Politics standards

later12

In that case the only incentives to post in the less regulated environment would be (1) because you don't want to think hard about your opinions or (2) because you enjoy debate and want vigourous debate.

The second point is the one I'd worry about most. Politics being politics, most politicos enjoy tough debates, and may feel a little bored by a talking shop. In that case, the less regulated politics forum would become exactly what the politics forum is now - After Hours peppered with some regulars who take politics seriously, and trundle on in the knowledge that, the odd time, a rigourous debate will be an informed debate.
The regulated forum, on the other hand, would probably wilt and die.

If you set the same minimum standard for everybody, the end result is clear cut. Ship in or ship out. Meet the standard or go to After Hours. You said that the politics forum reached its heyday 5 years ago in terms of quality, and I've just been reading a discussion on the rules from c.2007 that bears out what you're saying - people couldn't even call politicians 'liars' apparently, without substantiating the accusation, lest they be banned.

I would dearly love to post in that kind of forum, and if it has been present in the past, then it could be resurrected. But no, it won't arise if there is an easier, less regulated option at the top of the page, within the main forum.

nesf

later10 wrote: »

people couldn't even call politicians 'liars' apparently, without substantiating the accusation, lest they be banned.

They still can't. What happens is people don't report it.

Politics used to be a niche interest in this country. It made for much more serious and informed debate. I miss it too, the amount of stuff (especially on economic matters) that annoys the hell out of me on the IE forum is insane.


I agree with you about the incentives issue. But if we make Politics super-strict we face the same problem. People will go to AH so more people can hear their opinions if the volume drops too low in Politics.

Lockstep

Again, I apologise for my semi-abscence from the forum. My job has had a rake of people quitting so there's a heavy workload on those of us who remain (including working extremely antisocial hours). New staff will be in soon enough so I should be back moderating fairly soon.

I'm very sorry for the trouble this causes in the meantime.

southsiderosie

later10 wrote: »

Could the solution not be less moderators and not more? As Permabear indicated, some mods are already pretty much absent from the day to day involvement with the forum (apart from reading reported posts maybe), whereas more regular mods like Lockstep, nesf and Scofflaw are much more involved.

In corporate structures, it tends to be recognized that rule-by-committee often leads to weaker governance or slower progress than a a more direct management system.
Individuals can be less inclined to take decisive action, perhaps down to failure to reach consensus on policy, the Abilene paradox, or groupthink. There is also greater scope for inconsistencies to arise. Or it becomes tempting to step back and wait to estabish others' thoughts by waiting for others to intervene, and if everybody does this, the result can be complete inaction.

Sorry but I think this is a far too theoretical a way of looking at a situation which seems to be pretty straightforward, especially given what goes on in other forums on this website.

To go back to Permabear's example of the Ladies Lounge, not only are the moderators quite active in the forum, but there is a very clear ethos to posting there that quickly becomes apparent to regulars, and much of it has to do with the moderators' careful control of the tone. Posters that are overly hostile, who indulge in gender stereotyping, or who otherwise violate the charter - and perhaps more importantly, the ethos - are politely warned, and if they fail to make adjustments, quickly sent on their way.

So I strongly disagree with the idea that 1) fewer moderators are needed and 2) they should be more authoritarian. I think there needs to be 1) more moderators and 2) more focus on setting the tone of discussion more than the terms; I think it is the former that is killing the forum, not the latter. However, setting the tone requires constant reinforcement, and that is simply not possible without numerous and active mods.

southsiderosie

As an aside, what happened to the original thread I started on this a few months ago? It seems to have disappeared.

nesf

southsiderosie wrote: »

Sorry but I think this is a far too theoretical a way of looking at a situation which seems to be pretty straightforward, especially given what goes on in other forums on this website.

To go back to Permabear's example of the Ladies Lounge, not only are the moderators quite active in the forum, but there is a very clear ethos to posting there that quickly becomes apparent to regulars, and much of it has to do with the moderators' careful control of the tone. Posters that are overly hostile, who indulge in gender stereotyping, or who otherwise violate the charter - and perhaps more importantly, the ethos - are politely warned, and if they fail to make adjustments, quickly sent on their way.

