethos of anything GOT.
A little light has gone out in my heart and I am sad now.
I'm sure Bruce will retort with some slick Londonesque inspired rhetoric that sounds somehow intellectual.

On the other hand, politics is boring meff that we have no control over, since the lizards are in charge, and people keep bleating on about the merits or no of brexit, or whatever it is the yanks are doing to shoot themselves in the foot, so good.
Let's get back to togger.

Ale house though. Principles, debate, free speech, the ability to open one's mind, the ability to inform and discriminate against idiot's views. Sigh.

 

[Tubey]

Well, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, you're basically you're saying the politics threads are the most important parts of the site to you ?

Now Bruce is quite a political animal, as was Esk, and Roydo likes to natter politics too.

But Esk is no longer moderating and Bruce is effectively saying he's fed up with moderating them which leaves it all on Roydo ( If any of the other mods are interested in moderating them then I'd be surprised ).

So what I'm seeing from my pedestal in Chorley is about a dozen posters moaning that it's not fair, but not one of them has shown any real interest over the last few years in actively helping moderate the place because "That's something someone else does"

Forgive me for being blunt, but all those complaining come across as a set of cry-arses.

Loads of people would moderate if asked to. The problem is that surely the choice has been to have a set amount of moderators so that you don't get a "too many cooks" situation, which means you discuss your approach in the lounge and thus meaning the relatively small team come up with a coherent, consistent team method of moderating.

Now let me be blunt - if the first few paragraphs are true, and it's being "left to Roydo", then that doesn't indicate a problem with the GOT membership; that indicates a problem with the GOT moderation team. To be perfectly blunt, if the mods aren't interested in modding the forum, then that's the big problem here isn't it?

I see nobody "cry-arsing" here - what I see is people recognising it's a stupid idea, and are trying to constructively say why that is. All I see in your post above is an attempt to blame members for using a forum called the Ale House which is supposed to be off-topic discussion, yet completely refusing to criticise moderators, who you say aren't interested in moderating off-topic content.

If you want an Everton-only forum, close the Ale House - job done. That'd be preferable to half-arsing it.

 

[jal123]

Ohhh er, I didnt mean its not worth it!!

I dont even believe its done for money reasons, BAH!!!!

You said yourself you pay to help with running costs not because you get access to an extra board.

 

[Seanjd]

Spot on MrGrumpy, but here's the rub, the folk on here moaning about Bruce's idea ( all of whom are plainly bright guys ) can't be arsed setting up www.blueschatabarpolitics because they'd have to moderate said site, and they'd much rather someone wipes their arses for them.

Not that there's owt wrong with having someone gently running their hand across your arse

Im detecting some malice in your posts towards those who enjoy talking politics because of your experience of a moderator.

Moderation here has always been portrayed as a bit cliquey, and that's evident in a few people in this thread as saying things along the lines of 'I'd do it but don't think they'd want me'.

Is the problem really a lack of moderators?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I know that and respect that.

If all this is because the site needs funds for server costs or whatever why not just ask people to donate? £20 is unrealistic for most people to use a board that your most prominent member has admitted is a ghost town so why not just put a thread in the ale house and ask for donations.
I'd lash a fiver or so in every now and then to help with server cost or whatever expenses you accrue running a site this size, but £20 for 6 months access to a dead board? Nah

Just to reiterate, if it even needs saying, this has nothing whatsoever to do with raising money for GOT. Nothing at all.

 

[Woolly Blue]

You filthy little pixie you, I get your game.

To be honest, we're watching Graham Norton, have nearly polished off a bottle of wine and so getting a few blerts to fume on the internet is rounding off the evening quite nicely.

If I end up getting my leg over here, then the last few hours have been nigh on perfect ( apart from the Grahan Norton bit ).