Politics Forum

Southsider1

What's the story with the Politics forum? I have been posting on Boards.ie for a while but rarely in Politics. I posted a couple of times this week, in Politics, and the Moderation seems all over the place there. One Mod has a definite "Green" agenda whereby he closes any thread criticising the Green party giving various reasons why but, yet, allows threads similarly criticising other parties to go on even though they would be "guilty" of the same breaches. There's no consistency and total bias in favour of the one party. This is daft! It makes a mockery of the whole concept of the Politics board and makes the whole set-up look stupid.

Furthermore, there seems to be no consistency in policies between Moderators. For example I got banned yesterday for criticising one of the Government parties yet another Moderator (after I was banned) sent me a pm merely threatening to ban me. WTF? Is it being Moderated by Dermot Ahearn and Noel Dempsey and being directed by the Taoiseach?:rolleyes:

Also on the last note, if one Mod says you're banned and the other says, later, that you may get banned.... Who is correct? Who has more right than the other?

Southsider1

What? Nobody has a comment to make?

Insect Overlord

There's already a huge thread about moderating the Politics forum. It's right under yours in the list

Wolfe Tone

I too have noticed glaring inconsistencies with modding. I suggest PMing the mods and explain your case. I got nowhere, but they are generally responsive and will lay out why they did x or y quite clearly. I suggest talking to either Scofflaw or Sceptre.

Southsider1

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I too have noticed glaring inconsistencies with modding. I suggest PMing the mods and explain your case. I got nowhere, but they are generally responsive and will lay out why they did x or y quite clearly. I suggest talking to either Scofflaw or Sceptre.

Ah, you know, I couldn't be bothered. It's obviously Boards.ie policy or else they'd have addressed it. And, let's face it, he'll be banning left right and centre now that the Greens finally succumbed today so open debate in Politics will be taboo.

Wolfe Tone

Yet you can be bothered complaining here? I am gonna presume you are talking about scofflaw? Tbh I think e is generally pretty fair.

hondasam

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yet you can be bothered complaining here? I am gonna presume you are talking about scofflaw? Tbh I think e is generally pretty fair.

Only if you agree with his political view. he has his favourites on there who argue with everyone and he ignores it.

Wolfe Tone

hondasam wrote: »

Only if you agree with his political view. he has his favourites on there who argue with everyone and he ignores it.

He has been pretty fair in dealing with me tbh, and I would not share his political views.

Argue/debate?

hondasam

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

He has been pretty fair in dealing with me tbh, and I would not share his political views.

Argue/debate?

He should remain neutral and not let his own policies dictate what other posters think. arguements and comments are usually two ways which should result in posters been treated equally. I think he takes things personally and is to judgemental. he obviously has no time for ps workers.

Wolfe Tone

hondasam wrote: »

He should remain neutral and not let his own policies dictate what other posters think. arguements and comments are usually two ways which should result in posters been treated equally. I think he takes things personally and is to judgemental. he obviously has no time for ps workers.

I suggest gathering up some examples of this.

Cabaal

Southsider1 wrote: »

Ah, you know, I couldn't be bothered. It's obviously Boards.ie policy or else they'd have addressed it. And, let's face it, he'll be banning left right and centre now that the Greens finally succumbed today so open debate in Politics will be taboo.

Boards.ie has a clear dispute procedure, if you can't be bothered using it why bother starting a thread on feedback just to bitch and moan?

Scofflaw

Nearly every mod action in the Politics forum generates the complaint that the action is being taken on political grounds. The thread in question was almost entirely content-free, and I can't not moderate threads about the Greens simply because I happen to vote for the party. I do, however, try to ensure that when I am dealing with a thread about the Greens, my personal views aren't involved, and I have no such doubts about that particular thread, or the one attempting to use the tragedy in Cork for political gain. Southsider1's existing thread, on the other hand, is open for him to complain about the Greens in, as are many other threads in which people are doing exactly that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Southsider1

Scofflaw wrote: »

Southsider1's existing thread, on the other hand, is open for him to complain about the Greens in, as are many other threads in which people are doing exactly that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And, do tell, how can I contribute to it.... You banned me..,. Remember? Yet another Mod warned me AFTER you banned me that I may face a ban... So, as I originally said there's no consistency! I hear you banned 22 posters in one hour on Saturday and all because they expressed a contrary view on the Greens!

hondasam

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

He has been pretty fair in dealing with me tbh, and I would not share his political views.

Argue/debate?

I just read in there now and have no intention of posting. his pm was pretty patronising and insulting.

Scofflaw

Southsider1 wrote: »

And, do tell, how can I contribute to it.... You banned me..,. Remember? Yet another Mod warned me AFTER you banned me that I may face a ban... So, as I originally said there's no consistency! I hear you banned 22 posters in one hour on Saturday and all because they expressed a contrary view on the Greens!

