Fussy moderation in 'Sustainability & Environmental issues'

ei.sdraob

Aye I havent read the thread in full, but wanted to say i got banned for pointing out the "groupthink" that goes on in the forum and various hypocrisies of the Green movement in general

one of my threads for example pointed out how outsourcing pollution to other countries and people is not exactly green considering that in the end we share the same planet, needless to say that caused a ruckus since i dare to question the green credentials and externalities of current "green" technologies

anyways need to go now plane and clock up more air miles doing my bit to warm up our miserable corner of the world one co2 ton at a time :P

nesf

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Of the two threads you are referring to here, neither were reviewed.
These were not the two threads I went to the dispute board with and when I did go to the dispute board the administrator wrote:

"I'm not going to rule that the it was wrong to ban you. I don't think its a clear-cut case...".

So please stop being fussy with your information.

The ban was upheld and both of those threads were reviewed as part of the DRP. We review more than just what the poster presents to us for review.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

However, this is not the point, this is not about whether my warnings, bans, infractions were reasonable, this is about whether the mods moderation is reasonable, for example, is it reasonable that a mod refer to an ICE Telford Gold Award winning paper as "crap"?

I think the moderation could be marginally improved but I don't disagree with the overall thrust of it in those threads.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

The lack of activity on the forum in question and the response of users to the forum speak for themselves.
You either do or don't want to help improve the quality of moderation on the S&EI forum. Trying to put down posters on this board is counterproductive and a symptom of the whole problem.

Whether there's a problem that needs fixing still needs to be presented to me. So far I just have one side of the story and no clear cut examples of there being a problem that needs fixing.

Chloe Pink

nesf wrote: »

This has already been dealt with on DRP and it was not found in your favour. Please don't waste my time by having me reread the same threads again only to give you the same answer I gave you last time.

You posted this while I was posting msg 61. Please see msg 61.

nesf

Chloe Pink wrote: »

You posted this while I was posting msg 61. Please see msg 61.

I explained in 63 that those threads were brought to my attention for review with respect to the DRP thread.

Chloe Pink

nesf wrote: »

I think the moderation could be marginally improved

Good, I hope you've started / are doing something about it then.

nesf wrote: »

Whether there's a problem that needs fixing still needs to be presented to me.

How about 'the lack of posts'.

nesf

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Good, I hope you've started / re doing something about it then.

I haven't because I'm still waiting for others to present me with examples. There might be bigger problems in the forum that need dealing with.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

How about the lack posts.

That doesn't mean there's a problem with the moderation necessarily.

Chloe Pink

nesf wrote: »

I haven't because I'm still waiting for others to present me with examples. There might be bigger problems in the forum that need dealing with.

And if there aren't, will you deal with the 'marginal' issues with the moderation to bring it up to scratch?

nesf wrote: »

That doesn't mean there's a problem with the moderation necessarily.

This is true, any suggestions on what else might be responsible for the 'lack of posts'? Posters may be willing to offer feedback on whether they support other theories for the 'lack of posts'?

nesf

Chloe Pink wrote: »

And if there aren't, will you deal with the 'marginal' issues with the moderation to bring it up to scratch?

Eh, of course.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

This is true, any suggestions on what these might be? Posters may be able to give you feedback on whether they support other theories for the 'lack of posts'?
However looking at other problems seems off topic from the OP of this thread which refers to "Fussy moderation"

It's concerned with quite a niche topic. I wouldn't personally expect it to be that busy a forum really.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Chloe Pink

nesf wrote: »

Eh, of course.

Good, thank you, I'm just seeking some clarity on the matter; when is this likely to happen please?

nesf wrote: »

It's concerned with quite a niche topic. I wouldn't personally expect it to be that busy a forum really.

So one minute the 'lack of posts' "doesn't mean there's a problem with the moderation necessarily." and the next minute the 'lack of posts' isn't a problem at all because you "wouldn't personally expect it to be that busy a forum really".
Well apparently the forum was once very busy and bouyant and now it isn't. What changed?

