Politics standards

gandalf

GuanYin wrote: »

Sorry. I was saving the world.

So instead of an explanation we get a one line smart ass remark.

Sceptre and I are actually the same poster

Given the past controversy about your account I don't think that was appropriate and is doing sceptre a real disservice.

Wibbs

gandalf wrote: »

So instead of an explanation we get a one line smart ass remark.

Indeed. Regardless of any forum, but especially a very popular and high traffic forum on purely practical terms if nothing else. if a mod isn't around for more than a few months and only breezes in once in a while then they quite simply shouldn't be a mod of that forum. Give the gig to someone else. TBH I'm surprised this point is even up for discussion? It should not be a case that you get tenure and that's it. If it is the case and that this appears to apply to some and not to others which I've seen around here, though thankfully very small in number then more questions need to be asked.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

Permabear saw that post a while after my reply here.

However they should not have been kept on as a mod of politics for six months if they were not available especially given the previous posts about mod bandwidth issues here in feedback.

nesf

gandalf wrote: »

Permabear saw that post a while after my reply here.

However they should not have been kept on as a mod of politics for six months if they were not available especially given the previous posts about mod bandwidth issues here in feedback.

What difference does it make if they were kept on or not? Having a name at the bottom of the forum doesn't effect the bandwidth of the mods either way. We add or subtract mods based on how many active mods there are, we just ignore any long term AFK cases.

Like, before this thread had even started I was checking who was AFK and how long they would be to get a better idea if we were undermanned over the medium term and needed more mods.

dr.bollocko

Moderating is a care taking role given to those who are active in their role and continue to be useful and helpful as moderators.

It's also hard-earned and I'm sure you guys in politics have as fevered a mods forum as we have in AH.
Having mods feck off for 6 months at a time... Well they're seen as just as important a part of the forum as the mod who's in there every day.
They'd also be completely out of the loop regards rules, posters, private messages and all that stuff.

If somebody is gone for 6 months remove them. If they come back re-add them if they're needed.

It's a janitorial concern not a rank bestowed upon one for life.

my 2c. Now back to lurking.

later12

dr.bollocko wrote: »

my 2c. Now back to lurking.

/opens large newspaper with eyeholes cut in and stands near lurker.

Also not to keep pushing this too much but generally what sort of timeframe are we looking at for a progress report on moderational conclave, or will any changes be more of a gradual or trial by error nature if they do arise?

nesf

later10 wrote: »

Also not to keep pushing this too much but generally what sort of timeframe are we looking at for a progress report on moderational conclave, or will any changes be more of a gradual or trial by error nature if they do arise?

I'll update the thread as I know things to keep people in the loop.

So far we've agreed we need new mods. We need to knock heads together to think of candidates now. The long part will be getting the Admins to vet our candidates for the roles, that can take quite a while depending on how busy the admins are.

Begob

nesf wrote: »

What difference does it make if they were kept on or not?

It might confuse posters if they pm a mod who is never there.

nesf

Begob wrote: »

It might confuse posters if they pm a mod who is never there.

Good point.

Dr Galen

nesf wrote: »

I'll update the thread as I know things to keep people in the loop.

So far we've agreed we need new mods. We need to knock heads together to think of candidates now. The long part will be getting the Admins to vet our candidates for the roles, that can take quite a while depending on how busy the admins are.

Hopefully a friendly admin will be reading this thread and the other one, and oblige you guys. I know they are up to their eyes, but seeing as politics is one of the largest fora on the site, I think you should be somewhat prioritised in your requests.

GuanYin

gandalf wrote: »

So instead of an explanation we get a one line smart ass remark.

I gave an explanation in the appropriate place. The original post here, that I responded to was a cross post anyway.

While I understand the perceived issue on moderation, I don't think that my presence in anyway inhibited the actions or appointment of other mods as anyone in that decision making process knew where I was (not specifically, but the vague geographic region).

Politics is either over-modded or under-modded, over-staffed or under-staffed, or not staffed with the right kind of mods, depending on your viewpoint, the day of the week, the phase of the moon and whether any given persons socks match. It has been that way since I modded there.

