Politics needs another moderator

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

The only way that could have been done is if I'd taken all the decisions by personal fiat.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Are you referring there to choosing a new mod? That process has certainly elongated for making posters mods for the first time and rightly so.
Two of the politics mods are also an admin.
One of the former mods and a founder mod of the forum is an admin.

Theres 3 admins with a direct knowledge of both the regular posters on politics and of it's modding.

Ergo Theres absolutely no excuse for taking a mountain of time in choosing 2 new mods and vetting them especially now given that you've said the whole team are around at the moment bar one.That presumably means the 2 admin mods of politics are around enough to clear other decks and concentrate on choosing assistants to assist them modding their politics modship along with bonkeys considerable eye for the forum if he can help choose aswell.

Nevyn

We have had a massive influx of new users to the site and it is hard to teach them all how to behave on certain forums so some forms are getting swamped and does now seem to take a very very long time to get additional mods appointed to forums. It is also harder to find posters who are of the calibre needed for some forums

Eliot Rosewater

I don't think it's a completely either/or situation. For sure, back in Ye Olde Days of 2008 the standard of discussion was, on average, better, but if you ignore for a moment all the less than topping threads these days there still are discussions which are of a high standard. Myself, kickoutthejams, donegalfella and others had a very interesting and informative debate about the merits and demerits of the American Constitution in which lots of sources were quoted, including American and Irish court cases.

It is frustrating of course when you start a meaningful thread only to have it swamped by relatively useless posts, or when a meaningful issue is not given the attention it deserves. However, gandalf, I disagree with your sense of hopelessness; I think it could be possible to raise the bar a little without alienating lots of people.

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you referring there to choosing a new mod? That process has certainly elongated for making posters mods for the first time and rightly so.
Two of the politics mods are also an admin.
One of the former mods and a founder mod of the forum is an admin.

Theres 3 admins with a direct knowledge of both the regular posters on politics and of it's modding.

Ergo Theres absolutely no excuse for taking a mountain of time in choosing 2 new mods and vetting them especially now given that you've said the whole team are around at the moment bar one.That presumably means the 2 admin mods of politics are around enough to clear other decks and concentrate on choosing assistants to assist them modding their politics modship along with bonkeys considerable eye for the forum if he can help choose aswell.

Once we had everybody back we were able to reach a consensus on who we were looking for, and some of them are new to modding. Those are the ones that are taking the time, because they are top of the wanted list rather than bottom.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nodin

A few here seem to want have some form of elitist debating club, by the looks of things.

I might add that "ironfist" modding only puts off contributors. The usual progression from hints to warnings to sanctions is a tried, effective method of weeding out the misguided from the miscreants.

Wolfe Tone

As a relative newcomer I would love to see a "showroom" thread as to what the aspired level is. For instance it would be unfair to start banning people who have been contributing at a level consistent with the level of discussion present when they joined.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

A few here seem to want have some form of elitist debating club, by the looks of things.

I might add that "ironfist" modding only puts off contributors. The usual progression from hints to warnings to sanctions is a tried, effective method of weeding out the misguided from the miscreants.

Yerrah would ya stop..with the elitism suggestion!
I'm thinking a modding blend not stalin.But definitely a fair bit more banning than has been the case in recent years.
If a poster deserves a banning and don't reform,they're no loss.
Otherwise come next year when the imf are fully behind the reins and we have a general election,the place will be fuzz with threads meandering all over the place,several threads of the same topic and posters dropping in stuff fit for the cT forum as well as lightly stroke heavily polluting the place with personal abuse because they can.

I wish the new mods well and they don't let that happen.

Lockstep

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't think it's a completely either/or situation. For sure, back in Ye Olde Days of 2008 the standard of discussion was, on average, better, but if you ignore for a moment all the less than topping threads these days there still are discussions which are of a high standard. Myself, kickoutthejams, donegalfella and others had a very interesting and informative debate about the merits and demerits of the American Constitution in which lots of sources were quoted, including American and Irish court cases.

