US election forum standards?

is_that_so

Is it my imagination or has the standard of the forum been in the toilet for some time? There are some posters like Ludo, Blue Lagoon, GuanYin,Trojan, Overheal, Manic Moran and of course Pocono Joe, and a handful of others who have some thoughts and ideas to offer. Then there's the rest who think it's an excuse for a Biden, McCain or Palin YouTube sniggerfest. When you compare the quality of the more recent stuff with the excellent debates in the EU forum it might as well be AH.

Steve

It's the American way...

:pac:


/hums star spangled banner..

Dirk Gently

The EU forum is more technical. Myths can be busted and logical conclusions reached. American politics is all about spin, little substance. It's inevitable the threads in the US election forum will be full of opinion and spin. It is what it is.

Ludo

is_that_so...the thread which probably prompted you to post here (straw which broke the camels back?) originated in AH and got moved to US Politics. Therefore the plebs in AH are dropping as it is still linked to in AH. And we all know what freaks hang out in AH

Give it time and hopefully they will crawl back under their rock

Plus the recent addition of a very (how can I put this politely) "vocal" republican supporter has kicked it off a bit as he kind of waded in feet first and didn't make a very good impression. Nothing wrong with republican supporters now. We need then or it would be very boring and people like moran and joe are interesting as we don't really get to talk to real life republican type people here and they make good points and argue their case well.

Gordon

Ludo wrote: »

is_that_so...the thread which probably prompted you to post here (straw which broke the camels back?) originated in AH and got moved to US Politics. Therefore the plebs in AH are dropping as it is still linked to in AH. And we all know what freaks hang out in AH

Correct, it was moved, as well spotted by the freakily plebean Ludo who was only twice freakily plebean in 2005, in Afterhours.

nesf

Call me a cynic but...

It's election season so the standard will drop because everyone has an opinion regardless of how much they actually know about what's going on. It was the exact same with the EU forum when the Lisbon referendum was coming up.


There's not a whole lot I can do except ban people for not keeping to a high standard of discourse by some measure I set which isn't a good idea to say the least.

The other mods might have better ideas on how to tackle the issue though.

brianthebard

is_that_so wrote: »

Is it my imagination or has the standard of the forum been in the toilet for some time? There are some posters like Ludo, Blue Lagoon, GuanYin,Trojan, Overheal, Manic Moran and of course Pocono Joe, and a handful of others who have some thoughts and ideas to offer.

Was P Joe not banned for trolling, or at least has stopped posting because he was reprimanded? I agree with Nesf for the next week or two there won't be any objectivity about the election its coming too close to polling day. Perhaps in a month or so when the dust settles there will be space for contemplative discussion again.

Ludo

Gordon wrote: »

Correct, it was moved, as well spotted by the freakily plebean Ludo who was only twice freakily plebean in 2005, in Afterhours.

I posted in AH in 2005...damn it anyway

And you have wayyyy to much time on your hands Gordon to search for that

Trojan

I don't want to move all videos onto one thread because they cover different topics. Also, some of the videos have very serious content or topics (despite some of them originating from The Daily Show, etc).

My fault on leaving a redirect for that thread in AH (in my defense it was "expires in 1 day" -- but obviously far too long).

btw my political leanings are quite left/liberal, so I've been giving the pro-Republicans some slack as I don't want to let my bias influence moderation.

Here's the deal. You guys tell me precisely what the scope and nature of the problem is, and even better supply a solution, and I'll do it.

brianthebard

Might be setting myself up for a fall but should there be some guidelines or accepted rules for what is and isn't acceptable debate? There have been some personal insults thrown around in that forum, plus people ranting or throwing out non truths with no inclination to back them up. This might not be so bad if it wasn't so similar in tone to the election campaign as a whole and personally I would like to see the election forum as a place to step away from the mud slinging and character assassinations in favour of proper discourse. Thoughts?

Trojan

People have already been given warnings or infractions for most of the posts you mention (if you see one without a warning or infraction then please report it).

The rules/guidelines threads setup by GY are pretty clear: I don't think more guidelines are the answer.

Sounds like what people here are looking for is less tolerance in moderation, which is something that has been very much criticised on this board before. I'm willing to go down that route if that's what's deemed necessary, but I want to see you guys on here defending the Politics moderators when they get roundly criticised for being heavy handed.

brianthebard

I appreciate that its a hard and thankless job, and for the most part ye are all handling it very well, I just wonder if some posters are taking advantage of your leniency? Also think that the best posts in the forum are the ones where people, regardless of their political leanings are prepared to back up their opinions rather than make "join the dots" non arguments.

