Politics needs another moderator

Scofflaw

But some people don't post in politics due to the fact it can be more like the political science forum then a general politics forum.

I'd like to see a broader range of discussion, comparable perhaps to the range on other politics forums, but not at the expense of falling to their levels of "debate". If one went simply by the thread titles on politics.ie, for example, there seems to be a very wide range of debate on subjects we don't really touch - but a quick dip into the threads themselves tends to make that impression ring hollow.

I appreciate that not everyone is necessarily able to put together well-constructed logical arguments for their positions, and I'd prefer not to exclude people on that basis as a blanket rule - they vote, so it seems a little high-handed to claim their input is worthless. As far as is possible, I'd aim to allow everyone to debate with as much free speech as possible, but I do draw the line at people who appear to think that little gobbets of bile are some form of meaningful political discourse.

We do suffer to some extent from the September effect, of course, and unluckily this September also involved some extensive if temporary absences in the mod ranks.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

K-9 wrote: »

And the interest doesn't seem to be there to understand the various political difficulties involved. There seems to be a lot of "single issue" posters on the forum and it gets to the stage that you nearly know what they are going to post. Still, it's alot better than other political sites and is well moderated in general.

Is there anything wrong with "single issue" posters?

Scofflaw

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Is there anything wrong with "single issue" posters?

That depends whether they're actually monomaniacs - which, I hasten to add, does not apply to you.

I think what K-9 means, though, is people who have a single point of view on a subject, such as NAMA, or the Green Party, and just aren't ever going to change that view, but will take every opportunity to air it in a relentless sort of way.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

Scofflaw wrote: »

That depends whether they're actually monomaniacs - which, I hasten to add, does not apply to you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You mean posters who say constantly derail threads into their one obsession, eg bashing the Green Party in a totally unrelated thread?


Personally I see no problem with a poster who mostly comments on threads of a specific theme, like myself on republican threads. After all it is what they are intrested in.

K-9

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Is there anything wrong with "single issue" posters?

No, certainly not, especially if they are knowledgeable about the area, better than a Jack of all trades like myself!

Certainly not aimed at you or Republicans, that wouldn't be my idea of a single issue as it covers alot of other things as well.

It's more, to give an example, when it gets to the stage that it appears that nearly any thread in anyway linked to the finances of the state gets turned into a NAMA thread.

PS. As Scofflaw said, soap boxing basically. I don't put posters on ignore, so I do have that option but am against using it.

Scofflaw

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

You mean posters who say constantly derail threads into their one obsession, eg bashing the Green Party in a totally unrelated thread?


Personally I see no problem with a poster who mostly comments on threads of a specific theme, like myself on republican threads. After all it is what they are intrested in.

Sorry - had edited my post to add pretty much that point before I saw yours. No, I've obviously no problem with people having specific interests and sticking to them - my personal interests are green/environmental policy, the Green Party, and Europe. I have no interest whatsoever in US Politics, for example, or in Northern Ireland.

belatedly,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

Ah I understand, clarity is key

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

There is a huge issue wth threads going off topic imo. I see it most in the threads I post in, ie northern themed threads. I have made my views on that clear to the mods so I wont go into it again.

Boils down to a need for more mods.

K-9

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It would, plus maybe a little more stick than carrot?

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... I think what K-9 means, though, is people who have a single point of view on a subject, such as NAMA, or the Green Party, and just aren't ever going to change that view, but will take every opportunity to air it in a relentless sort of way....

"Relentless" is too kind a word for the behaviour of some people.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dlofnep

I think that's a fair assessment DF.

I think the varying opinions provides for a healthy debate. There are a core group of people, perhaps no more than 15-20 who routinely engage with discussions on politics. Even if we do not agree with our views - I have to say, the majority of the core posters at least express their views as best they can.

There is a problem however with a handful of posters who pop in from time to time, on very specific threads to attack any posters who discuss a specific topic or two. Outside of these threads, they are never seen in politics - and they rarely ever actually entertain a debate. They pop in, throw a few ad hominems around and then they are not seen again for another 2 or 3 weeks. It's usually these very same posters who take the majority of threads off topic. And when someone makes a statement - many posters feel an onus on them to defend against it - knowing that it's either address the off-topic statement, and hope you can bring it back on topic - or let the comment slide without the poster being challenged for their views.

It's hard to balance the two.

Rubik.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is all very true, but there was a certain poster who used to try and shoe horn libertarism in nearly every thread in the forum (slight exaggeration, but only slight), however inapproiate it may have been to the content or intention of the OP, resulting in many a long-running battle in many a thread.

Thankfully, those days seem to have past.

Scofflaw

dlofnep wrote: »

I think that's a fair assessment DF.

I think the varying opinions provides for a healthy debate. There are a core group of people, perhaps no more than 15-20 who routinely engage with discussions on politics. Even if we do not agree with our views - I have to say, the majority of the core posters at least express their views as best they can.

There is a problem however with a handful of posters who pop in from time to time, on very specific threads to attack any posters who discuss a specific topic or two. Outside of these threads, they are never seen in politics - and they rarely ever actually entertain a debate. They pop in, throw a few ad hominems around and then they are not seen again for another 2 or 3 weeks. It's usually these very same posters who take the majority of threads off topic. And when someone makes a statement - many posters feel an onus on them to defend against it - knowing that it's either address the off-topic statement, and hope you can bring it back on topic - or let the comment slide without the poster being challenged for their views.

