Politics standards

southsiderosie

nesf wrote: »

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?

I've been thinking about this, but it is hard to articulate.

First, I'm not so sure about the evidence-based discussions - there are a lot of throwaway comments and digs that not only are not evidence-based, but often are not even related to the thread in question. They frequently involve the words 'multiculturalism', 'bankers', or 'liberals'.

The thing is, I think pushing for a more evidence-based form of debate would actually allow for the discussion of more controversial topics. To take one contentious issue, people complain that things are too 'PC' because they can't badmouth immigrants and the like, but I can think of a few threads where people pulled up court documents, government reports, or newspaper articles that were pretty concrete, thus cutting off a lot of the usual whatabouttary and unsubstantiated whinging.

As for tone, one thing that I don't like and that has become more common over the last six months are extremely snide comments. It's one thing to be mad, and it's another thing to strongly disagree or even become exasperated, but there is a really nasty undertone that seems to be creeping into the forum. The Fox News 'lib-tard' type comments are annoying enough, but the sneering, snide comments are extremely off-putting.

I don't know...it's hard to put my finger on. But the content of the posts aside, it's the tone of the forum that I feel like has become increasingly problematic, and I think that can only be addressed through engaged moderation.

southsiderosie

southsiderosie wrote: »

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

???

later12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why ''especially long term posters''? If I'm here one week, then as long as I am contributing to debate in an informed way I expect to get the same treatment as someone who has been here one year, or five.

I'd just like to distance myself from the stance taken on some of the comments on this thread so far. Personally I have no issues with the politics mods as they stand, and I don't find the more visible mods to be lacking in any respect. In fact to be perfectly honest I find Permabear's criticism of ''withering condescension'' to be a little ironic.

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.

I really don't think that's much of a criticism unless you can show how it fails in practice. TLL doesn't have a problem with lax moderation (...apparently. I don't visit it) and good for them. But there could be lots of reasons for that.

Politics, in my opinion, certainly does have a moderating problem both in terms of (i) inaction towards poor posting quality and (ii) inconsistencies in moderating. I think these issues could be solved by giving some of the more involved mods, like Scofflaw, nesf and lockstep control of the forum and picking off the less involved moderators. I think adding more moderators does nothing to solve problem (i) in itself, and would only aggravate problem (ii).

True, regular posters like ourselves probably need to increase our reporting, but like i said I stopped reporting posts a while back now because such was the level of inaction that it was a waste of time, and also because it is unclear what is actually against the rules anymore. The charter is not applied. Sorry nesf, but i don't believe that if I called some politician a liar that I would be banned for it. If that was indeed the case a few years ago when you say the place had better posting quality (and according to the discussion of the rules thread, it was the case) then obviously there has been some sort of policy shift.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

later10 wrote: »

Sorry nesf, but i don't believe that if I called some politician a liar that I would be banned for it. If that was indeed the case a few years ago when you say the place had better posting quality (and according to the discussion of the rules thread, it was the case) then obviously there has been some sort of policy shift.

If you asked a person to substantiate calling a politician a liar and they didn't and then refused to withdraw the point, and then you reported the post so I'd see it then they would be dealt with and possibly banned. The key part is the report, if I don't see one, I'll probably not know it's happened and if people don't challenge the poster for evidence first then none of the above can happen.

All I can tell you is where I stand on the forum and how I would implement the rules if posts are brought to my attention.

nesf

southsiderosie wrote: »

I've been thinking about this, but it is hard to articulate.

First, I'm not so sure about the evidence-based discussions - there are a lot of throwaway comments and digs that not only are not evidence-based, but often are not even related to the thread in question. They frequently involve the words 'multiculturalism', 'bankers', or 'liberals'.

The thing is, I think pushing for a more evidence-based form of debate would actually allow for the discussion of more controversial topics. To take one contentious issue, people complain that things are too 'PC' because they can't badmouth immigrants and the like, but I can think of a few threads where people pulled up court documents, government reports, or newspaper articles that were pretty concrete, thus cutting off a lot of the usual whatabouttary and unsubstantiated whinging.

As for tone, one thing that I don't like and that has become more common over the last six months are extremely snide comments. It's one thing to be mad, and it's another thing to strongly disagree or even become exasperated, but there is a really nasty undertone that seems to be creeping into the forum. The Fox News 'lib-tard' type comments are annoying enough, but the sneering, snide comments are extremely off-putting.