As for "sustainability and the environment" being a "niche topic", the words "sustainability" and "environment" are being used by nearly every corporation out there in their marketing which ripples through to everyone; these are now common place words with ramifications for everyone.
Besides which, there are plenty of views on many of the threads, it just seems that very few folks care/dare to post.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We rely on the users to bring matters to our attention if there's a problem, it has been ever thus.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I ask for examples because if there is bullying going on it should be obvious from a few posts. You're making a lot of claims about the forum but not backing them up. That's fine but I'm not going to be swayed by a few people saying they were bullied if they can't show where. So far all I can ascertain for sure is that the rule for evidence is heavily policed and that some people don't like that aspect of the forum and it puts them off posting there.

nesf

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Good, thank you, I'm just seeking some clarity on the matter; when is this likely to happen please?

I don't know I haven't decided anything yet.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

So one minute the 'lack of posts' "doesn't mean there's a problem with the moderation necessarily." and the next minute the 'lack of posts' isn't a problem because you "wouldn't personally expect it to be that busy a forum really".
Well apparently the forum was once very busy and bouyant and now it isn't. What changed?
As for "sustainability and the environment" being a "niche topic", the words "sustainability" and "environment" are being used by nearly every corporation out there in their marketing which ripples through to everyone; these are now common place words with ramifications for everyone.

It's not unusual for forums to be very busy when they're first created and to die down a lot after that. This could be due to moderating or it could be just due to people having had their fill of debating the issues.

Chloe Pink

nesf wrote: »

I don't know I haven't decided anything yet.

You have decided that you will "deal with the 'marginal' issues with the moderation to bring it up to scratch" though because when asked about this you responded "Eh, of course."

nesf wrote: »

It's not unusual for forums to be very busy when they're first created and to die down a lot after that. This could be due to moderating or it could be just due to people having had their fill of debating the issues.

Oh!
So first there's a problem i.e. the 'lack of posts' but not necessarily one caused by the moderation,

then there's not really a problem with the 'lack of posts' because "sustainability and the environment" are "niche topics"

and now there's not really a problem with 'lack of posts' because people may have had their fill of debating issues.
(Is there a strong pattern on many other forums showing the latter behaviour?)

Or back to the OP of this thread, the 'lack of posts' could be due to moderating!

How are you going to decide whether or not it's the moderating?

Macha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sorry just been alerted to this thread now but to clarify, ei.sdraob was not permabanned for questioning AGW. If you're going to criticize, please get your facts right.

More generally, I welcome this discussion and feedback on the forum and my modding as it's clear that things could be better. However, I do not accept the suggestion that I allow my interest in environmental issues to overly influence my modding. And I don't appreciate the repeated use of the word "zealotry" in a clear attempt to undermine my position.

To address a key issue, the reason why debates on AGW are tightly moderated is that it is very easy for every climate-change related discussion to fall into an argument on AGW. This is pointless. We try to have one thread going on the AGW debate at all times and keep it out of other threads. A perfect example is a recent thread on carbon taxes, which very quickly turned into a discussion of whether greenhouse gases are a form of pollution.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

Sorry just been alerted to this thread now but to clarify, ei.sdraob was not permabanned for questioning AGW. ei.sdraob makes regular self-pitying reference to his/her permaban in other forums and regularly misrepresents the reason for the ban. If you're going to criticize, please get your facts right.

I object strongly to your personal comment on a poster.
By all means ensure that facts are facts and defend your own position but please don't be hypocritical by labelling other people when complaining about being labelled yourself.

Permabear is not the only moderator to raise concern abouth the moderating on the S&EI forum.

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I object strongly to your personal comment on a poster.
By all means ensure that facts are facts and defend your own position but please don't be hypocritical by labelling other people when complaining about being labelled yourself.

Permabear is not the only moderator to raise concern abouth the moderating on the S&EI forum.

I edited my post quite a while before you reposted the old version here but you're right, it was inappropriate. I'm not complaining about being labelled, I'm complaining about being incorrectly labelled. I am an environmentalist but I'm not a zealot.

easychair

Macha wrote: »

I do not accept the suggestion that I allow my interest in environmental issues to overly influence my modding. And I don't appreciate the repeated use of the word "zealotry" in a clear attempt to undermine my position.

Hi Macha. I haven't seen anyone so far in this thread mention your name. The name which has been mentioned by a surprising number of posters is your colleague, djbarry. I shouldn't think he appreciates it either, but then apparently large number of posters don't appreciate the way he has dealt with them, in a clear attempt to undermine their positions.