There are more active mods now than a year ago and really it's all about the posters.

As certain set of posters with a viewpoint will flood in, upset the regulars, there will be cries for moderation, we either ramp up the modding or add more mods, then we eventually ban all the problem posters, or they go away because they feel oppressed. Then we are left with too many mods and they have nothing to do, they over mod and suddenly we are over modding.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

We could have 24 politics mods on 1 hours shifts with 24-hour coverage and people would still complain about the moderation. In reality, if people accept that there are others out there with political ideas that will be objectionable or just dumbass to them and learn that the purpose of a discussion group is to put points across to each other and not to win or oust any non-conformists.

Come on people now, smile on your brother.......

GuanYin

Begob wrote: »

It might confuse posters if they pm a mod who is never there.

While this is true, it hasn't been an issue.

As an aside, I still get plenty of PMs asking how to get access to soccer

later12

GuanYin wrote: »

Politics is either over-modded or under-modded, over-staffed or under-staffed, or not staffed with the right kind of mods, depending on your viewpoint, the day of the week, the phase of the moon and whether any given persons socks match. It has been that way since I modded there.

Again with the glib response.

nesf said 4 posts ago that mods have agreed on a requirement for more mods. So clearly this thread, others like it, and the mods decision, is not some desultory, meandering feeling that's come from nowhere.

Because of how this issue is being dealt with by the other politics mods, this thread has the potential to be one of those relatively rare things - a feedback thread where the issue is brought to a happy and civilised resolution.

On the other hand I can't see how long absences from the forum, and then coming onto feedback dismissing or at best downplaying legitimate concerns about moderating quality - when a problem has already been recognised by other politics mods and non mods alike - helps resolve anything.

Scofflaw

GuanYin is not in control of whether the Admins remove her from the mod roster or not. She made her position clear to us at the time, and she has given her reasons for absence, which are very much more than adequate. I don't really see what's to be gained by the kind of comments that are being made.

regards,
Scofflaw

meditraitor

GuanYin wrote: »

Politics is either over-modded or under-modded, over-staffed or under-staffed, or not staffed with the right kind of mods, depending on your viewpoint, the day of the week, the phase of the moon and whether any given persons socks match. It has been that way since I modded there.

.......

+1

Thats my impression, if anyone goes away happy from this thread it only means they got their way at the expense of someone else's viewpoint.

Wibbs

Scofflaw wrote: »

GuanYin is not in control of whether the Admins remove her from the mod roster or not. She made her position clear to us at the time, and she has given her reasons for absence, which are very much more than adequate.

I agree 100% S, her reasons for absence are indeed well beyond adequate and from my POV GuanYin is not nor should be the issue here. She's merely illustrating a possible issue and she would not be the only one.

What isn't adequate is why absent mods(or cmods or admins for that matter) on any forum on this site are retained if they're AWOL for months or are mods only in name(some are rarely seen). Never mind mods on high traffic and possibly contentious forums. There are enough users out there who could fulfill the mod position who wouldn't be. It smacks of tenure for favoured users for a start. How many mods would be retained if they announced they'd be AFK for 6 months? On high traffic gateway forums? Few enough I'd warrant.

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

GuanYin is not in control of whether the Admins remove her from the mod roster or not. She made her position clear to us at the time, and she has given her reasons for absence, which are very much more than adequate. I don't really see what's to be gained by the kind of comments that are being made.

regards,
Scofflaw

Without scrolling back over the thread I don't think anyone's particularly bothered about GuanYin being a mod - I didn't even know who she was up until yesterday and it doesn't affect me either way.

The issue is that it shouldn't be acceptable to portray opinions which appear to be reasonably widely held, and appear to be in the process of being acted upon, as some haphazard rambling - and especially so when that person has not been reading the forum for the past 6 months.

later12

meditraitor wrote: »

+1

Thats my impression, if anyone goes away happy from this thread it only means they got their way at the expense of someone else's viewpoint.

A debate is not a zero sum game, information can increase, compromise be struck, and both parties can come away with something positive.

meditraitor

later10 wrote: »

A debate is not a zero sum game, information can increase, compromise be struck, and both parties can come away with something positive.

