Politics needs another moderator

tbh

Me too. To bring gandalf onto the mod team, working alongside mods he clearly has no respect for, working to an agenda he clearly rejects, would be mental in my humble.

gandalf

I offered to stand in temporarily as there was and still is a bandwidth problem in politics and I have extensive experience in that forum. I do not want to be given powers of moderation permanently as you put it, I want the standards that the forum was supposed to strive for enforced in a timely fashion and if the mods that are there at the moment are having problems doing it I am willing to put some time in to help.

I left a smiley out on the second comment but I am sure the Scofflaw is a big enough person that they can see a cheeky comment when it is posted.

As for the last comment it is blunt and to the point. If that is the best that person can muster on what I would consider a serious thread then why did they even bother to post. If you consider that to be aggressive then you had better get back into that bubblewrap cocoon of yours

Nodin

gandalf wrote: »

I offered to stand in temporarily as there was and still is a bandwidth problem in politics and I have extensive experience in that forum. I do not want to be given powers of moderation permanently as you put it, I want the standards that the forum was supposed to strive for enforced in a timely fashion and if the mods that are there at the moment are having problems doing it I am willing to put some time in to help.

....and as I've said, you seem far too aggressive, far too eager, and to be coming with a serious axe to grind. Your idea of the "standards that the forum was supposed to strive for" are not nessecarily gospel. One should, after all, strive for moderation in all things, including, and in particular, moderation.

gandalf

tbh wrote: »

Me too. To bring gandalf onto the mod team, working alongside mods he clearly has no respect for, working to an agenda he clearly rejects, would be mental in my humble.

Well if the agenda is the dumbing down of the forum to make it more "accessible" I agree with you to. I would not be happy with that at all.

I would remind you though that I have worked with two of the active mods on that forum in the past and I am sure they will back up my credentials and confirm that I dealt with issues on a consistent basis. However if people perceive me as a threat then I have no problems with them appointing the others who offered their services on a temporary basis on this thread to help with the moderating cover.

I do expect the current moderators and the admins to respect all the hard work the previous moderators of politics have put in to ensure we have a forum that has high standards and hasn't gone down the high noise low message route that other sites have gone. That in essence is my major beef.

gandalf

Nodin wrote: »

....and as I've said, you seem far too aggressive, far too eager, and to be coming with a serious axe to grind. Your idea of the "standards that the forum was supposed to strive for" are not nessecarily gospel. One should, after all, strive for moderation in all things, including, and in particular, moderation.

As one of the original moderators of Politics from the time pre 911 when it split from Humanities I take the standard of discussion in there very seriously. It is one of the achievements of this site I am very proud of having been part of. So please forgive me if I get seriously annoyed when I see those standards slipping.

Also having moderated there, Soccer, Photography & Airsoft I do not want to get involved in Moderation permanently again. I have said this on this thread before and in reply to PM's from people asking why I didn't put my name forward as a potential permanent moderator.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

I appreciate the support, but I'm not ignoring the criticism, either. Anyway, bringing Blue_Lagoon on board as soon as the Admins push the button.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And to be fair, Gandalf's motives are being unfairly questioned here as well. Hopefully his clarifications will stop the personal attacks on him. Most posters seem to agree with his over all point.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

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.

Except that AH are complaining about all the politics & economy threads they get. CT aren't complaining as much, but they're also getting a lot. Both those forums would like it to stop too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except that AH are complaining about all the politics & economy threads they get. CT aren't complaining as much, but they're also getting a lot. Both those forums would like it to stop too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well the odd poster doesn't want them, like religious threads etc. The general question seems to be "how to treat them?" rather than ban them all together.

gandalf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except that AH are complaining about all the politics & economy threads they get. CT aren't complaining as much, but they're also getting a lot. Both those forums would like it to stop too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Look you are a mod in Politics not After Hours or CT (directly). Let their mods sort out their forums and how they deal with lightweight or off the wall Politics threads while you concentrate and maintain the standards in the Politics forum please.

