Politics needs another moderator

Eliot Rosewater

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 said he was "near solo mod" for the past few months. In terms of overall visibility I think he was the most prominent; "near solo" might have been an exaggeration. I know that other mods have been around in the background, because I generally look at why infractions are given out.

I didn't say he should be "canonised". I said he should be commended. I don't know if you said that to get a rise out of me.

We all want roughly the same thing here. We all want the standard of discussion to improve (the difference being the level of improvement we think would be best). I don't see why we are fighting so bitterly amongst each other.

IITYWYBMAD

gandalf wrote: »

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 also Marquis de Riscal not du..........as an aside!

FlutterinBantam

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

It's also Marquis de Riscal not du..........as an aside!

:eek: Sheesh will you!!

These guys are pretending to be educated.............

Scofflaw

gandalf wrote: »

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.

To be honest, I was exaggerating slightly for effect there! And I'm not denying that a lot of what's been posted on Politics has fallen below standards of intelligent debate recently - if I felt otherwise, I wouldn't kicked off the process of looking for new mods, or kicked it forward on a couple of occasions by fiat. The problem is, as I've said a couple of times, that getting everyone's input has been slow.

It's been great getting Blue_Lagoon on board, and I look forward to seeing some more puffs of white smoke from the Admin chimneys.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's been great getting Blue_Lagoon on board, and I look forward to seeing some more puffs

cordially,
Scofflaw

:eek::eek:

dlofnep

Welcome Blue_Lagoon!

gurramok

There are 700 odd posters of which maybe 300 are members in the Politics forum right now. I'll say a novena for the mods to get through all those posts

nesf

gurramok wrote: »

There are 700 odd posters of which maybe 300 are members in the Politics forum right now. I'll say a novena for the mods to get through all those posts

Wait until Budget day.

Scofflaw

gurramok wrote: »

There are 700 odd posters of which maybe 300 are members in the Politics forum right now. I'll say a novena for the mods to get through all those posts

Apparently they've been attracted by the lax current standards - according to a reported post.

amused,
Scofflaw

gandalf

Yes and to come out into the open that was my reported post and yes the standards are lax considering the content of some of the threads that are allowed to grow in there over the last few days. Those threads should be shut down and it made very clear to people that there are certain standards expected when starting a thread in Politics. The alternative is to shut the forum down and re-direct everyone to After Hours and get it over with so it is more "accessible" :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

gandalf wrote: »

Yes and to come out into the open that was my reported post and yes the standards are lax considering the content of some of the threads that are allowed to grow in there over the last few days. Those threads should be shut down and it made very clear to people that there are certain standards expected when starting a thread in Politics. The alternative is to shut the forum down and re-direct everyone to After Hours and get it over with so it is more "accessible" :rolleyes:

Threads are being dealt with within a timeframe most people would find acceptable, given the fact that there's 750 people on the forum tonight. Still, we can't expect to please everyone.

regards,
Scofflaw

gandalf

Well you were warned that there would be a sudden upturn in interest if anything of note happened and experienced mods offered their services on a temporary basis and you turned them down.

Wolfe Tone

gandalf, as this thread goes along you are coming across as increasingly bitter.

gandalf

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

gandalf, as this thread goes along you are coming across as increasingly bitter.

No I am coming across as increasing frustrated because it is obvious to me that there is a wish to lower the standards sorry I mean make it more "accessible" and less "elitist" in there by the mods in charge. Again as I have said as a former mod of politics I was proud of the fact that there was some form of standard expected with posts in the forum and I know other former mods felt the same as well so that is driving my frustration greatly.

Overheal

Taking that to its logical inverse, you'd rather the forum banned ignorance? That someone be infracted for misunderstanding the idea of fascism, or hadn't read the full text of the lisbon treaty? I'm not saying excuse rant and rabble but what line do you like to draw exactly?

Scofflaw

gandalf wrote: »

No I am coming across as increasing frustrated because it is obvious to me that there is a wish to lower the standards sorry I mean make it more "accessible" and less "elitist" in there by the mods in charge. Again as I have said as a former mod of politics I was proud of the fact that there was some form of standard expected with posts in the forum and I know other former mods felt the same as well so that is driving my frustration greatly.