It is frustrating of course when you start a meaningful thread only to have it swamped by relatively useless posts, or when a meaningful issue is not given the attention it deserves. However, gandalf, I disagree with your sense of hopelessness; I think it could be possible to raise the bar a little without alienating lots of people.

+1

THere is still a high standard of debate in the Politics forum, I don't think I've ever seen a forum where so many citations and sources are brought forward. I can see why this might be intimidating but it's a standard to strive to and not worth debasing.

There's certainly not elitism in the forum, but there is an expectation that you can source your points and engage beyond ranting and soapboxing. It's a political discussion forum, not a blog.

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

Yerrah would ya stop..with the elitism suggestion!
I'm thinking a modding blend not stalin.But definitely a fair bit more banning than has been the case in recent years.
If a poster deserves a banning and don't reform,they're no loss.
Otherwise come next year when the imf are fully behind the reins and we have a general election,the place will be fuzz with threads meandering all over the place,several threads of the same topic and posters dropping in stuff fit for the cT forum as well as lightly stroke heavily polluting the place with personal abuse because they can.

I wish the new mods well and they don't let that happen.

I have to point out that no number of new mods will necessarily be able to sort out the problems that arise in Northern Irish threads, because each side aggressively reports things they find disagreeable, but which are not actually actionable.

The level of handbaggery and sniping that takes place on such threads is one of the main areas that could really do with a clampdown - but almost invariably the issues are sufficiently arguable that it would inevitably be a semi-arbitrary exercise.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wibbs

Scofflaw wrote: »

The only way that could have been done is if I'd taken all the decisions by personal fiat.

I wouldnt risk that head. I had one. Ate clutch cables it did.

Wolfe Tone

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have to point out that no number of new mods will necessarily be able to sort out the problems that arise in Northern Irish threads, because each side aggressively reports things they find disagreeable, but which are not actually actionable.

The level of handbaggery and sniping that takes place on such threads is one of the main areas that could really do with a clampdown - but almost invariably the issues are sufficiently arguable that it would inevitably be a semi-arbitrary exercise.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well there is a petition for a northern forum which could help, especially if the charter addressed the issue which I have raised with you multiple times and you have deemed non actionable in the many cases I have reported, yet you will judge it on a case by case basis. What is needed is a clear clarification of what is fair game or not, with regards specifically to the issue I have raised.
Could you provide examples of stuff which is reported but not actually actionable?

Scofflaw

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Well there is a petition for a northern forum which could help, especially if the charter addressed the issue which I have raised with you multiple times and you have deemed non actionable in the many cases I have reported, yet you will judge it on a case by case basis. What is needed is a clear clarification of what is fair game or not, with regards specifically to the issue I have raised.
Could you provide examples of stuff which is reported but not actually actionable?

This one, for example:

The poster in question I believe is a unionist, he may even in fact be a BA soldier and an apprentice boy

Which as you know I gave a warning for, and rescinded it on the further point that the poster in question makes no secret of the fact.

This one:

The BBC is reporting that Gerry Adams, President of Sinn Fein will run for the Dail in the next general election in the Republic. He'll stand for election in County Louth ( Louth TD, Arthur Morgan announced he will not be contesting the next election).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11751856

What a bizarre SF strategy and extremely risky. Have they no one else? Will Adams resign from his Stormont seat if he gets elected? Is SF completely useless?

Just odd.

Why was that even reported?

And this one:

Well, it's well known that many young hooligans that are associated with sinn féin have seperate association with Éirigí - so why not just call it Sinn Féin Eirigí. While Sinn Féin say that they are not Eirigí is just Sinn Féin in disguise.

What exactly am I supposed to do with that one? Is it not up to the posters to refute such claims themselves? I'll step in if the poster continues to repeat such claims once they've been demonstrated to be false, or at least not supported, and if necessary I'll ban someone who persistently continues to make the same unproven claim after that fact, but I'm not there to do people's work for them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

Yerrah would ya stop..with the elitism suggestion!
I'm thinking a modding blend not stalin.But definitely a fair bit more banning than has been the case in recent years.
If a poster deserves a banning and don't reform,they're no loss.
Otherwise come next year when the imf are fully behind the reins and we have a general election,the place will be fuzz with threads meandering all over the place,several threads of the same topic and posters dropping in stuff fit for the cT forum as well as lightly stroke heavily polluting the place with personal abuse because they can.

