Mods need to step up in Politics Forum

Dr Galen

It can influence decisions or how you reach a decision, but as I also said I wouldn't let it be the sole arbiter of how I do things tbh.

Personally, I always try to have a rationale for my decisions, so the DRP usually doesn't a huge fear for me, if that makes sense.

K-9

The DRP will still be there and rightly so, users should have grounds for appeal. I don't know if a crackdown really is the right word, more stricter enforcing of the existing rules. Start with an on thread warning, then if ignored ban or if a poster is showing up as a bit of recurrent nuisance, the 1/3 day ban, whatever the initial ban is.

I'd imagine most posters do learn from bans, the ones that don't tend to be memorable because of the noise or controversy they make.

swordofislam

dr.bollocko wrote: »

It has been suggested in here that there is some crossover between AH and politics at the moment.
From my reading of the politics forum of late, there are a number of banned / permabanned AH users which are regulars in politics up to their same tricks.

If that crossover of troll poster were removed both communities would benefit.

So After Hours would be a sort of superforum with the ability to ban users all over the site? Interesting idea.
Maybe just make more politics mods and start deleting threads.

bluewolf wrote: »

How much is he paying you?:pac:

€450 an hour. Nama rates.

dr.bollocko

swordofislam wrote: »

So After Hours would be a sort of superforum with the ability to ban users all over the site? Interesting idea.
Maybe just make more politics mods and start deleting threads.

€450 an hour. Nama rates.

TBH I was being deliberately vague about the implementation of a strategy because I cannot foresee how it will work myself, however there is a correlation between AH and politics.

swordofislam

It could work in the following way:
Still not a good idea.


Within After hours
First Offense (other than eg. holocaust denial)
User infracted yellow card
Mod PMs
'don't post about politics for a week' user can post on other subjects (women, football etc.) politics to be interpreted NARROWLY.
Second Offense
Week ban on AH (as normal)
Mod PMs'
don't post about politics again on After Hours do not repost this subject on the politics forum within 1 week. '
(but what if the discussion is ongoing on politics or if highly topical?)
AH Mod pms politics mod (for example Permabear when he is made a mod is PMd by Dr Bollocko and 'heads upped')

Additionally:
User Infracted week ban.
Allowed back on politics after 1 week on condition that
Poster 'learn X' ( for example total size of Irish budget deficit, Irish traveller life expectancy statistics etc),
Poster 'doesn't post about (for example Libertarianism, the importance of vegetarianism, other hot button cranky topic)

nesf

swordofislam wrote: »

It could work in the following way:
Still not a good idea.


Within After hours
First Offense (other than eg. holocaust denial)
User infracted yellow card
Mod PMs
'don't post about politics for a week' user can post on other subjects (women, football etc.) politics to be interpreted NARROWLY.
Second Offense
Week ban on AH (as normal)
Mod PMs'
don't post about politics again on After Hours do not repost this subject on the politics forum within 1 week. '
(but what if the discussion is ongoing on politics or if highly topical?)
AH Mod pms politics mod (for example Permabear when he is made a mod is PMd by Dr Bollocko and 'heads upped')

Additionally:
User Infracted week ban.
Allowed back on politics after 1 week on condition that
Poster 'learn X' ( for example total size of Irish budget deficit, Irish traveller life expectancy statistics etc),
Poster 'doesn't post about (for example Libertarianism, the importance of vegetarianism, other hot button cranky topic)

We're talking about people with permabans for trolling here, not merely someone who got infracted or a standard ban for acting out of line. Permabans are far more serious and there is reasonable scope for aligning policy here for such. That and permabans are so rare that it won't affect a large % of users, it'll just get rid of the worst troublemakers from both fora.

swordofislam

nesf wrote: »

We're talking about people with permabans for trolling here, not merely someone who got infracted or a standard ban for acting out of line. Permabans are far more serious and there is reasonable scope for aligning policy here for such. That and permabans are so rare that it won't affect a large % of users, it'll just get rid of the worst troublemakers from both fora.

Why not just make the AH Mods politics mods by default?

nesf

swordofislam wrote: »

Why not just make the AH Mods politics mods by default?

You know that's not a bad idea.

nesf

swordofislam wrote: »

Why not just make the AH Mods politics mods by default?

*checks User History*

Ahhhh...

Dades

gandalf wrote: »

I have never experienced the DRP process as a mod but have as a user and tbh from that perspective I found it to be a very frustrating and fruitless process. I think the way it is fashioned at the moment fails in adding any meaningful layer of accountability and as admitted by yourself and one of colleagues previously it is an influence on how you mod and I would argue it is a negative factor in doing the job of moderating the forums that you are a custodian of.