Overheal

gandalf wrote: »

Look you are a mod in Politics not After Hours or CT (directly). Let their mods sort out their forums and how they deal with lightweight or off the wall Politics threads while you concentrate and maintain the standards in the Politics forum please.

I believe he was referring to having the threads moved into AH or CT.

gandalf

Overheal wrote: »

I believe he was referring to having the threads moved into AH or CT.

That is not how I read it. I believe he is referring to this thread.

If its just about transfer of threads then don't transfer them to AH or CT. Lock them, bin them and infract those that create vacuous threads in Politics because they have not bothered to read the charter.

K-9

gandalf wrote: »

That is not how I read it. I believe he is referring to this thread.

If its just about transfer of threads then don't transfer them to AH or CT. Lock them, bin them and infract those that create vacuous threads in Politics because they have not bothered to read the charter.

Then we are back to the "who reads charters?" point.

A first time offender should be given a chance to get used to the forum and reminded it isn't like AH lite. Maybe a 3 strikes and you are out rule?

The difference between politics and AH kind of reminds me of the difference between AH and the Gentlemen's club.

AH type responses are warned and maybe deleted if going to ruin the thread and bring it OT. A higher standard of debate is expected and offenders promptly reminded when they go over the line.

gandalf

K-9 wrote: »

Then we are back to the "who reads charters?" point.

A first time offender should be given a chance to get used to the forum and reminded it isn't like AH lite. Maybe a 3 strikes and you are out rule?

The difference between politics and AH kind of reminds me of the difference between AH and the Gentlemen's club.

AH type responses are warned and maybe deleted if going to ruin the thread and bring it OT. A higher standard of debate is expected and offenders promptly reminded when they go over the line.

With that comment I am specifically talking about threads that are started in a lightweight AH fashion.

I am talking about infracting that person, not banning them. If they post in Politics or any of the other forums on boards it is expected that they read the charter. Why should we make allowances for the lazy who didn't or couldn't bother to read the guidelines?

K-9

gandalf wrote: »

With that comment I am specifically talking about threads that are started in a lightweight AH fashion.

I am talking about infracting that person, not banning them. If they post in Politics or any of the other forums on boards it is expected that they read the charter. Why should we make allowances for the lazy who didn't or couldn't bother to read the guidelines?

I didn't read the charter first time! I was aware of the difference expected though. It isn't just crossover from AH that is the problem either.

The vast majority of posters post away with no problem, without reading the Charter. Usually, when they cross the line, they get a reminder to read it.

Tbh, the main problem is ad hominem's.

The required reading isn't the charter IMO, this is:

boards.ie - View Single Post - Discussion standards and what to aspire to on this forum

It's a very high standard to aspire too though!

Wolfe Tone

Sometimes I have to check to make sure I am not in AH.

K-9

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Sometimes I have to check to make sure I am not in AH.

Indeed, barring the difference in language used by an odd view, very little difference.

I've seen a couple of posters painted with the FF, apologist, you are a pensioner/Public Servant, type nonsense.

IMO, those posts should be deleted.

Scofflaw

gandalf wrote: »

Look you are a mod in Politics not After Hours or CT (directly). Let their mods sort out their forums and how they deal with lightweight or off the wall Politics threads while you concentrate and maintain the standards in the Politics forum please.

On the other hand, I am also CMod in Soc, which means I get their disputes and problems too, and I don't entirely just get to say "that's their problem, let them sort it out". I appreciate that's a problem you've alluded to, which is that the mod team in Politics almost entirely wears other hats as well.

I know we disagree at a fairly fundamental level on where the bar ought to be in the Politics forum, but I'm honestly not just discounting what you're saying as the old-timer muttering that things were better back in their day. I can see that you're concerned that the capacity issue, when sorted, will be used to uphold a standard that you consider to be too low in any case.

What I'm trying to find here is a policy which balances the quality argument against the public interest argument, rather than going all one way or all the other, because I do consider them equally valid arguments, which I don't think you do. I don't think simply introducing a sudden "iron fist" policy is the best option - I'd prefer a policy of gradual tightening. Which, in turn, means more active mods, and the right mods - we're not just aiming to hire in some riot police.