It's not about our personal appreciation(s), but about a problem which a surprisingly large number of people seem to have identified.

Nesf's position appears to be to want to avoid the issue completely (maybe he could clarify if thats more or less what he's said, and done, in this thread), so it seems that the problem is going to be ignored by those who have the ability to resolve it, and left unaddressed.

I've done my best, as have many others, to contribute here to bring the matter to the attention of those who can do something about it, but from their responses so far it seems they prefer to ignore it and pretend there is not an issue.

That's sad for all those who don't contribute to Sustainability & Environmental issues, and it seems it's more important to ignore what is a very obvious problem, pointed out my many posters, rather than take action and fix the problem. Which gives a bad smell about the whole site, and appears to say boards.ie prefers to back up and support individual bad moderators, rather than make boards.ie a better place for the many.

To give an example of how ignoring this problem is affecting the Sustainability & Environmental forums, the last post anyone made there was nearly 24 hours ago, and yesterday there were a total of 5 posts across the whole forum, one of those posts in classic djbarry style ignoring the issues being discussed and instead nitpicking trying to undermine a poster (me) in a style so well expressed above by permabear. Compare that to the forum of a few years ago which was lively and interesting, informative and enjoyable.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

I edited my post quite a while before you reposted the old version here but you're right, it was inappropriate.

Thanks Macha

P. Breathnach

Chloe Pink wrote: »

... This is true, any suggestions on what else might be responsible for the 'lack of posts'? Posters may be willing to offer feedback on whether they support other theories for the 'lack of posts'?

Why ask those who post there about the lack of posts? It might be more useful to ask people like me, who has an interest in environmental issues and does not post there.

I have looked in on the forum from time to time, and been discouraged, even dispirited, but the recurrent arguments. I happen to be persuaded by the broad scientific consensus on AGW, and also accept that science advances with the aid of good challenge and dissent. But the character of much of the challenge and dissent in the S&EI forum is not good: it belongs more in CT. And the energy with which dubious arguments are advanced is remarkable, suggesting that the great untapped environmentally-friendly resource is hot air.

I have never lingered long enough to form a view on the quality of moderation. I have a view on AGW sceptics, but to express it here might be considered inflammatory.

Scofflaw

(I see the usual attempt to disqualify me from the debate before I've even contributed has been made by the usual people - thanks for that.)

While every attempt has been made to claim that there is objectively a problem with forum modding in SEI entirely separate from the anti-AGW/anti-green tendency, I've so far only really seen one poster commenting negatively here who isn't part of that tendency.

Modding in a forum like SEI, which is going to attract the zealously anti-AGW/anti-green tendency, is always going to have to be pretty tight to avoid the place simply becoming a battleground where every discussion is dominated by repetitive eruptions of the argument that AGW and more broadly anything environmental is bunkum.

I don't see that as any different from the repetitive eruptions in TLL of misogynistic trolling and claims that the very existence of a forum primarily for women is a travesty of fair play, or the atheists who get slung out of Christianity for telling Christians they're deluded paedophiles, the idiots who get slung out of the Islam forum because they want to use the forum to replay "the clash of civilisations", the occasional troll who wanders into rail forums to say that anyone who doesn't go everywhere by car is a loonie, the people who insist on making every Irish political thread a reprise of the Troubles...etc etc.

The SEI forum isn't supposed to be a debating chamber on the existence of global warming - it's supposed to be somewhere you can discuss sustainability and environmental issues, of which there are many many more than that one issue. And if you're someone who is opposed to the whole basis on which such issues even exist, you're not really likely to debate such issues on their own merits without attempting to turn any such discussion into that debate.

There will be times when the heavy moderation required to prevent everything becoming a repeat of one question will result in individual actions that are excessive - but as long as those are individual actions, rather than a regime of excessive moderation, that's something to be dealt with and rectified on a case by case basis. And, so far, the only pattern visible is one where the fanatical anti-AGW/anti-green online tendency doesn't get to turn the forum into yet another soap box for their opinions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Chloe Pink

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why ask those who post there about the lack of posts? It might be more useful to ask people like me, who has an interest in environmental issues and does not post there.

Thanks for responding. The question was not restricted to the people who post there, hence you've been able to respond.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have never lingered long enough to form a view on the quality of moderation. I have a view on AGW sceptics, but to express it here might be considered inflammatory.