So I strongly disagree with the idea that 1) fewer moderators are needed and 2) they should be more authoritarian. I think there needs to be 1) more moderators and 2) more focus on setting the tone of discussion more than the terms; I think it is the former that is killing the forum, not the latter. However, setting the tone requires constant reinforcement, and that is simply not possible without numerous and active mods.

What should be Politics' ethos in relatively exact terms? At present we have evidenced based discussion with strict rules on attacking the poster not the post. What should be added?

Corsendonk

southsiderosie wrote: »

To go back to Permabear's example of the Ladies Lounge, not only are the moderators quite active in the forum, but there is a very clear ethos to posting there that quickly becomes apparent to regulars, and much of it has to do with the moderators' careful control of the tone. Posters that are overly hostile, who indulge in gender stereotyping, or who otherwise violate the charter - and perhaps more importantly, the ethos - are politely warned, and if they fail to make adjustments, quickly sent on their way.

.

Swap around the politics mods with the TLL for 2 weeks see how the modding changes. Perhaps the politics mods need more women? As mods I mean!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This isn't the place to be discussing your issues with Scofflaw.

meditraitor

Just curious on the suggestions made regarding an elite sub forum, can any of the proponants of such answer me a couple of simple questions?

Will the regular Joe/plebs be able to read this high brow sub forum?
I for one love to read some of the gobblydegook that the elite politicos write.......

Will there be some kind of apprenticeship in the normal Joe politics forum before an invite is made to join the elite forum?
Who will give out the invites?
Will it be democratic? in the sense that all the elite get to vote on who joins after the forum is closed to Joe?
Or as I would suggest, should the normal Joe politics poster get to vote on who goes in?


It also seems there is also some issues with the moderating, if I'm not writing something stupid for the politcos to ignore I am lurking and it is obvious to most(non politicos) that it is moderated to a much higher standard than 99% of the other forums on boards.... step out of line and your quickly slapped (personal experience).
The standard of the moderators(knowledge of politics and how to properly moderate) is of the highest quality.
2c

nb, I think its a grand forum the way it is,

nesf

meditraitor wrote: »

Just curious on the suggestions made regarding an elite sub forum, can any of the proponants of such answer me a couple of simple questions?

Will the regular Joe/plebs be able to read this high brow sub forum?
I for one love to read some of the gobblydegook that the elite politicos write.......

Will there be some kind of apprenticeship in the normal Joe politics forum before an invite is made to join the elite forum?
Who will give out the invites?
Will it be democratic? in the sense that all the elite get to vote on who joins after the forum is closed to Joe?
Or as I would suggest, should the normal Joe politics poster get to vote on who goes in?

If if went ahead, it would be an open forum. Anyone could post, anyone could read. Just the rules would be extremely strictly enforced.

meditraitor

nesf wrote: »

If if went ahead, it would be an open forum. Anyone could post, anyone could read. Just the rules would be extremely strictly enforced.

Nice one,..... as long as could read it I will be happy.

I get it now, not a private forum just one with stricter moderation.........

another quick question!!! who decides the parameters for the moderators to work within? What will be acceptable?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

I think it is clear that the first major issue with the Politics forum is one that was identified in a similar threads in November last year and in Feb this year. There is a serious deficit in active moderators. This would have to be the first issue to be rectified. Those mods who are not active need to be removed and mods added so there are around eight to ten active mods on this forum.

One of the counter arguments here is that not enough posts are being reported. This is a double edged sword, from my perspective why should I even bother reporting posts when it appears that no one is listening to my concerns in the past anyway. Point of proof the several times that the number of active mods issue has been pointed out in this very forum by me and others.

I understand that the mods as they are currently configured cannot be as proactive as would be desirable because of bandwidth issues but there needs to be some leadership from the moderating team and from the admins and this time some decisive action in boasting the numbers and addressing one line smart ass replies like some of the posts in the London Riot thread for example in a proactive manner.

meditraitor

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You really should report him if you think he is back seat modding, this is shunned upon as far as Im aware

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The thread isn't about individual problems with moderators but the issue of standards on the forum in general.

I'm entitled to have an opinion about whether your post has a place in this thread regardless of whether I'm a mod here you know. The difference is whether I can force you to stop or not.

gandalf

nesf wrote: »

The thread isn't about individual problems with moderators but the issue of standards on the forum in general.