...thats easily dealt with, with the addition of new moderators.
I've no insight into how they're selected here, but the hastle caused by making the wrong choice means a slow process is no bad thing. Better that than to 'repent at leisure'.

Unfortunately theres an unhealthy focus by some on 'quality', which is rather a subjective thing in many cases, which is what I'm getting at with the "elitism" idea. The odd one liner does no harm betimes either, in lightening the mood.

Wolfe Tone

Scofflaw wrote: »

This one, for example:



Which as you know I gave a warning for, and rescinded it on the further point that the poster in question makes no secret of the fact.

This one:



Why was that even reported?

And this one:



What exactly am I supposed to do with that one? Is it not up to the posters to refute such claims themselves? I'll step in if the poster continues to repeat such claims once they've been demonstrated to be false, or at least not supported, and if necessary I'll ban someone who persistently continues to make the same unproven claim after that fact, but I'm not there to do people's work for them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fair enough, but I will give benefit of the doubt here, maybe they are attempting to nip this type of thing in the bud as they fear the thread will descend into a bitchy mess, which often happens? And as for the last one, thats just an idiotic point. SF and eirigi differ hugely. Alas there is no punishment for idiocy. However, should the onus be on other posters to refute unsubstantiated claims or for the person making them to provide evidence?

Scofflaw

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Fair enough, but I will give benefit of the doubt here, maybe they are attempting to nip this type of thing in the bud as they fear the thread will descend into a bitchy mess, which often happens?

In that case, frankly, they need only report the fact that there is an NI thread, since they almost invariably descend that way. What people are really complaining about is that people are being allowed to post things they disagree with.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

And as for the last one, thats just an idiotic point. SF and eirigi differ hugely. Alas there is no punishment for idiocy. However, should the onus be on other posters to refute unsubstantiated claims or for the person making them to provide evidence?

It's up to the posters to do so. Mod intervention would only follow something like - to take an example from Lisbon - someone repeatedly posting that Spanish unemployment jumped because they ratified the EU Constitution (even though the Constitution didn't come into effect). The poster in question would row back on claiming that it was causal whenever he was challenged, saying he was just pointing out that one followed the other, and then repeat exactly the same claim that it was because they had ratified the Constitution in some other thread.

Here, someone should perhaps find examples of Sinn Fein and eirigi criticising each other and disagreeing on policy or strategy - surely not hard to find - and it would then be up to the original poster to show the cross-over in personnel they claimed. Alternatively, someone who disagrees with the claim could require that the poster support it by naming people who were in both organisations.

Reporting it, though? Waste of everybody's time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't forget that you have previously modded Politics - I'm pointing out that the current mod team takes a different view to yours of what the forum should aspire to be. I'm also aware that there are regular posters who support that view - it would be highly surprising if there weren't.

We haven't been asked to "dumb down", and in the longer term the intention is not to do so - it is to take the current interest and work with it, rather than cracking down on it simply because it is largely uninformed interest by the lights of those with a regular interest in politics. The irremediable will be weeded out, and the remediable encouraged to become more informed - and doing that faster than at present is indeed a matter of bandwidth. The result will hopefully be a larger and informed pool of posters.

I regret that that seems an unworthy goal to you, or too risky - I accept that there is a possibility that we may simply lose our informed posters without improving the uninformed, but I think that's a risk worth taking.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Unlike the other site that Gandalf mentioned, the uninformed posters on Boards have another option, AH. The Mods can point them there.

Wolfe Tone

So if someone continues to maintain something which as been proved wrong, it is then actionable? Just to be clear.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

Unlike the other site that Gandalf mentioned, the uninformed posters on Boards have another option, AH. The Mods can point them there.

Also CT, of course - but it's hardly a case of "point them there" I fear. It's more a case of wrestling them out the door to a furious tirade of PMs accompanied by Feedback and DR threads.