You were banned for discussing moderation on thread. For the very good reason that discussion of moderation derails any thread it's in, that's not allowed - instead, there are channels set up specifically to dispute moderation decisions.

I'm amused by the idea that I banned 22 posters on Saturday, "all because they expressed a contrary view on the Greens". The Greens are not now, and never have been, the popular choice in Ireland - if I actually banned people because they said they don't like the Greens, there would be about 5 posters left on the forum.

As I said, everyone who gets banned from Politics likes to think it's political in their case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Southsider1

Scofflaw wrote: »

You were banned for discussing moderation on thread. For the very good reason that discussion of moderation derails any thread it's in, that's not allowed - instead, there are channels set up specifically to dispute moderation decisions.

I'm amused by the idea that I banned 22 posters on Saturday, "all because they expressed a contrary view on the Greens". The Greens are not now, and never have been, the popular choice in Ireland - if I actually banned people because they said they don't like the Greens, there would be about 5 posters left on the forum.

As I said, everyone who gets banned from Politics likes to think it's political in their case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So: A. What you stated above is incorrect in that I cannot post on the thread. You speak with forked tongue!

and B. You don't dispute that you banned 22 posters in one hour. And you feel that's healthy for the forum or for boards.ie as a whole?

Scofflaw

Southsider1 wrote: »

So: A. What you stated above is incorrect in that I cannot post on the thread. You speak with forked tongue!

You'll be back in a week.

Southsider1 wrote: »

and B. You don't dispute that you banned 22 posters in one hour. And you feel that's healthy for the forum or for boards.ie as a whole?

Not only have I not done so, but I'm not even sure it would have been possible on a normal day, never mind Saturday. As a result, I'm amused by the idea rather than anything else.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gandalf

To be fair to Scofflaw I have not seen any Green threads that have been unnecessarily dealt with by them.

It is preferable in best moderation practice that they do not deal with Green issue threads if possible given their bias as this thread can attest to. However given what is a severe bandwidth problem in Politics I can understand why they dealt with those threads.

Wolfe Tone

I think that any mod who is greatly biased against anything should not act as a mod in said threads, that goes equally for everything, such as critical attacks on political parties or indeed threads of a republican vein.

FlutterinBantam

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I think that any mod who is greatly biased against anything should not act as a mod in said threads, that goes equally for everything, such as critical attacks on political parties or indeed threads of a republican vein.

Why don't you say it?


You want a Shinner for a Mod.


At least be honest.

Overheal

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I think that any mod who is greatly biased against anything should not act as a mod in said threads, that goes equally for everything, such as critical attacks on political parties or indeed threads of a republican vein.

So you're saying criticism of a political entity should be against the charter?

Wolfe Tone

Overheal wrote: »

So you're saying criticism of a political entity should be against the charter?

Sorry for not being clear, I don't think an avid supporter of a party should be modding a thread which is a critical attack on that party, it leaves him open to accusations of bias, even if there is none, just makes things messy.
So no, I am not saying that at all.

Wolfe Tone

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Why don't you say it?


You want a Shinner for a Mod.


At least be honest.

Not at all. Someone apolitical(if such a person exists) would be ideal.

Overheal

I get the feeling that if we set up alt accounts for all the politics mods and gave them all the same names (one of them could be 100110 the next could be 0101100, etc.) that would probably solve many of the accusations of bias.

Jams has been a moderator for an hour and without so much as waving a twig he's already been accused of political bias, this has nothing to do with how the mods mod, it has everything to do with problem posters deciding to vilify the moderation team.

Wolfe Tone

Overheal wrote: »

I get the feeling that if we set up alt accounts for all the politics mods and gave them all the same names (one of them could be 100110 the next could be 0101100, etc.) that would probably solve many of the accusations of bias.

Jams has been a moderator for an hour and without so much as waving a twig he's already been accused of political bias, this has nothing to do with how the mods mod, it has everything to do with problem posters deciding to vilify the moderation team.

Lol, what has he been accused of?


I agree to an extent... But say we have an instance of a mod getting heavily involved in a debate on a particular side. I think that mod should remove himself from modding duties for that thread.

Overheal

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I agree to an extent... But say we have an instance of a mod getting heavily involved in a debate on a particular side. I think that mod should remove himself from modding duties for that thread.

Generally speaking this already happens. Users like OscarBravo and Scofflaw regularly contribute to threads without burdening them down with all but the necessary amount of moderation.