Anyway, we'll see how it pans out as the new mods come on board.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gandalf

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the other hand, I am also CMod in Soc, which means I get their disputes and problems too, and I don't entirely just get to say "that's their problem, let them sort it out". I appreciate that's a problem you've alluded to, which is that the mod team in Politics almost entirely wears other hats as well.

While I understand you are a CMod for Soc which covers CT you are not for After Hours. I've done the CMod role for Soc as well and tbh when the role was originally conceived it was done so to cover for absent mods in forums or during times of unusual high volumes in a forum. Obviously because the two CMods of Soc are also named moderators of Politics that has failed to help in the capacity of moderation of that forum.

So yes it does back up one of the major issues that I have which is all the active mods of Politics do have other hats.

However at the end of the day I do believe as a named Politics Moderator your first duty is to the upholding of standards of that forums. The same as the named moderators of After Hours and CT have their duties to the forums they have been given stewardship of.

I know we disagree at a fairly fundamental level on where the bar ought to be in the Politics forum, but I'm honestly not just discounting what you're saying as the old-timer muttering that things were better back in their day. I can see that you're concerned that the capacity issue, when sorted, will be used to uphold a standard that you consider to be too low in any case.

If you enforce pro-actively and swiftly the charter with effect to nonsensical posts then the quality will go up and threads like this would not exist.

I am curious to expand on this, where do you feel the bar ought to be in the Politics forum.

What I'm trying to find here is a policy which balances the quality argument against the public interest argument, rather than going all one way or all the other, because I do consider them equally valid arguments, which I don't think you do. I don't think simply introducing a sudden "iron fist" policy is the best option - I'd prefer a policy of gradual tightening. Which, in turn, means more active mods, and the right mods - we're not just aiming to hire in some riot police.

Look we have had one poster suggest on this thread that you have been the only active mod in politics for most of the year and you should be canonised for the same. I know that politics is a very high volume forum to mod and if I felt that the rest of the mods were unavailable even for a week I would have found out why and if it was going to be an ongoing problem have taken action in the background. Instead of doing this the mods waited until a thread was started in here to take action.

If this was dealt with pro-actively in the background to draft in additional bandwidth seamlessly then this thread wouldn't exist and people as well as me would not be asking for an Iron fist approach because the quality would not have slipped. Maybe this has happened because all the active mods do wear additional hats.

BTW I think it was quite generous of those of us who did offer to mod on a temporary basis to do so and I find it a bit insulting that you use a dismissive term like "riot police" to describe us.

Anyway, we'll see how it pans out as the new mods come on board.

I know one mod has been added is there a schedule for the other mods that are being brought on board?

nesf

Scofflaw hasn't been the only moderator in months, merely the most visible one. Users can't see who has been deleting posts or giving infractions.

There have been three active mods tonight for instance but no one but another mod of the forum could see that. I'm not active as I'm not in a good position to be making calls right now and abstain from making decisions.

gandalf

I suspected that nesf I was making a point specifically aimed at the poster who suggested the moderation in politics was a solo run.

Again I do appreciate your difficulties and I do hope that things improve for you soon. I know personally how that can effect you and those around you from my experiences with a close family member.

At this stage it is obvious that 5 dedicated mods in Politics is threadbare coverage given the nature of modding the forum and the interest it is generating at the moment. Then when you consider 4 of those mods having CMod and Admin functions then you can see it is eroding further the capacity to moderate in the forum. It should have been spotted earlier and dealt with earlier without having to rely on a thread here to kick people in the ass to take action.

I don't think the authors of silly threads should be infracted the first time they post one.
Just delete it and pm them a 1 paragraph explanation and cite the relevant part of the charter explaining a 2nd thread by them like that means an infraction and 1 week ban.
Explain,those are the rules and you've no time for a long winded pm fest about it.

Simple.

Otherwise eventually,politics may aswell be made a sub forum of after hours and be done with it.

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think the authors of silly threads should be infracted the first time they post one.

Agreed.

Just delete it and pm them a 1 paragraph explanation and cite the relevant part of the charter explaining a 2nd thread by them like that means an infraction and 1 week ban.