I don't know...it's hard to put my finger on. But the content of the posts aside, it's the tone of the forum that I feel like has become increasingly problematic, and I think that can only be addressed through engaged moderation.

So it's not so much that we need a different ethos but that we need more mods so that moderation can be more engaged?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

later10 wrote: »

Why ''especially long term posters''?

This is something I'm trying to bear in mind. So far I've had more posters come out and say they're happy with the moderation than posters who've come out and asked for major change.

There are definitely areas where I think things could be improved but I would be very slow to substantially change how the forum is being run unless more posters came forward asking for change. This isn't a "grassroots" thread by any means.

This is not to say that I'm not listening to the concerns expressed here but that I've to balance them with the views of people not active in this thread.

LoLth

This forum is for feedback and feedback is very much appreciated, even negative feedback. I think Nesf and the other mods have been quite open to hearing the negatives and have posted that they intend to take those comments into consideration in future (well ,Nesf posted that but he's Cmod of the category so I'm sure he'll bring it to the attention of the mods who havent read this thread).

As for claims of comments being snide, nasty and sneering...

1. from users: we cant moderate people's feelings or their personality. Mods can call them up on being abusive or disruptive but if they are snid, nasty and sneering well, thats the type of poster they are and other users jsut have to learn to ignore it or come to expect it. Its all part of human interaction I'm afraid. If you get the impression that a poster is sneering , there's not much a mod can do if the poster is posting on topic and not being abusive or rude. Its up to the individual to decide how they will respond to the implied tone or attitude. If you feel a comment is "nasty" in the sense that its OTT, then report it and let the mods take a look. However, being nasty isnt against boards rules. some people are nasty. plain and simple.

2. mods: if you feel a mod comment (from a mod of the forum itself, not from another mod - they are covered under the user bit above) is out of line or nasty or unnecessarily personal, then please draw the co-mods or cmods attention to it. You are entitled to your opinion and you could well be right, mods are human too (sort of), they have off days just like everyone else and sometimes that can come through in their writing despite attempts to keep it impersonal or friendly. You arent going to be punished for having an opinion.

now, this next bit is going ot cause me some trouble no doubt but it does need to be said:

Offense taken at the tone of a mod or other user can not always be laid 100% at the other user's feet. Sometimes we have to realise that we need a thicker skin ourselve and also that we need to sometimes take a step back from the discussion and reconsider the tone of the post. What one user may take as a dismissive tone, the posting user may have meant in earnest but they dont have the same level of emotional involvement with the subject matter at hand. Just to clarify, I'm not saying "grow a thicker skin and stop whinging" I'm saying "If you're going ot discuss something in a public forum you have to be prepared, and make allowances, for the fact that not everyone is going to have the same belief and intensity of conviction as you and not all insults are intentional".

@Permabear: this is the first I've heard of any issues with Scofflaw's attitude or comments, especially of them having an negative impact on the forum. I will check with the cmods and see if anyone else has brought this up in the past.

I do agree that mods set the standard, if a mod posts lolcats then its implied that lolcats are allwoed for users. Similarly, if a mod trolls a thread, then that mod is giving users implicit permission to troll threads and bannign or warning for similar behaviour is unfair. Its something we have dealt with before and I believe we were quite clear where the admins stood on this.

@southsiderosie: no idea what happened your thread. I'll have a check and see if I can find it.

Dr Galen

nesf wrote: »

So it's not so much that we need a different ethos but that we need more mods so that moderation can be more engaged?

I think that might go a long way. When I've had to deal with similar situations, I've found that actively engaging with the posters and the forum is the best way to deal with it, and to shape the outcome.

As you say yourself, a lot of the time you guys are waiting for a post to be reported. To my mind, that not really enough, especially in a forum like politics, where it can all kick off in a short space of time. I have no doubt that its not lack of interest that has meant that this situation has come about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say its more down to the sheer volume of posts.

Thats not me having a dig at you, Scoff or those of the Mod team who have found themselves AFK recently. Even if there were the 4 of you all doing the whole engaged Mod thing, I don't think there would be enough of you to do so in a forum that size. In fact, I'd say it would be impossible to do that sort of thing on an ongoing basis for every thread, and every post, not unless you had a huge Mod team, and that wouldn't be a runner at all, would likely create more problems than it solved tbh.

later12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I really have no idea why you are picking out regular/ long term posters in particular. I think most people, moderators or not, would agree that you have to create a positive environment for everybody, not especially for regulars.