Can you clarify how you find it to be a failure? Is it that you feel that a regular user is never going to have a fair shout at getting something overturned?

nesf and Scofflaw might have a different interpretation. I've overturned Politics decisions (or suggested they be) in DR before, which can't help but frustrate the mods there.

I just don't see how the DR forum can be both a failure to regular users and an ongoing concern for mods who want to make tough judgement calls. One or both perceptions has to be wrong.

nesf

Dades wrote: »

I just don't see how the DR forum can be both a failure to regular users and an ongoing concern for mods who want to make tough judgement calls. One or both perceptions has to be wrong.

Well the issue as a mod is that I need to be able to back up a ban with evidence. I can't just ban someone or infract them because just because I feel the forum would be better off without them. I need to be able to point to posts by them that clearly show why. Which can be extremely complicated with some bans.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Generally in such a case, a long and detailed explanation of what's been going on is given to the CMod by PM with back and forth between the mod and CMod to see if there's a genuine case there.

Dades

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Soapboxers can and do get little joy in the DR forum, when, as nesf suggests, the "evidence" is gathered. Though it is a pain, alright, for both mod and CMod.

I'm more interested to hear what you suggest as an alternative to what is currently in place. No appeals process?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

swordofislam

nesf wrote: »

*checks User History*

Ahhhh...

Fallacious reasoning.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

For someone complaining about logic that's a very dodgy analogy.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And you've examples of this?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It'd be a much better analogy if you used appeal court rulings or similar. Social welfare rates are directly controlled by one body, Appeals rulings are on a case by case basis and more akin to DRP. It's a dodgy analogy because it implies a level of control over proceedings that isn't really there in DRP.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dades

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh for goodness sake, are you really that sensitive?

Why did you ignore the part where I specifically asked you for your views?

I'm more interested to hear what you suggest as an alternative to what is currently in place.

The "No appeals process?" tag was just added on because I can't see what the alternative is if you

(1) Want the politics mods to crack down hard on the forum users, and
(2) See the DR process already as a bottleneck for difficult-to-prove offences.

You have the conch.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Eh, I think you're reading way too much into that. He wasn't implying you believed we should abolish DRP only that he doesn't see much of an alternative or he's trying to find common ground in that both of you can agree that some form of DRP needs to exist.

later12

Look, if the DRP is not causing similar problems in AH or other heavy traffic forums with a large potential for conflict, then i think we should be able to dismiss it from having a causal relationship with the moderation issues in politics with quite a good degree of confidence.

There's no reason why politics moderators ought to be more mindful of the DRP consequences of a ban or an infraction than moderators in other heavy-duty forums.

This is really all getting away from the issue of the standards in the political forum, which unfortunately looks like a recurrent issue that is not going to be solved from the point of view of the people who are dis-satisfied.

nesf

later10 wrote: »

This is really all getting away from the issue of the standards in the political forum, which unfortunately looks like a recurrent issue that is not going to be solved from the point of view of the people who are dis-satisfied.

It's an Eternal September issue. While we can improve things I don't doubt, I sincerely believe that we cannot return the forum back to what it was like 5 or 10 years ago. Both the site and the country were very different places back then.

JONJO THE MISER

dr.bollocko wrote: »

That's my take on it too...
Aside from some real OTT posters which may have to be removed (which you'll always get)... I am starting to enjoy posting in the politics forum more / reading it more than I would have previously.

Removed for what reason, because you dont agree with them is it?

JONJO THE MISER

dr.bollocko wrote: »

TBH as the forum gains popularity, the ... how to say this nicely... the spectrum of opinion gets wider and trying to maintain high standards becomes a more difficult job.

High standards is it, who makes you judge and jury?
Oh i get it if we dont agree with you left wind crap we are not of high standard.

nesf

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

High standards is it, who makes you judge and jury?
Oh i get it if we dont agree with you left wind crap we are not of high standard.

Yeah, us right wing mods just love leaving the lefties dictate how the forum is run...

dr.bollocko

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

High standards is it, who makes you judge and jury?
Oh i get it if we dont agree with you left wind crap we are not of high standard.

Just to clarify that this guy has a current outstanding ban from after hours which was issued by me which might somewhat be colouring his ability to give useful feedback in this scenario.
Jonjo there is a time and a place and using feedback as a place to get a dig in because you disagree is somewhat lacking in class. I have responded to your PM.

nesf

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Just to clarify that this guy has a current outstanding ban from after hours which was issued by me which might somewhat be colouring his ability to give useful feedback in this scenario.
Jonjo there is a time and a place and using feedback as a place to get a dig in because you disagree is somewhat lacking in class. I have responded to your PM.

That and he's hardly ever posted in Politics or its sub-fora.