Ultimately, if the politics mods were stifling the conversation in an unjust manner, you'd hear a lot more negative feedback, and not just from the one guy and his buddy that accuses a moderator of being in bed with political party X because the user wasn't allowed to call politician Y a corrupt ****** with no basis in reality. I for one (and I don't think I'm alone) wouldn't be interested in the forum if insightful yet opposing views were censored. There are other websites out there for anyone who wants to participate in a unilateral wankfest, this is not it.

Wolfe Tone

Here, I will cut to the chase, my major issue is, and has been, a blatant double standard(in my mind this is because of the specific brand of politics involved) which has arisen within many republican threads since I joined this site. Basically it boils down to myslef and others being accused of supporting republican dissidents(I don't, I have condemned their actions many times) because we have made attempts to examine their motivations and actions subjectively. Now, I do not think it is fair for posters to have carte blanche to say things like that, it simply is not fair. And I basically got an admission that in the same circumstances except instead of dissidents it was Al Queda, it would not be allowed. I have raised this with politics mods(they must be sick of me) to no avail. I have asked for clarification on issues like this(being accused of supporting proscribed terrorist organisations if an attempt is made to look at them subjectively[you know, so we can have this higher level of debate] despite CATEGORICALLY condemning them) Such clarification has been point blank denied. I feel that the only reason such clarification has been refused is because of the political persuasions involved. Just to be clear I am not saying that the big bad mods are out to get me, for the most part I have no issue with them. Scofflaw in particular has been most accommodating.
I am not the only one who has this view. So that is my experience with perceived bias.

Thus I feel that every step should be taken to separate a mods political opinions from the actions they take.

Overheal

Well I wouldn't regard those accusations as civil (Charter pt.4) but I'm unclear as to whether or not they're fair comment. I recall in the Student Protest thread I was allegated as being some Pro FF Pro Gardai insurgent, but it was easy enough to point out that I live in the United States, am american, and can't vote and don't benefit from Irish Politics. I think after that the most offensive comment I heard was "why are you posting here then" but even that was pretty tame in comparison to the standard. That poster however was infracted for it.

I'm in agreement that a poster shouldn't have to listen ad nauseum to accusations about party or political affiliation, it's a cheap way of deflecting the central argument and dragging everything off topic.

Wolfe Tone

Overheal wrote: »

Well I wouldn't regard those accusations as civil (Charter pt.4) but I'm unclear as to whether or not they're fair comment. I recall in the Student Protest thread I was allegated as being some Pro FF Pro Gardai insurgent, but it was easy enough to point out that I live in the United States, am american, and can't vote and don't benefit from Irish Politics. I think after that the most offensive comment I heard was "why are you posting here then" but even that was pretty tame in comparison to the standard. That poster however was infracted for it.

I'm in agreement that a poster shouldn't have to listen ad nauseum to accusations about party or political affiliation, it's a cheap way of deflecting the central argument and dragging everything off topic.

When you factor in that said organisation is ILLEGAL and goes around trying to kill people it is even more unacceptable. However,it apparently is fair game as "we cannot protect posters from the impression they give" No warnings given or anything. The reason why I think it is accepted is because of the fact it is republicans.
Ive been down this road lots of times so it is probably pointless to raise it again.

Scofflaw

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

When you factor in that said organisation is ILLEGAL and goes around trying to kill people it is even more unacceptable. However,it apparently is fair game as "we cannot protect posters from the impression they give" No warnings given or anything. The reason why I think it is accepted is because of the fact it is republicans.
Ive been down this road lots of times so it is probably pointless to raise it again.

Pretty much, for all the reasons that have been given before - it's not a line it's possible to police. It's nothing to do with whether it involves republicans or not, because when it comes down to the whole Northern/National Question, I am almost 100% apolitical.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

I was not refering to you, I was referring for the most part to oscarBravo who has made his views on all things republican quite clear.


I really don't understand Scofflaw, the logic doesn't add up. You basically said that it would not be ok to make similar accusations if a poster had been talking about Al Queda. You pretty much said that. I asked if it would be ok in the exact same circumstances and you would not say that it would be ok. I think that the very fact that you wont clarify the "official" stance on accusing people of supporting terrorist organisations is very telling. You MUST see the contradiction. I think you know exactly where I am coming from.

We have had a debate about wanting higher standards, however it seems that any deviation from "they are scumbags, rabble rabble, terrible act" to "Terrible act, I condemn this utterly. It appears that the dissidents did xyz because" or correcting allegations that the dissidents are trying to massacre people by pointing out that if they wanted another Omagh they could have one, they would not be setting off bombs at 4am, or if they wanted to blow up a school and kill kids they would not have the bomb OUTSIDE the school grounds in a bin, makes it open season to be accused of being a supporter of an illegal organisation.

This is not the same as being accused of supporting FF or FG or anything like that, this is much more serious.