And as we discussed earlier, there is indeed such an aim, because of the current very much wider Irish interest in politics. Your preferred description of it reflects your personal views on whether that's a good thing or not, which is something we disagree on, and something we know we disagree on.

regards,
Scofflaw

nesf

gandalf wrote: »

No I am coming across as increasing frustrated because it is obvious to me that there is a wish to lower the standards sorry I mean make it more "accessible" and less "elitist" in there by the mods in charge. Again as I have said as a former mod of politics I was proud of the fact that there was some form of standard expected with posts in the forum and I know other former mods felt the same as well so that is driving my frustration greatly.

And today is different! 5 years ago the average person interested enough to get online and talk about politics in a forum was very different to the average person today. This is a fundamental result of the change in economic and social circumstances over that time. 5 or 6 years ago it was hacks like you or I who got stuck in and involved. Few other people gave a damn. Today every single muppet has an opinion.

The thing is, it's a question of whether the Politics forum on boards.ie should serve as a place for high brow political discussion or as a place to discuss politics on boards.ie. You fall into the former camp, I in the latter. I view it as us having a duty to provide a good place to discuss politics in Ireland online which isn't as unmoderated as say Politics.ie but still isn't unwelcoming to a complete newbie to political discussion who hasn't any clue of how to make and argument and debate things.

I appreciate you disagree fundamentally with me, and that's fine you're entitled to your opinion, but if you're not going to do anything but annoy us by constantly complaining in threads that the forum isn't how you'd like to see it.

If you want to see change enacted bring your concerns to DeV or one of the other founders. At the end of the day this is their site and they should be the final arbiters on how the forum should be run.

Scofflaw

Also, it takes time for people to understand that the rules in Politics are not the same as other forums. Those who seem irremediable are currently being permabanned at a rate of maybe a dozen a day (and nearly half of them want to argue the toss), and the amount of posts infracted, warned, or deleted is proportionately high (and that also generates a lot of argument). In theory, we could hand out a permaban instead of an infraction for every single post which doesn't meet a high standard - in practice, that makes a mockery of the idea of it being any sort of public forum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gandalf

nesf wrote: »

And today is different! 5 years ago the average person interested enough to get online and talk about politics in a forum was very different to the average person today. This is a fundamental result of the change in economic and social circumstances over that time. 5 or 6 years ago it was hacks like you or I who got stuck in and involved. Few other people gave a damn. Today every single muppet has an opinion.

Hack !!! WTF I am an ordinary person who has an interest in Politics and who appreciates somewhere where I could have had a discussion with others where half the content didn't consist of an online lynch mob.

With regard to the upturn in people coming onto the forum that was predicted and you guys turned down the offer from experienced mods to bolster your numbers. So it is a bit rich blaming the sudden upturn of interest.

The thing is, it's a question of whether the Politics forum on boards.ie should serve as a place for high brow political discussion or as a place to discuss politics on boards.ie. You fall into the former camp, I in the latter. I view it as us having a duty to provide a good place to discuss politics in Ireland online which isn't as unmoderated as say Politics.ie but still isn't unwelcoming to a complete newbie to political discussion who hasn't any clue of how to make and argument and debate things.

Again you guys seem to think I and others want a really high bar set. That is not the case. What is needed is nonsense threads dealt with quickly rather than being left until there are four pages of replies giving the impression to new posters that the post that started those threads are deemed of appropriate quality.

I appreciate you disagree fundamentally with me, and that's fine you're entitled to your opinion, but if you're not going to do anything but annoy us by constantly complaining in threads that the forum isn't how you'd like to see it.

Having given hundreds probably thousands of man hours moderating the Politics forum maintaining standards I have every right to complain when I see those standards waning.

So basically your answer is to shut up and stop complaining, maybe I should commit suicide as well That kind of attitude landed us into the mess our country is in and if I see something wrong I will continue to point it out to you all.

If the fact I am posting on a thread in feedback is annoying you how about you petition the admins to "silence" me then.

If you want to see change enacted bring your concerns to DeV or one of the other founders. At the end of the day this is their site and they should be the final arbiters on how the forum should be run.

That thread was started last night.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's hardly the case that those concerns are being ignored - that assumes, aside from anything else, that there is no justification at all for any other position with respect to the forum except that of some long-term posters.

As I said before, we are trying to bring discussion up to better standards, without cutting out the wider interest. The problem here seems to be that either there is no recognition that wider interest means that's something that takes time, or else no acceptance that the wider interest is something that should be catered for at all. As I said, short of simply banning anyone who posts something sub-par, the process cannot be speeded up, and more mods makes relatively little difference because of that fact.