I'm entitled to have an opinion about whether your post has a place in this thread regardless of whether I'm a mod here you know.

But given the limited number of active mods, I think the count is three then it is very relevant to the current state of things in the forum and I do believe that Permabear is well within his rights to bring it to the fore here.

nesf

gandalf wrote: »

I think it is clear that the first major issue with the Politics forum is one that was identified in a similar threads in November last year and in Feb this year. There is a serious deficit in active moderators. This would have to be the first issue to be rectified. Those mods who are not active need to be removed and mods added so there are around eight to ten active mods on this forum.

One of the counter arguments here is that not enough posts are being reported. This is a double edged sword, from my perspective why should I even bother reporting posts when it appears that no one is listening to my concerns in the past anyway. Point of proof the several times that the number of active mods issue has been pointed out in this very forum by me and others.

I understand that the mods as they are currently configured cannot be as proactive as would be desirable because of bandwidth issues but there needs to be some leadership from the moderating team and from the admins and this time some decisive action in boasting the numbers and addressing one line smart ass replies like some of the posts in the London Riot thread for example in a proactive manner.

There's been well over a dozen infractions and at least 3 bans handed out in that thread. I'm not sure how much more pro-active it could be.

The number of mods issue is being looked at, we're generally agreed more mods are needed, it's a matter of deciding on people to ask the admins to vet at this point.

nesf

gandalf wrote: »

But given the limited number of active mods, I think the count is three then it is very relevant to the current state of things in the forum and I do believe that Permabear is well within his rights to bring it to the fore here.

I disagree, if he has a problem with the moderation/posting of an individual mod it's a separate topic.

Edit: The key reason being right now it's buried in here and there's no way of knowing if others share his opinion. I'm really not that concerned with an individual poster having an issue if the rest of the forum doesn't really share the opinion. It makes a big difference if we've a sizeable number of people saying a mod is out of line.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah but you could pick holes in any of our moderation. My (non-moderator) posts about revolutionary socialists are less than kind. The discussion should be about general standards, not attacks on individual posters.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sure, I can hardly stop you from doing so now can I?

gandalf

nesf wrote: »

There's been well over a dozen infractions and at least 3 bans handed out in that thread. I'm not sure how much more pro-active it could be.

I would suggest that a clear mod warning be edited onto each post that was infracted/ given a warning because the message is obviously not been heard by a number of people reading that thread. Some may not be even aware of the significance of a yellow or red card against the posts.

That is what I would call proper pro-active modding. Ensuring that not only the person who has posted inappropriately knows what they did wrong but also that the people reading that thread do as well so they know what is acceptable and more importantly what isn't.

The number of mods issue is being looked at, we're generally agreed more mods are needed, it's a matter of deciding on people to ask the admins to vet at this point.

This what was said back in November and in February but yet here we are again in August having the same conversation. Good Ideas were brought up in those previous threads and good ones have been brought up here as well. I think at this stage it is apparent that something other than just adding one of two more mods needs to be done. I like the idea that was put forward of a temporary panel of mods who can be drafted in at short notice to address any shortcomings like the one being experienced currently. I really hope ideas like this are being brought up in the current discussions?

nesf

gandalf wrote: »

I would suggest that a clear mod warning be edited onto each post that was infracted/ given a warning because the message is obviously not been heard by a number of people reading that thread. Some may not be even aware of the significance of a yellow or red card against the posts.

That is what I would call proper pro-active modding. Ensuring that not only the person who has posted inappropriately knows what they did wrong but also that the people reading that thread do as well so they know what is acceptable and more importantly what isn't.

I'll take that on-board. Perhaps a mod edit on the first post with a thread title edit telling people to read the warning on the first post?

gandalf wrote: »

This what was said back in November and in February but yet here we are again in August having the same conversation. Good Ideas were brought up in those previous threads and good ones have been brought up here as well. I think at this stage it is apparent that something other than just adding one of two more mods needs to be done. I like the idea that was put forward of a temporary panel of mods who can be drafted in at short notice to address any shortcomings like the one being experienced currently. I really hope ideas like this are being brought up in the current discussions?