I think it better to lock the thread, giving the explanation on-thread. That way, the message is communicated to a greater number of people, and it might dissuade others from doing similar things.

Black Swan

Scofflaw wrote: »

What I'm trying to find here is a policy which balances the quality argument against the public interest argument, rather than going all one way or all the other, because I do consider them equally valid arguments...

I don't think simply introducing a sudden "iron fist" policy is the best option - I'd prefer a policy of gradual tightening.

Excellent points. Just began hours ago, finding Politics and most of its 6 sub-forums quite active and challenging. Agree with the balanced approach, as well as the "policy of gradual tightening" over time to improve the quality and content of threads and posts.

I see the wine in the politics mods forum has induced new consensus among it's mods

(It was chateau neuf Du pap in my day what are they serving now :P)

Scofflaw

gandalf wrote: »

While I understand you are a CMod for Soc which covers CT you are not for After Hours. I've done the CMod role for Soc as well and tbh when the role was originally conceived it was done so to cover for absent mods in forums or during times of unusual high volumes in a forum. Obviously because the two CMods of Soc are also named moderators of Politics that has failed to help in the capacity of moderation of that forum.

Keeping an eye on people's forums while they're away is the thing that happens least, though - most of the CMod work is dispute resolution, which the creation of the DR forum hasn't actually helped with.

gandalf wrote: »

So yes it does back up one of the major issues that I have which is all the active mods of Politics do have other hats.

However at the end of the day I do believe as a named Politics Moderator your first duty is to the upholding of standards of that forums. The same as the named moderators of After Hours and CT have their duties to the forums they have been given stewardship of.

We agree on that, but disagree on the standards to be upheld.

gandalf wrote: »

If you enforce pro-actively and swiftly the charter with effect to nonsensical posts then the quality will go up and threads like this would not exist.

I am curious to expand on this, where do you feel the bar ought to be in the Politics forum.

At the level of intelligent debate - somewhere above where it is now, but not at the level of, say, a University Politics Debating Club.

gandalf wrote: »

Look we have had one poster suggest on this thread that you have been the only active mod in politics for most of the year and you should be canonised for the same. I know that politics is a very high volume forum to mod and if I felt that the rest of the mods were unavailable even for a week I would have found out why and if it was going to be an ongoing problem have taken action in the background. Instead of doing this the mods waited until a thread was started in here to take action.

The discussions between the mods started roughly simultaneously with this thread.

gandalf wrote: »

If this was dealt with pro-actively in the background to draft in additional bandwidth seamlessly then this thread wouldn't exist and people as well as me would not be asking for an Iron fist approach because the quality would not have slipped. Maybe this has happened because all the active mods do wear additional hats.

The thread exists because the process, despite being dealt with in the background, took longer than I'd have liked because of the very same problem the forum was having - people have not merely been not active on the forum, but also unavailable to give their input into the process. That has meant, as I said, a choice between taking the decisions by fiat, or taking longer to get consensus.

gandalf wrote: »

BTW I think it was quite generous of those of us who did offer to mod on a temporary basis to do so and I find it a bit insulting that you use a dismissive term like "riot police" to describe us.

Luckily, I wasn't describing those generous and appreciated offers in that way - the reference is to the process of choosing the right mods, not a sideswipe at any difference we might have in approach. Try not to take offence where none is offered.

gandalf wrote: »

I know one mod has been added is there a schedule for the other mods that are being brought on board?

The Admin approval process has been producing decisions in a different order from the preferences of the mod consensus. I'm hopeful, though, that we should have people in place within a week or so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gandalf

I think you have the wrong end of the stick if you think I want a level of discussion up to University Debate Society level. I (and others I suspect) want a haven for intelligent debate and discussion which you even have admitted Politics has strayed from in recent times.

Oh and Black Briar I thought you were a Rioja man. You can make mine a glass of Marquis du Riscal Grand Reserva

It's gran reserva Gandalf not Grand! how do you expect to be taken seriously in this thread if you don't understand basic Spanish

But if theres a glass bottle going I'm in !