People always think that what they're doing is talking about politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gandalf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Also CT, of course - but it's hardly a case of "point them there" I fear. It's more a case of wrestling them out the door to a furious tirade of PMs accompanied by Feedback and DR threads.

People always think that what they're doing is talking about politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If that is what needs to be done then do it. If you haven't got the bandwidth ask for it.

If you leave rubbish fester in the forum then you are going to get more rubbish posted. If it is dealt with quickly and efficiently then new users are going to see this and realise that there is a higher standard expected on the forum and they will amend their posting style to reflect this.

You can of course ask for a transfer to After Hours if that is the kind of environment you would prefer to moderate in of course.

FlutterinBantam

I enjoyed the Politics Forum whilst I was there .

It was well moderated and well run.

What turns off people, in my opinion, is the seemingly constant barrage of anti US anti Israeli threads, and of course the coterie who use the Forum and it's facilities to press their views on a particular aspect of NI politics.

This, coupled by what I consider to be provocative signatures, serves,in my opinion, to alienate the normal poster who might otherwise get involved.

To the casual observer there would seem to be a concerted group who,and I have no problem with their views, use the forum to flood the place with, let's say anti western threads and then arrive en masse when 'issues' arise.

They dismiss all contrary information as untrustworthy and as a group seek to accuse their opponent as a troll and a flamer.

I would ban all signatures from Politics to be honest, and curb the use of the Forum for the promulgation and dissipation of vested interest and single interest groups in issues which are not in the main stream of Politics.

Wolfe Tone

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I enjoyed the Politics Forum whilst I was there .

It was well moderated and well run.

What turns off people, in my opinion, is the seemingly constant barrage of anti US anti Israeli threads, and of course the coterie who use the Forum and it's facilities to press their views on a particular aspect of NI politics.

Ah, so you dont like certain posters opinions..... Better shut them up eh!

This, coupled by what I consider to be provocative signatures, serves,in my opinion, to alienate the normal poster who might otherwise get involved.

I can only assume that seen as you have such an expressed disdain for all things republican you refer to ones like mine?

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

Also CT, of course - but it's hardly a case of "point them there" I fear. It's more a case of wrestling them out the door to a furious tirade of PMs accompanied by Feedback and DR threads.

People always think that what they're doing is talking about politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed, but everybody is, or should be, aware that a higher standard is requires in Politics. I see your point, but isn't that exactly why they shouldn't be posting in Politics?

I'm sure the vast majority of posters who get bans or infractions take it on the chin and try and learn from it.

I post in both AH and Politics and tbh, there is very little difference in the content atm, barring a few notable exceptions. 2 years ago you had to be aware of what forum you where on. Maybe it is more a site wide issue. Posters who are clearly on a wind up or a soapbox seem to be given far too much leeway.

Eliot Rosewater

gandalf wrote: »

You can of course ask for a transfer to After Hours if that is the kind of environment you would prefer to moderate in of course.

I understand you're frustrated, and I certainly think you've grounds to be frustrated, but I don't think that comment is called for. Scofflaw is one of the best contributors on the forum, his near-solo modding over the last few months is to be commended, and he's hardly interested in dumbing down Politics. I think he's dealing well with the inconvenient reality of the situation.

K-9

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I enjoyed the Politics Forum whilst I was there .

It was well moderated and well run.

What turns off people, in my opinion, is the seemingly constant barrage of anti US anti Israeli threads, and of course the coterie who use the Forum and it's facilities to press their views on a particular aspect of NI politics.

This, coupled by what I consider to be provocative signatures, serves,in my opinion, to alienate the normal poster who might otherwise get involved.

To the casual observer there would seem to be a concerted group who,and I have no problem with their views, use the forum to flood the place with, let's say anti western threads and then arrive en masse when 'issues' arise.

They dismiss all contrary information as untrustworthy and as a group seek to accuse their opponent as a troll and a flamer.

I would ban all signatures from Politics to be honest, and curb the use of the Forum for the promulgation and dissipation of vested interest and single interest groups in issues which are not in the main stream of Politics.