There is discussion there on topics that assume AGW is occurring and as Macha pointed out, moderation seeks to prevent every thread turning into an AGW debate.

Chloe Pink

Scofflaw wrote: »

(I see the usual attempt to disqualify me from the debate before I've even contributed has been made by the usual people - thanks for that.)

What are you referring to here please Scofflaw?
It sounds as though there is huge inter-rivallary between those who look after boards.ie when they should be working as a team in the best interests of boards.ie

Scofflaw

Chloe Pink wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh, I'd be the CatMod referred to here:

Permabear wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't know about rivalry as such - there are disagreements between us, exactly as there are between other posters, and for the reason that we are posters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

Modding in a forum like SEI, which is going to attract the zealously anti-AGW/anti-green tendency, is always going to have to be pretty tight to avoid the place simply becoming a battleground where every discussion is dominated by repetitive eruptions of the argument that AGW and more broadly anything environmental is bunkum.


Scofflaw

In theory , that might well be true. In practice, the evidence is more likely to show the moderator, djbarry, taunting and provoking otherwise intelligent posters into intemperate responses, and disrupting threads by nitpicking and threatening anyone with whom he does not agree.

Even if you continue to ignore that, the many posters who vote with their feet and avoid the Sustainability & Environmental issues threads will not. The last post almost 24 hours ago, and yesterday there were a total of 5 posts across the whole forum, seems to be proof of how many now avoid the Sustainability & Envirnomental Issues threads.

Scofflaw

easychair wrote: »

In theory , that might well be true. In practice, the evidence is more likely to show the moderator, djbarry, taunting and provoking otherwise intelligent posters into intemperate responses, and disrupting threads by nitpicking and threatening anyone with whom he does not agree.

Even if you continue to ignore that, the many posters who vote with their feet and avoid the Sustainability & Environmental issues threads will not. The last post almost 24 hours ago, and yesterday there were a total of 5 posts across the whole forum, seems to be proof of how many now avoid the Sustainability & Envirnomental Issues threads.

The argument that people are voting with their feet is, unfortunately, almost impossible to substantiate, and is also the one always used when someone disagrees with the direction a forum is taking. It's regularly applied to whole notion of moderation on boards.ie, with the point that unmoderated forums such as politics.ie have a higher post count on threads, etc.

While that's true, much of what happens without moderation is repetitive argument with a very low signal to noise ratio. It would be extremely easy to make SEI more 'lively' by allowing it to become an arena for the pro/anti arguments to play out - but what would be the point? And how would anyone discuss sustainability and environmental issues there?

SEI isn't expected to be a hugely lively forum - with the exception of the anti/pro argument, which it isn't there to foster, most of what's being dealt with isn't popularly controversial, and it's popular controversy that drives threads. "Which wood chip boiler?" just isn't going to drive posts the way "David Norris sodomised my hamster!" does.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

easychair wrote: »

Nesf's position appears to be to want to avoid the issue completely (maybe he could clarify if thats more or less what he's said, and done, in this thread), so it seems that the problem is going to be ignored by those who have the ability to resolve it, and left unaddressed

nesf has patiently waited for to be given an example of the harassment and bullying that has been claimed in this thread and is still stuck waiting for anything to be shown to him.

Edit: Let me be clear, show me any mod bullying or harassing a user and I'll come down on them like a ton of bricks, but just saying to me that a mod is bullying or harassing people won't get me to do anything because I have to give the mod the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise.

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

The argument that people are voting with their feet is, unfortunately, almost impossible to substantiate, and is also the one always used when someone disagrees with the direction a forum is taking. It's regularly applied to whole notion of moderation on boards.ie, with the point that unmoderated forums such as politics.ie have a higher post count on threads, etc.

I'd say all the posters here who have explained their reasons, together with the low level of activity on the forum itself might be a clue.

You might decide otherwise, but to claim that 5 posts in one day and no posts the next day (so far) is normal for the Sustainability Forums, when compared to the past, then no one who looks at the evidence of the history can agree. Its a fact that a once lively and interesting forum is now like a ghost town, with djbarry apparently poised to make any new posters feel unwelcome by his unfriendly and nitpicking style.