Thats your opinion, but please tell me what has this thread or debate achieved or what info has been circulated?

Some minor agreements on the use of words like scum and thug?
Guan Yin was absent with leave?
The moderations is good-majority?
The moderation is bad-minority?

With the exception of Guan yin being away for 6 months its not really anything that wasnt known already!

These threads pop up now and again, usually as a result of conflict among the top level posters and not as some would have you believe that the quality of politics has fallen!
Not once have I seen proof of this......

My opinion is that the level of crap or unsavioury threads and posts increases with traffic not time,

In the end the Politics fora will continue to be one of the most intersteing and well moderated fora on Boards,


Let me put it to you this way,

Imagine if the coterie of posters who are for restricting access to politics to hardcore poiltickers and "quality contributions" gets its way?
Your left with a core group of over informed sophists who just wax lyrical and have intellectual willy measuring contests, The politics fora would die very quickly......

Even the elite would get bored because they wouldnt have anyone like myself to educate as to the horrors of socialism/libertarianism/conservatism/arseism?

Can you imagine the thread about Isreal without Blaaforrafa/flutter and wes/nodin?
Some people groan when they see another one of them, we all know whats going to happen but I guarantee you one thing, if you do actually read these thread you will more than likely learn something you didnt know before from both sides, even though (imho) there is at least 2 who would not make it into an elite politico forum, with strick rules on contribution quality!

later12

meditraitor wrote: »

Thats your opinion, but please tell me what has this thread or debate achieved or what info has been circulated?

The mods have said they have agreed they need new mods, for one thing. While I don't think that's actually the answer, most people do. So nobody is really winning at somebody else's expense, there seems to be agreement.

I presume there will also be some additional information as to what way the forum is to go in terms of quantity v quality.

These threads pop up now and again, usually as a result of conflict among the top level posters and not as some would have you believe that the quality of politics has fallen!

Read the OP, this thread, or southsiderosie's or other discussions clearly didn't pop up as a dick size contest, it's quite clearly about the state of the forum.

Imagine if the coterie of posters who are for restricting access to politics to hardcore poiltickers and "quality contributions" gets its way?

Is anyone actually still favouring this? It was thrown into the mix but I don't know who is arguing for it.

K-9

meditraitor wrote: »

These threads pop up now and again, usually as a result of conflict among the top level posters and not as some would have you believe that the quality of politics has fallen!
Not once have I seen proof of this......

My opinion is that the level of crap or unsavioury threads and posts increases with traffic not time,

It's got nothing to do with something against another top level poster.

The problem was an increase in traffic but not enough mods about to deal with it plus posters not reporting posts.

Scofflaw

later10 wrote: »

Without scrolling back over the thread I don't think anyone's particularly bothered about GuanYin being a mod - I didn't even know who she was up until yesterday and it doesn't affect me either way.

The issue is that it shouldn't be acceptable to portray opinions which appear to be reasonably widely held, and appear to be in the process of being acted upon, as some haphazard rambling - and especially so when that person has not been reading the forum for the past 6 months.

I'm not sure the absence is really relevant to the remarks she made, though - the politics forum is cyclical in the way described (as a couple of the mods have pointed out elsewhere) - and the fact that one can accurately describe the symptoms of the current issue without having read the forum for 6 months only reinforces the accuracy of the remarks.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

These threads pop up now and again, usually as a result of conflict among the top level posters and not as some would have you believe that the quality of politics has fallen!

What is a Top-Level poster?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure the absence is really relevant to the remarks she made, though - the politics forum is cyclical in the way described (as a couple of the mods have pointed out elsewhere)

I don't know if it's cyclical or not, or whether it is something to do with the Summer holidays, the gypsies, alignment of the stars, or moderating quality.

However, there is a big difference between saying the problem exists, and is cyclical, and saying the complaining is cyclical, as though the latter is not based on a fundamental, valid reason - which is what I read from GuanYin's post.