Again, if their views are that bad or wrong, there are plenty of posters there to challenge their opinions. I don't think that is the problem, after all, it wouldn't be much of a politics forum if it didn't have NI and Middle East threads. If they annoy somebody that much, ignore them and go onto one that interests you.

It'll probably be a Public Service/Welfare/Pensioners bashing one with the same 10/15 posters pushing their particular agenda!

gandalf

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I understand you're frustrated, and I certainly think you've grounds to be frustrated, but I don't think that comment is called for. Scofflaw is one of the best contributors on the forum, his near-solo modding over the last few months is to be commended, and he's hardly interested in dumbing down Politics. I think he's dealing well with the inconvenient reality of the situation.

You have no arguement from me that he is one of the best contributors to Politics and his posts should be a benchmark of the standard that people should use to aim for when posting in politics.

However I am not sure he wants to moderate to ensure people try to attain to these types of standards based on some of his comments here.

Overheal

gandalf wrote: »

There seems to be a unwillingness or fear to clamp down on things in there and I cannot figure out if its because you don't have the bandwidth, the desire or if it is now the policy from higher ups to "dumb" down boards more to make it more "marketable".

Coming from someone who had volunteered on boards for as long as you have, that's an absurd comment to make - and whats more, you know it.

Scofflaw wrote:

What exactly am I supposed to do with that one [Sinn Fein Eirgi comment]? Is it not up to the posters to refute such claims themselves? I'll step in if the poster continues to repeat such claims once they've been demonstrated to be false, or at least not supported, and if necessary I'll ban someone who persistently continues to make the same unproven claim after that fact, but I'm not there to do people's work for them.

Well we see the same thing in After Hours and we saw the same thing in the Student Protest thread, where one poster will spout tripe like "The Horses were Charging and Trampling the crowd" and within an hour its regarded as a conversational fact. Then the next 3 days are spent refuting the hyperbole. Posts like those have knock-on effects that end up derailing threads with the slightest of pushes.

Nodin

gandalf wrote: »

If that is what needs to be done then do it. If you haven't got the bandwidth ask for it.

If you leave rubbish fester in the forum then you are going to get more rubbish posted. If it is dealt with quickly and efficiently then new users are going to see this and realise that there is a higher standard expected on the forum and they will amend their posting style to reflect this.

You can of course ask for a transfer to After Hours if that is the kind of environment you would prefer to moderate in of course.

gandalf wrote: »

You have no arguement from me that he is one of the best contributors to Politics and his posts should be a benchmark of the standard that people should use to aim for when posting in politics.

However I am not sure he wants to moderate to ensure people try to attain to these types of standards based on some of his comments here. .

...and its that kind of angry attitude above - with moderation powers - I worry about, to be perfectly honest.

gandalf

Nodin wrote: »

...and its that kind of angry attitude above - with moderation powers - I worry about, to be perfectly honest.

I think you are confused. It is not anger, I am saying it as I see it. It is also the way Politics was moderated in the past. If people posted nonsense they were dealt with quickly.

gandalf

Overheal wrote: »

Coming from someone who had volunteered on boards for as long as you have, that's an absurd comment to make - and whats more, you know it.

I have had this argument directly and indirectly with DeVore. I do believe since the Daft investment that boards is moving more in this direction. While I concede it is something that will happen on certain forums I was merely "throwing it out there" as an theory to the current slippage of standards on Politics.

My hope is that the admins want to keep some forums with higher posting standards on boards like Politics however based on responses here there seems to be an unwillingness to exercise those standards.

Nodin

gandalf wrote: »

I think you are confused. It is not anger, .......

This doesn't strike me as calm and tranquil, by any manner of means.

You can of course ask for a transfer to After Hours if that is the kind of environment you would prefer to moderate in of course.

nor did this.

I saw that but then Scofflaw posted their update. So my post is in reaction to that. Do you have anything further to add to the debate bar two words?

And indeed there seems to be a very aggressive and pushy tone in general to the way you're campaigning to be given powers of moderation which - in combination with this talk of 'quality of post' - I find disquieting.