GuanYin

brianthebard wrote: »

I appreciate that its a hard and thankless job, and for the most part ye are all handling it very well, I just wonder if some posters are taking advantage of your leniency? Also think that the best posts in the forum are the ones where people, regardless of their political leanings are prepared to back up their opinions rather than make "join the dots" non arguments.

Backing up opinions or backing up statements? Everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how ill informed, and they can express that with the caveat that it isn't presented in an biggoted or inciteful manner.

Statements are a different matter and we tends to come down on those trying to present a statement of fact with no evidence.

I do agree with Trojan, it is slightly amusing that we have back-to-back threads about the forum complaining of strictness and leniency, although considering I've been called anti-China and pro-China by two different posters in the same politics thread page, nothing about that forums surprises me anymore.

For what it's worth, I think the Boards.ie US Election forum is probably of a better quality than alot of blogs out there and I know at least one official from the Obama camp who has read the forum without much complaint.

brianthebard

Ok then if someone posts something about Obama's relationship with Ayers for instance should I be reporting that as unsubstantiated bull? I'm just trying to get a sense of where the line is between baseless opinion and baseless statement construed as fact. And if a baseless statement is made as an opinion shuold it be reported? Sorry if that reads badly....

GuanYin

brianthebard wrote: »

Ok then if someone posts something about Obama's relationship with Ayers for instance should I be reporting that as unsubstantiated bull? I'm just trying to get a sense of where the line is between baseless opinion and baseless statement construed as fact. And if a baseless statement is made as an opinion shuold it be reported? Sorry if that reads badly....

It depends what they post. The fact is, Obama has a very, very vague association with Ayers. He's served on the same committee with him and they've attened a fundraiser together. Discussing the importance of this is fine because some people have a real problem with it and other don't. The fact is, there is a tentative link and it is, for McCain, a major issue in the campaigning.

On the other hand, reporting some of the more unfounded allegations as fact is a nono. If someone is going to make a statement about the relationship such as - "they had lunch every tuesday where they discussed was to terrorize the christian heartland", then they might get a post to back it up before being swiftly shown the forum door.

brianthebard

Well isn't there a difference between saying they worked together and saying he endorsed Ayers campaign in the sixties? Or rather alleging it, which seems to be the order of the day atm.

GuanYin

brianthebard wrote: »

Well isn't there a difference between saying they worked together and saying he endorsed Ayers campaign in the sixties? Or rather alleging it, which seems to be the order of the day atm.

Isn't that covered by what I said?

is_that_so

The main reason for my comments was that thread that showed up from AH, but there have been a number of contributors throwing up dubious blog links, a plethora of YouTube videos and any number of links to so-called "stories".
Quite a number of them have been "here's another blog/video showing how stupid Palin/Biden/McCain really is". Even though I know Guan Yin covered that in the most recent rules update, some more recent threads seem to revolve around the need to dig up videos and stories with very little comment.
Some examples of what I mean are threads like the AH one that was moved and Obama ...McCain You got served or Obama "A little too awesome?".

As regards moderation in politics I have never had a problem with it and generally find it balanced towards the need for posters to debate.

Dirk Gently

relax brian, the last thing the politics forum needs is more regulation. You're never going to stop everyone saying anything untrue / wild allegations against some political figure. Best to just have a common sense approach by the moderators rather than regulating the board to a halt. If you feel something doesn't hold up debate the OP. Otherwise you'll end up with a boards-bertie-gate situation for every subject where people get banned for the slightest variation on proven fact even if the probability of what they say is 99% certain.

I've seen threads over the past couple of years which were regulated to the hilt but at the same time wild allegations were allowed fly against other figures in other threads. Best to just ask people to back their posts up and see which opinion holds more water at the end of the debate.

The US election forum is very tabloid but that's the nature of the campaign being discussed.

GuanYin

is_that_so wrote: »

Some examples of what I mean are threads like the AH one that was moved and Obama ...McCain You got served or Obama "A little too awesome?".

OK, I missed these. Did you report the post? I'll admit I've been busy travelling lately.

Yeah, you're right, threads like that have no business in the politics forums and I've locked those two thread.

If it is any consolation, they both got the attention they deserved.

Trojan

And I think that clearly demonstrates the difference in moderation style of GY and myself

GuanYin

Trojan wrote: »

And I think that clearly demonstrates the difference in moderation style of GY and myself

Whoops!!! Crap, what did you say? I didn't see your (other) post My bad. I'll reopen while we discuss this

We had a political satire forum before which didn't really work.

The thing is, in the sake of fairness, 90% of those videos and images are biased in one way (ususally left). If we're going to have a forum that is left leaning, we may as well call it a democrat forum and not a US Election/Politics forum?