If we need more moderators according to the level of interest and what we're trying to do, we will ask. Given todays' announcement, that has come forward.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

....as opposed to another small fiefdom of people that want to run it as they see fit....Personally, I support the fiefdom that lets the majority express themselves as freely as possible.

I might add that I've never been on a board that was a democracy of any sort, regardless of whether it was privately hosted as 'free' or a business, and I've been on quite a few.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Rather more will come in handy, since it's in train. I have to point out that as far as I know, we haven't had any word from the Admins on the use of temporary mods, and we've only had one of our mod choices approved in the last couple of days. And we do bump the thread fairly regularly.

donegalfella wrote: »

It also really helps for mods to actively contribute to threads, so as to model a decent level of contribution for newcomers. I know that you do this—but part of the trouble in recent months has been the lack of on-thread participation from other Politics mods. There used to be a lot more of this, and it was very important to setting a good tone.

Lastly, longtime posters naturally have a larger stake in the forum than someone who just breezed over from AH yesterday.

True, and their concerns are being given far more weight than numbers alone would justify for that very reason. I don't think any of us want to lose regular posters, but at the same time, it's not going to be possible to accommodate the urge for an entirely educated discussion on any subject of popular interest for the next little while. There will necessarily be a certain number of posters asking Politics 101 questions - along with the trolls, muppets, party shills, and the rest of the menagerie.

donegalfella wrote: »

In that context, nesf's dismissive treatment of gandalf above is neither warranted nor appropriate. If regular posters can't air their concerns in Feedback, where should they go?

I'm reluctant to comment on that, because I don't think my views would necessarily be helpful.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke

Definitely in the Gandalf/Donegalfella camp now. There is literally no difference between the politics board today and AH.

Obviously there's been big events but I don't think the rant-post newcomers will be going away anytime soon

I think an AH recession subforum is neccesary, the politics forum to have stricter moderation. People willing to improve the content of their posts will naturally drift to politics and people who want to post rant like posts with no specifics will post in the AH subforum.

Wolfe Tone

gandalf wrote: »

No I am coming across as increasing frustrated because it is obvious to me that there is a wish to lower the standards sorry I mean make it more "accessible" and less "elitist" in there by the mods in charge. Again as I have said as a former mod of politics I was proud of the fact that there was some form of standard expected with posts in the forum and I know other former mods felt the same as well so that is driving my frustration greatly.

Fair enough. I agree with you tbh, but one could easily gather from your posts that you are pissed that you were not appointed a mod, a mistake assumption I am sure.

dr.bollocko

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think an AH recession subforum is neccesary, the politics forum to have stricter moderation. People willing to improve the content of their posts will naturally drift to politics and people who want to post rant like posts with no specifics will post in the AH subforum.

You're suggesting we propose a NAMA style subforum or bad forum to move substandard AH style threads to that relate directly to the recession?
I would be wholly opposed to such a move.
Idiots need to be given an education and moved on. Not a platform for their raving.

southsiderosie

Scofflaw wrote: »

True, and their concerns are being given far more weight than numbers alone would justify for that very reason. I don't think any of us want to lose regular posters, but at the same time, it's not going to be possible to accommodate the urge for an entirely educated discussion on any subject of popular interest for the next little while. There will necessarily be a certain number of posters asking Politics 101 questions - along with the trolls, muppets, party shills, and the rest of the menagerie.

I don't think the Politics 101 questions are the problem. The politics forum can be a place both to learn and debate; certainly I have learned quite a bit about Irish politics since checking in here regularly. And I don't think the forum should be a place where people are afraid to ask questions.

That said, the biggest problem I see right now is that threads are started and there is basically no room for discussion. Someone makes a strong statement, there are no links (this in particular is driving me crazy), there is no framed question or larger issue, and so all you can say is "YEAH!!!" or "huh?". To me, this is what is killing the forum - certainly, let's have a discussion about clientelism in Irish politics, but what kind of debate can you have around "Jackie Healey Rae is a tosser"?

I understand that these are extraordinary times, that people want a place to vent, and that it may be reassuring or comforting in a way to vent with other presumably like-minded people. And I appreciate that it takes time for newbies to pick up on the norms of the forum. But norms have to be enforced - and quickly - from the time of thread creation, and this is impossible given current traffic and active modding. Based on the Gogarty debate, and other discussions I have seen on the site, it seems like Dev & Company have worked very hard to make this a place for lively and informative political debate, but the failure to address the modding situation in a timely way is threatening the status of the forum at a time where it could and should be stepping things up a notch or two.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.