In any case, if you are happy to leave things as they are, despite the evidence, then as said above, that indicated Boards.ie seems to prefer not to resolve complaints about a bad moderator, rather than fix it and improve the forums and other peoples experience of the forums. Thats boards.ie choice, just as it is the choice of the many posters who choose to avoid the unpleasant attitudes described so well by others above.

Chloe Pink

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oh, I'd be the CatMod referred to here:
I don't know about rivalry as such - there are disagreements between us, exactly as there are between other posters, and for the reason that we are posters.

OK but what I'm finding is that all of this is overflowing into the moderation and indeed into this thread about the moderation.

Most people have to go to work and encounter other people with sometimes very different and opposing views. These differences could be around our thoughts on religion, the EU, diet, AGW, wind turbines, immigration, euthanasia, sexual preferences, hunting, parenting, the death penalty, farming, flying, private education, IVF, the benefits system etc.

One thing we all have to do though, through our differences, is deliver as a team if the line of work we are in is to survive. I realise that many of the mods etc are voluntary but somewhere along the line, boards.ie is a business and as such some professional team work wouldn't go amiss. There are many volunteers in different sectors of society who give their time in a professional manner.

What is being asked here is that, regardless of ones personal views, an objective assessment is made of the moderation on a particular forum.

Maybe this is the bigger problem nesf is seeking.

Scofflaw

Chloe Pink wrote: »

OK but what I'm finding is that all of this is overflowing into the moderation and indeed into this thread about the moderation.

Most people have to go to work and encounter other people with sometimes very different and opposing views. These differences could be around our thoughts on religion, the EU, diet, AGW, wind turbines, immigration, euthanasia, sexual preferences, hunting, parenting, the death penalty, farming, flying, private education, IVF, the benefits system etc.

One thing we all have to do though, through our differences, is deliver as a team if the line of work we are in is to survive. I realise that many of the mods etc are voluntary but somewhere along the line, boards.ie is a business and as such some professional team work wouldn't go amiss. There are many volunteers in different sectors of society who give their time in a professional manner.

What is being asked here is that, regardless of ones personal views, an objective assessment is made of the moderation on a particular forum.

Maybe this is the bigger problem nesf is seeking.

Well, one problem seems to be that in the eyes of some posters there is a problem, and if we as CMods don't agree that this is so, then we get this kind of thing:

In any case, if you are happy to leave things as they are, despite the evidence, then as said above, that indicated Boards.ie seems to prefer not to resolve complaints about a bad moderator, rather than fix it and improve the forums and other peoples experience of the forums. Thats boards.ie choice, just as it is the choice of the many posters who choose to avoid the unpleasant attitudes described so well by others above.

In other words, we're obviously just wrong, because we're not immediately agreeing there's a problem. nesf has already pointed out that he's waiting for evidence of the bullying and nit-picking that has been claimed, and isn't being shown anything he considers to be such evidence.

One thing we all have to do though, through our differences, is deliver as a team if the line of work we are in is to survive. I realise that many of the mods etc are voluntary but somewhere along the line, boards.ie is a business and as such some professional team work wouldn't go amiss. There are many volunteers in different sectors of society who give their time in a professional manner.

We're all voluntary - the professional part of boards.ie consists of Darragh and a couple of others. There is an amateur ethos here - we're not customer services representatives. I appreciate what you're saying about mods sniping at each other, but I think that's a separate issue (and one that has come up in Feedback before).

easychair wrote:

You might decide otherwise, but to claim that 5 posts in one day and no posts the next day (so far) is normal for the Sustainability Forums, when compared to the past, then no one who looks at the evidence of the history can agree. Its a fact that a once lively and interesting forum is now like a ghost town, with djbarry apparently poised to make any new posters feel unwelcome by his unfriendly and nitpicking style.

I would really appreciate being shown when the history of the forum shows it to be a completely different place!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Chloe Pink

nesf wrote: »

nesf has patiently waited for to be given an example of the harassment and bullying that has been claimed in this thread and is still stuck waiting for anything to be shown to him.

Edit: Let me be clear, show me any mod bullying or harassing a user and I'll come down on them like a ton of bricks, but just saying to me that a mod is bullying or harassing people won't get me to do anything because I have to give the mod the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise.

I'm reassured to hear about your stance on bullying and harassment but this is possibly not the problem here, I think it's more subtle, the title of the OP is after all "Fussy moderation".