Hobbes

is_that_so wrote: »

Quite a number of them have been "here's another blog/video showing how stupid Palin/Biden/McCain really is".

I don't see an issue with actual speehes/interviews of youtube videos of candidates being posted at all. Not everything is in text media these days.

And if it is the own candidates words that make them out to be an idiot (regardless who) I don't see that as an issue either. After all two of these people are going to be dealing with the mess in the USA which has implications for the world.

[edit] I can't vote in the election but I can be dam sure that people are quite informed in who the two candidates are. I wouldn't expect anything less for right leaning supporters. I think I have learnt more about Obama from people posting why they don't like him.

Some examples of what I mean are threads like the AH one that was moved and Obama ...McCain You got served or Obama "A little too awesome?".

Ahh yes. The first one is a piss-take of the dinner benefit that McCain and Obama were at. It is quite evident actually if you saw the banquet speeches.

The second one is just funny and doesn't really disparage either candidate. It was attempt to lighten the mood in the forum.

But if its not allowed. Thats fine I'll stick with the factual stuff. As for the "You have been warned before" on the second locked thread. No I hadn't. Or if I had it wasn't in a way that would of informed me. If I had known before the second one certainly wouldn't of been posted.

GuanYin

Look, of course there is room for humor, especially when you look at the way most US politics is conducted.

But lets look at the nature of the forum. In fairness, neither of Hobbes posts had anything political to say and I frown heavily on a thread started anywhere that is simply a video or image link.

If there is a video that is comedic and has some political issue to debate, post it, but make the point on the issue. If not, I don't think it has any place in the politics forum and run the risk of simply antagonizing the left/right leaning posters.

Trojan

GuanYin wrote: »

Whoops!!! Crap, what did you say? I didn't see your (other) post My bad. I'll reopen while we discuss this

We had a political satire forum before which didn't really work.

The thing is, in the sake of fairness, 90% of those videos and images are biased in one way (ususally left). If we're going to have a forum that is left leaning, we may as well call it a democrat forum and not a US Election/Politics forum?

You don't have to open them on my behalf - you made a reasonable decision and I accept it.

Re: fairness, I agree that it's 90% left leaning - I think that reflects the opinion of the boards.ie demographic. However, I don't think it's *biased*. In fact, on many occasions now I've asked for pro-Republican posters to post their rebuttals/videos/opinions, and they have plenty of opportunity to do so.

Bob the Builder

Trojan wrote: »

My fault on leaving a redirect for that thread in AH (in my defense it was "expires in 1 day" -- but obviously far too long).

btw my political leanings are quite left/liberal, so I've been giving the pro-Republicans some slack as I don't want to let my bias influence moderation.

Dude, stop being so honest

I can understand that the political natured forums are harder to mod, not only because there's a much larger difference of opinion between posters, but also because mods would only mod the forum if they had an interest in it, and in that case, are more likely to be biased or leaning onto one side or another.

What I have found out, in both real life and on the internetz, is that there are always people who know everything about it, or else know almost everything about it, even if they know fúck all. Unfortunately, politics and elections tend to be areas that everyone tend to attempt to know everything about, and then back it up with their own invented statistics.

There's not much really that a mod can do to counteract human stupidity.
And I'm not a regular on any of the politics forums these days.

nesf

nevf wrote: »

I can understand that the political natured forums are harder to mod, not only because there's a much larger difference of opinion between posters, but also because mods would only mod the forum if they had an interest in it, and in that case, are more likely to be biased or leaning onto one side or another.

One of the important things to watch on a political forum is whether the mods of that forum are all biased in a similar direction, because even with the most well meaning people if they are all of a particular mindset politically then things will slowly become unfairly biased in that direction over time.

Otacon

nesf wrote: »

One of the important things to watch on a political forum is whether the mods of that forum are all biased in a similar direction, because even with the most well meaning people if they are all of a particular mindset politically then things will slowly become unfairly biased in that direction over time.

Pocono Joe for US Polotics Mod!

/begin miniature American flag waving and cheering

CuLT

If it's not overmoderation it's undermoderation *sigh*

Overheal

Vote Overheal for Overmod!

oscarBravo

nesf wrote: »

One of the important things to watch on a political forum is whether the mods of that forum are all biased in a similar direction, because even with the most well meaning people if they are all of a particular mindset politically then things will slowly become unfairly biased in that direction over time.

That's something I've always borne in mind when considering potential candidates for moderating Politics - I look for people with whom I've had (polite) disagreements, specifically to avoid even subliminally packing the bench with cronies.

People will make up their own minds how well that's worked out, but at least I've tried.