There is a danger of this feedback thread being perceived as a few regulars kicking up a stink about having to share a trough with the masses. From my perspective, at least, that really isn't what it's about.
______________________________________________

I would say to nesf, however that of course the opinions being expressed about poor moderating are not held substantially by the majority of users. It's a bit like John Bowman going on Questions & Answers and asking the audience if he's consulting them too often. Everybody has their own agenda, they each want their 30 seconds, nobody will answer negatively.

If you put this to a vote on the forum, the majority of posters will inevitably choose quantity over quality - that's how it has to be. The real decision about what to do lies with the admins and the moderators, and I think it would be a shame if this thread went the way of previous discussions and nothing happened. At this stage, I think all users need and deserve a clear decision one way or the other.

You are the moderators - so decide.

nesf

Dr Galen wrote: »

I think that might go a long way. When I've had to deal with similar situations, I've found that actively engaging with the posters and the forum is the best way to deal with it, and to shape the outcome.

As you say yourself, a lot of the time you guys are waiting for a post to be reported. To my mind, that not really enough, especially in a forum like politics, where it can all kick off in a short space of time. I have no doubt that its not lack of interest that has meant that this situation has come about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say its more down to the sheer volume of posts.

Thats not me having a dig at you, Scoff or those of the Mod team who have found themselves AFK recently. Even if there were the 4 of you all doing the whole engaged Mod thing, I don't think there would be enough of you to do so in a forum that size. In fact, I'd say it would be impossible to do that sort of thing on an ongoing basis for every thread, and every post, not unless you had a huge Mod team, and that wouldn't be a runner at all, would likely create more problems than it solved tbh.

The forum is too large, and most importantly, too active over a long span of the day to expect the mods to stay on top of it the whole time. It was no different with AH when I modded that. I really would not expect any co-mod of mine to be reading every thread every day.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In fact, your complaints are personal, and have been going on now ever since a specific post of mine in the general thread on Libertarianism in the Political Theory forum. You've taken every possible public opportunity since then to bitch and whinge about it. It's pretty unimpressive, and I'm really not going to treat it as anything other than the personal issue it is, particularly since we've had exactly the same issues before.

regards,
Scofflaw

nesf

later10 wrote: »

I really have no idea why you are picking out regular/ long term posters in particular. I think most people, moderators or not, would agree that you have to create a positive environment for everybody, not especially for regulars.

There is a danger of this feedback thread being perceived as a few regulars kicking up a stink about having to share a trough with the masses. From my perspective, at least, that really isn't what it's about.
______________________________________________

I would say to nesf, however that of course the opinions being expressed about poor moderating are not held substantially by the majority of users. It's a bit like John Bowman going on Questions & Answers and asking the audience if he's consulting them too often. Everybody has their own agenda, they each want their 30 seconds, nobody will answer negatively.

If you put this to a vote on the forum, the majority of posters will inevitably choose quantity over quality - that's how it has to be. The real decision about what to do lies with the admins and the moderators, and I think it would be a shame if this thread went the way of previous discussions and nothing happened. At this stage, I think all users need and deserve a clear decision one way or the other.

You are the moderators - so decide.

It'll take time to work out how things will work going forwards. That's all I can say, and I can't speak for the entire moderation team.

Dr Galen

nesf wrote: »

The forum is too large, and most importantly, too active over a long span of the day to expect the mods to stay on top of it the whole time. It was no different with AH when I modded that. I really would not expect any co-mod of mine to be reading every thread every day.

Neither would I Nesf, sorry if it came across like I would.

I just think that there is room for a bit more pro-active Moderating, as opposed to waiting for posts to be reported. That room would only exist if there was additional moderating capacity. Even at that you still wouldn't come close to reading everything, everyday.

nesf

Dr Galen wrote: »

Neither would I Nesf, sorry if it came across like I would.

I just think that there is room for a bit more pro-active Moderating, as opposed to waiting for posts to be reported. That room would only exist if there was additional moderating capacity. Even at that you still wouldn't come close to reading everything, everyday.

Well, part of this is my fault because I made it sound like all we do is sit by our email inboxes waiting for reported posts. We do read the forum and do pro-actively moderate when doing this. It's just a drop in the ocean compared to how fast a thread can spiral out of control. Thus why we have to rely on reported posts.

southsiderosie

LoLth wrote: »

As for claims of comments being snide, nasty and sneering... However, being nasty isnt against boards rules. some people are nasty. plain and simple.