GuanYin wrote: »

Politics is either over-modded or under-modded, over-staffed or under-staffed, or not staffed with the right kind of mods, depending on your viewpoint, the day of the week, the phase of the moon and whether any given persons socks match. It has been that way since I modded there.

There are more active mods now than a year ago and really it's all about the posters.
[...]

We could have 24 politics mods on 1 hours shifts with 24-hour coverage and people would still complain about the moderation. ..

I don't see how someone who hasn't been following the forum in the past six months can have his or her suggestion that the problem is not with the moderators, or moderating standards, taken very seriously.

later12

Just skimming through southsiderosie's thread there, and came across this. Can any of the mods say whether this was discussed between themselves last March, and maybe give an outline, very generally, of what was decided?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71449926&postcount=62

nesf

later10 wrote: »

I don't know if it's cyclical or not, or whether it is something to do with the Summer holidays, the gypsies, alignment of the stars, or moderating quality.

However, there is a big difference between saying the problem exists, and is cyclical, and saying the complaining is cyclical, as though the latter is not based on a fundamental, valid reason - which is what I read from GuanYin's post.

It's very hard to prove (or more very messy to prove) that the problem is cyclical but it's a view held by more than one mod on the forum. Since we directly see when reported posts spike or not, I'd be inclined to say that we've some idea about this.

The problem is twofold, we have the news cycle issue, which is an issue on many forums, where some news item causes an influx of posters and problems happen because these posters aren't used to the rules. That's problem A, it's well documented and well complained about by moderators of AH, Politics and other general fora that see it a lot.

The second problem is a longer term cycle due to general interest level in the forum topic. We are currently in a high interest phase of Politics, the average person opines a lot. During the boom we were in a low interest phase because basically most people were content with their lives and how the country was run. More people = more noise = much, much more difficult to moderate. I'd say we have an exponential rather than linear relationship between problems and user number. Forums in mathematical terms tend towards chaotic behaviour depending on the degrees of freedom in them, in simple terms, the more different groups and posters involved the more scope there is for wide variations in behaviour on the forum.

This is what I think from moderating the forum. I could be wrong of course but I think it makes intuitive sense at the very least.

later10 wrote: »

I don't see how someone who hasn't been following the forum in the past six months can have his or her suggestion that the problem is not with the moderators, or moderating standards, taken very seriously.

Well, the issues that were there six months ago are what's being complained about now. I'd go further and say we've been having these problems for several years at this stage. So while I accept your point I'd also think that GuanYin's input is still somewhat relevant to what's going on.

later12

nesf wrote: »

It's very hard to prove (or more very messy to prove) that the problem is cyclical but it's a view held by more than one mod on the forum.

Indeed, but cyclical which? Cyclical problems with posting standards or cyclical baseless complaints? The latter is not something the moderators can reasonably hope to quell, but the former very much is.

The problem is twofold, we have the news cycle issue, which is an issue on many forums, where some news item causes an influx of posters and problems happen because these posters aren't used to the rules. That's problem A, it's well documented and well complained about by moderators of AH, Politics and other general fora that see it a lot.

Indeed as a new poster who only joined this thing on the emergence of the Irish bailout crisis, I understand that to some extent.

But the problem with these posters isn't necessarily their first foray into the politics camp with posts that don't meet the standard - it's their repeated visits where they build on this behaviour, and that's possibly down to a lack of sanctions.

I'd say we have an exponential rather than linear relationship between problems and user number. Forums in mathematical terms tend towards chaotic behaviour depending on the degrees of freedom in them, in simple terms, the more different groups and posters involved the more scope there is for wide variations in behaviour on the forum.

Yes I think that opinion is justified, if one watches the dynamics between posters on the forum.

But it would be interesting to see how the incidence of infractions and bans altered during this rapid opening up of the forum. Although its incidence would not necessarily need to trace user numbers, one would imagine that it should be thereabouts, or higher, if forum standards were applied consistently, given the contagion effect of poor posting quality.

That contagion effect is a serious enough issue, because looking at the forum it's possible that a reasonably large number posters are only there because unless they insult a user or really blatantly troll, they can wing it under the radar and get away with a persistent AH style of commenting.