The temporary panel of mods idea is problematic for a few reasons. 1) I'm not sure we could agree on a substantial panel of people. 2) The admins might vet them as ok now but might not be happy to vet them several months down the line. This effectively means they need to already be mods and Politics is *a lot* to dump on the plate of someone who is already a mod and generally we'd want mods of serious high traffic forums etc. 3) It's better to have a surplus of mods during "full" times than just the bare minimum. If we have a surplus then we can absorb one or two people afk.

It's a nice idea but I'm not convinced it's that workable. Sorry for not being able to deal with this fully right now, trying to mind a 19 month old and a 5 month old and the 19 month old likes to try and join in in my typing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

nesf wrote: »

I'll take that on-board. Perhaps a mod edit on the first post with a thread title edit telling people to read the warning on the first post?

I think that part of problem is that while moderation eventually does go on in the background is that it is not visible to the users. Permabear brings up a very valid argument that I didn't even consider even though I do use the mobile site on occasion as well that those users do not even see the cards.

If you leave a post in place that is inappropriate for whatever reason without a clear warning on it, then the casual browser may come to the conclusion that is the level of acceptable interaction on the forum. Yes in the short term its more work but longer term it is education those who are active on the forum now and should reduce the workload.

The temporary panel of mods idea is problematic for a few reasons. 1) I'm not sure we could agree on a substantial panel of people. 2) The admins might vet them as ok now but might not be happy to vet them several months down the line. This effectively means they need to already be mods and Politics is *a lot* to dump on the plate of someone who is already a mod and generally we'd want mods of serious high traffic forums etc. 3) It's better to have a surplus of mods during "full" times than just the bare minimum. If we have a surplus then we can absorb one or two people afk.

It's a nice idea but I'm not convinced it's that workable. Sorry for not being able to deal with this fully right now, trying to mind a 19 month old and a 5 month old and the 19 month old likes to try and join in in my typing.

This was the argument put forward last time yet here we are again.

As far as I am concerned if someone is already a moderator on boards then they should have the skill set to step into any forum with the exception of a few of the specialist ones. They certainly should be able to step into the Politics forum once clear and definite guidelines are in place.

Given the number of moderators already on boards and the number of forums I would be fairly comfortable that you could find a panel of six additional mods that would be available to the forum and be acceptable to the powers that be.

Like you I have my attention divided as I am running to the great white megaphone regularly thanks to my 14 month old sharing his vomiting bug with me

nesf

gandalf wrote: »

I think that part of problem is that while moderation eventually does go on in the background is that it is not visible to the users. Permabear brings up a very valid argument that I didn't even consider even though I do use the mobile site on occasion as well that those users do not even see the cards.

If you leave a post in place that is inappropriate for whatever reason without a clear warning on it, then the casual browser may come to the conclusion that is the level of acceptable interaction on the forum. Yes in the short term its more work but longer term it is education those who are active on the forum now and should reduce the workload.

Yeah part of the issue is a divergence of styles in the mods. One deletes what they infract. One tends to infract. One tends to infract and warn on thread at times. I'll take what you said on board and think about introducing a general guideline for interacting with the forum for mods.

gandalf wrote: »

This was the argument put forward last time yet here we are again.

As far as I am concerned if someone is already a moderator on boards then they should have the skill set to step into any forum with the exception of a few of the specialist ones. They certainly should be able to step into the Politics forum once clear and definite guidelines are in place.

Given the number of moderators already on boards and the number of forums I would be fairly comfortable that you could find a panel of six additional mods that would be available to the forum and be acceptable to the powers that be.

Like you I have my attention divided as I am running to the great white megaphone regularly thanks to my 14 month old sharing his vomiting bug with me

What happened last time was this. 3 mods were added. 1 didn't work out. (they should have been replaced in hindsight but weren't because with the other 2 on-board we felt we were doing ok). Then due to misfortune the other 2 mods we added had to go for extended afk at the same time leaving us back where we were when the complaints were last time. I'm convinced that if all 3 mods were active right now, much of the problem wouldn't be there or at least things would be much improved.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

2 more mods will bring us up to 7. The rotation isn't needed. Even with 3 mods a mod can take a break for a day or two when needed.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Good for you.

I don't.