Maybe that is why in some ways, posting in AH is more pleasant that posting in Politics lately: they take the whole 'don't be a dick' thing more seriously. Granted, you may have to wade through a lot of blasting with piss and the like, but it is far less grating.

LoLth wrote: »

@southsiderosie: no idea what happened your thread. I'll have a check and see if I can find it.

Thanks.

southsiderosie

LoLth wrote: »

As for claims of comments being snide, nasty and sneering... However, being nasty isnt against boards rules. some people are nasty. plain and simple.

Maybe that is why in some ways, posting in AH is more pleasant that posting in Politics lately: they take the whole 'don't be a dick' thing more seriously. Granted, you may have to wade through a lot of blasting with piss and the like, but it is far less grating.

LoLth wrote: »

@southsiderosie: no idea what happened your thread. I'll have a check and see if I can find it.

Thanks.

Scofflaw

southsiderosie wrote: »

Maybe that is why in some ways, posting in AH is more pleasant that posting in Politics lately: they take the whole 'don't be a dick' thing more seriously. Granted, you may have to wade through a lot of blasting with piss and the like, but it is far less grating.

Yes, that's something we definitely could do with enforcing more strictly, although it's a little bit of a value judgement, as well as being open to personal issues.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

later12

southsiderosie wrote: »

Maybe that is why in some ways, posting in AH is more pleasant that posting in Politics lately: they take the whole 'don't be a dick' thing more seriously. Granted, you may have to wade through a lot of blasting with piss and the like, but it is far less grating.

I think that's probably because we know where we stand with AH. I can post on serious topics in AH because I know that if someone makes little of a point I'm making without a substantial point in reply, it doesn't matter, that's all par for the course. We know that when we go in there.

In politics, unsubstantiated rhetoric and general dickheadery is not supposed to be part of the deal, but in practice it's tolerated. In tolerating it, mods are creating a situation whereby there are two different hymn sheets floating about. The official hymn sheet demands Weihnachtsoratorium but half the congregation is breaking into Jingle Bells. That's what's so irritating in my opinion.

There seems to be an understandable hesitation to scare away the posting traffic, but I'm not convinced this is warranted. I've just been scrolling through the 'heyday' of politics that nesf alluded to, c. 2006, and am seeing maybe 80 threads in the month, with maybe 10% of them with over 1,000 views, some of them well over that. If politics was a stricter place with greater posting quality back then, and those who were around back then are saying that it was, well clearly it still saw strong demand.

nesf

later10 wrote: »

I think that's probably because we know where we stand with AH. I can post oThere seems to be an understandable hesitation to scare away the posting traffic, but I'm not convinced this is warranted. I've just been scrolling through the 'heyday' of politics that nesf alluded to, c. 2006, and am seeing maybe 80 threads in the month, with maybe 10% of them with over 1,000 views, some of them well over that. If politics was a stricter place with greater posting quality back then, and those who were around back then are saying that it was, well clearly it still saw strong demand.

It's not so much wanting to not lose traffic as much as it to cater to the forum's audience. We're over 240 threads a month at the moment with about 80% over 1,000 views at a quick glance with some threads heading towards 100K views.

In short we're dealing with 3 times the traffic we used to have to handle. That's much of the problem in why standards have dropped. It's a lot easier to handle 80 threads a month that are on the smaller side than 240 threads, some of which run for 20+ pages.

later12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think scofflaw is a tough debater, but he's an honest debater and he calls people on their possibly dodgy reasoning or conclusions - myself often included. That probably strikes people as condescending, simply because many people rarely like to be removed of their nice comfortable, possibly self serving conclusions.

I don't think a lot of posters do raise issues with scofflaw, and i don't think they would have grounds to either. Your pursuit of this issue on this thread strikes me as blatant opportunism to release your own personal issues with one moderator.

gandalf

nesf wrote: »

It's not so much wanting to not lose traffic as much as it to cater to the forum's audience. We're over 240 threads a month at the moment with about 80% over 1,000 views at a quick glance with some threads heading towards 100K views.

In short we're dealing with 3 times the traffic we used to have to handle. That's much of the problem in why standards have dropped. It's a lot easier to handle 80 threads a month that are on the smaller side than 240 threads, some of which run for 20+ pages.

Well basically it sounds like an issue of bandwidth here again.