It's hard to balance the two.

Mm...'seagull posters' - fly in, squawk a bit, dump their load and leave. Almost no point in infracting them, since they'll do the same again the next time a thread they're interested in pops up. Permabanning them would seem to be the only solution, which seems a bit harsh given they're not strictly trolling.

However, I don't think seagull posters are the only problem here - with all due respect, a fair number of our regular posters are prone to filing into the trenches at fairly short notice. I appreciate, though, that it may well be with a sense of deep reluctance and war-weariness that they do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nevyn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which means the forum is harder for new comers to it to post in and it comes across as a closed shop tbh.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Thaedydal wrote: »

Which means the forum is harder for new comers to it to post in and it comes across as a closed shop tbh.

To be fair after hours allows political discussion for the average joe.

If the politics forum was like politics.ie I just wouldn't post there.

I've only posted on the politics forum in recent years. I used to lurk but felt a bit intimidated. Then I read more about history and politics and now feel fine posting there. I think it is better to encourage that than have lax discussion.

Maybe a half-way house is an option but I don't see much of a need.

On topic. I think something needs to be changed. More mods yes. Also I think northern issues cause a fair percentage of off topic derailing. That's why I've suggested a new forum. I feel if a charter there was strict on whataboutery and assumptions most of the problems would go away

nesf

Yeah guys, sorry about it but there's been a nasty convergence of real life problems between the mods.

On my part, well I've made no secret on here about me having bipolar, and I've been in a depression these past few months meaning less energy for boards. Nothing much I can do about it to be honest.

Wolfe Tone

Sorry to hear that, hope you feel better soon!

The Recliner

nesf wrote: »

Yeah guys, sorry about it but there's been a nasty convergence of real life problems between the mods.

On my part, well I've made no secret on here about me having bipolar, and I've been in a depression these past few months meaning less energy for boards. Nothing much I can do about it to be honest.

Get well soon

not your fault, like you said unfortunate timing, happens in plenty of forums but it is more noticable in Politics with it being so high profile

K-9

nesf wrote: »

Yeah guys, sorry about it but there's been a nasty convergence of real life problems between the mods.

On my part, well I've made no secret on here about me having bipolar, and I've been in a depression these past few months meaning less energy for boards. Nothing much I can do about it to be honest.

Your presence was missed, not just for Moderation purposes. Always look forward to your informed posts.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

Perhaps BOS' proposed northern politics forum would help? A mod(s) could be appointed for that and all northern themed threads put there thus lowering the workload?

Can you have mods specifically for sub forums?

Just a thought.

oscarBravo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Perhaps BOS' proposed northern politics forum would help? A mod(s) could be appointed for that and all northern themed threads put there thus lowering the workload?

Can you have mods specifically for sub forums?

We had that conversation a while back and decided against it.

The problem with having a subforum-specific mod is that if that mod is absent, the subforum is without cover. Better to have a bigger mod team where some mods focus more on individual subforums, but are available to cover the whole forum.

RoundyMooney

Best wishes nesf.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The problem is one where the absences aren't planned for or are of uncertain length. We're looking at adding at least one more mod to the team right now. We're still discussing things though, so can't give you any definites beyond that.

DeVore

All forums go through various situations of over and under moderation. I'm loath to fix a temporary problem with a permanent solution but it is also becoming much more active as a forum... ironically due, imho, to good moderatorship!

DeV.

Lockstep

To echo what others have said here, I'd say an extra Politics mod or too would be an excellent idea.
The forum is buzzing and I'd honestly be at a loss without the Politics section as it attracts so many informed and intelligent posters. As DF has pointed out, it includes a wide array of views and positions which is what makes the thread so interesting, I've learned a hell of a lot from the Politics forum and it's really opened my mind to see points made, with the citations and calmness that is lacking in face to face political discussions.
However, as has also been pointed out, it includes numerous Seagull posters, who fly in, post stuff and leave. And there's been a few threads lately where ad hominems and thinly-veiled insults have been thrown around.

I'd say the main problem with the forum is that Politics is such a broad area that everyone will automatically veer towards the areas they find most interesting (debates on republicanism attract Dlofnep, the deficit brings in DF and the public sector gives us Pbreathnach's perspective)
The moderators will be no exception.This has great benefits (I learned more about the Lisbon Treaty from reading Scofflaw's posts than anything else) but it can mean that they mightn't see what's going on in other areas.

One possible solution might be to appoint a few diverse mods. By default, they'd hone in on their areas of specific interests and could keep a watchful eye on these areas, ensuring that the forum rules are being adhered to.

As an aside RE the unwelcoming nature of the Politics forum, I think the existing rules are excellent. Noone is prevented from posting or having an opinion, no matter how controversial. However, they are expected to be able to back these opinions up, which is the way it should be. The Politics forum is for debate and discussion, not soapboxing: a poster cannot reasonably get annoyed over others debating their posts.


Also, hope you're doing ok Nesf.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.