I am trying to remember how many mods we had back in 2006, I think it was 4 or 5 so by that reasoning if you have tripled traffic you need between 12-15 mods now to handle the increase in traffic. Now that probably won't be practical but you certainly need more than 7 and imho there is no way the forum should ever be left with three or less functioning moderators.

On the topic of threads going to over 20 pages, a lot of those have burnt out as conduits of any constructive discussion long before they hit that number of pages.

nesf

gandalf wrote: »

Well basically it sounds like an issue of bandwidth here again.

I am trying to remember how many mods we had back in 2006, I think it was 4 or 5 so by that reasoning if you have tripled traffic you need between 12-15 mods now to handle the increase in traffic. Now that probably won't be practical but you certainly need more than 7 and imho there is no way the forum should ever be left with three or less functioning moderators.

Agreed. It wasn't by plan that we ended up with three though.

I think it was 4 mods back then, but I could be wrong, with two mods I think doing most of the heavy lifting. Again, I could be wrong.

7 is pushing the limits of how large a team can be before wires start getting crossed between mods, I think we'll have to restructure the team a bit when we add the new mods to keep everyone working off the same page.

gandalf wrote: »

On the topic of threads going to over 20 pages, a lot of those have burnt out as conduits of any constructive discussion long before they hit that number of pages.

Yes and no. Current events threads can run way over 20 pages and still be relevant. Single issue threads do tend to become a mess at that point though, I will agree. I've been stepping in more over the past month on NI threads as a kind of experiment when they get to the trench warfare stage and just banning continuing discussion of it. It seems to be working to an extent.

Dr Galen

nesf wrote: »

Agreed. It wasn't by plan that we ended up with three though.

I think it was 4 mods back then, but I could be wrong, with two mods I think doing most of the heavy lifting. Again, I could be wrong.

7 is pushing the limits of how large a team can be before wires start getting crossed between mods, I think we'll have to restructure the team a bit when we add the new mods to keep everyone working off the same page.



Yes and no. Current events threads can run way over 20 pages and still be relevant. Single issue threads do tend to become a mess at that point though, I will agree. I've been stepping in more over the past month on NI threads as a kind of experiment when they get to the trench warfare stage and just banning continuing discussion of it. It seems to be working to an extent.

I'd certainly agree that 7 Mods would be at the upper limit of how many should be involved. Otherwise it's just going to be crossed wires central, and would make it very hard to keep the message clear.

Nodin

later10 wrote: »

I think scofflaw is a tough debater, but he's an honest debater and he calls people on their possibly dodgy reasoning or conclusions - myself often included. That probably strikes people as condescending, simply because many people rarely like to be removed of their nice comfortable, possibly self serving conclusions.

I don't think a lot of posters do raise issues with scofflaw, and i don't think they would have grounds to either. Your pursuit of this issue on this thread strikes me as blatant opportunism to release your own personal issues with one moderator.

Indeed, it's only come to my notice once before, and from the same poster.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056296062&page=5

As somebody with a prickly and 'less-than-forgiving' nature, it strikes me as highly unlikely such an attitude would have passed me by in the night during my time here.

Eliot Rosewater

Dr Galen wrote: »

I'd certainly agree that 7 Mods would be at the upper limit of how many should be involved. Otherwise it's just going to be crossed wires central, and would make it very hard to keep the message clear.

I think this is a suitable time to jump in and explain my own personal situation and how it relates to the forum.

I've been fully AFK for the last two months, and will be semi-AFK (with more AFK than not) for the next 6 weeks. This being away from the computer for most of the 4 month college holiday will probably repeat itself again next year.

I think this is an issue because, as Dr Galen and nesf say, there is an upper limit on the amount of mods one can really have. I think that when I wasn't AFK I was pretty active, and not afraid to jump in at messy times. Still, my continuing long-term absence has to factor into the equation, especially if one could find alternatives who wouldn't be subject to such absences. I want it to be clear that if it is felt that the mod team would be better off with someone else in my position then I will have no problem standing aside.

What I can offer is my full services again in 6 weeks time when college proper begins.

As regards the general debate on quality standards, I have always believed in higher standards and would support moves in that direction.

coffee_cake

I think it's mostly ok other than needing more mods

There is more AH-level posting, I think, and more quibbling in threads instead of better discussion. I don't know what to say about that though, it's probably just sheer numbers. Not sure what a mod could do about it except the occasional friendly "more meaningful contributions please" - some of which I already saw today.

GuanYin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sorry. I was saving the world.


Sceptre and I are actually the same poster