Mods need to step up in Politics Forum

LoLth

@JONJO: seeing as you cant resist the temptation to ignore the opportunity to provide feedback and instead would prefer to carry over a dispute from another forum and take this thread as an opportunity to get a dig in at a mod, please dont bother posting in this thread again. If you do, you will be given a holiday from Feedback. Your argumentative and accusatory tone is completely out of place in what has, thus far, been a civilised discussion.

thanks

LoLth

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dades

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I never saw/used that. How did that work?

The whole Help Desk section is being discussed at the moment, and although I don't believe the DRF as it exists now was going to change materially, now might be a good time to suggest alternatives.

gandalf

Sorry I meant to come back to this quicker alas real life got in the way.

Dades wrote: »

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?

I have only experienced the DRP from a personal level and I felt that it was a fruitless and frustrating experience with no real closure. From observing the forum the users who seem to get the most traction tend to be those that are skilled in keeping just inside the blurry lines with charters and soap boxing.

I believe it is a failure when moderators admit that the fact that their moderation may be inhibited because the DRP process will be activated even if they believe they are correct. That actually concerns me very much.

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.

I can easily see how it is a failure from both perspectives. As Permabear said the previous method was actually better imho than the DRP. Infact I would go as far to say that Feedback with the "LOLcats" was better than the DRP process.

The real issue is that while the charter as it stands in Politics is fine, the enforcement of it is the problem. Every few months this thread in some form appears in feedback and imho it is dismissed off hand in a very matter of fact way by the mods and in some cases the admins. Surely the fact that the users of this site actually care so much about that forum that they repeatedly spend time here to express the fact that the standards that the forum is supposed to be promoting are not enforced should ring some warning bells with the powers that be. Instead it is a fatalistic flawed message of more people have joined therefore the standard is getting lower that gets trotted out ad nauseam.

nesf

gandalf wrote: »

Surely the fact that the users of this site actually care so much about that forum that they repeatedly spend time here to express the fact that the standards that the forum is supposed to be promoting are not enforced should ring some warning bells with the powers that be.

A tiny, tiny fraction of users of Politics engage with us in these threads. Most don't seem to care overly given they don't report posts or give us any feedback good or bad about the forum.

I'd much rather they were reporting posts and giving us feedback btw.

gandalf

nesf wrote: »

A tiny, tiny fraction of users of Politics engage with us in these threads. Most don't seem to care overly given they don't report posts or give us any feedback good or bad about the forum.

I'd much rather they were reporting posts and giving us feedback btw.

That sounds like you are actually dismissing those "few" of us who do express our views and do care about the forum are actually saying which is again something that I would find very worrying?

From what you are saying the mods are pandering to the silent minority even though you have no idea what they actually think or want from/for the forum?

nesf

gandalf wrote: »

That sounds like you are actually dismissing what that those "few" of us who do express our views and do care about the forum are actually saying which is again something that I would find very worrying?

From what you are saying the mods are pandering to the silent minority even though you have no idea what they actually think or want from/for the forum?

No. I'm saying I have to be mindful that it's a small minority who are making noise about this. We are listening and are discussing it in the Politics Mods forum, we just can't assume that ye speak for the entire forum.

nesf

Some of the things we're discussing in the mods forum:

Clamping down on one liners and similar to try and improve thing.

Rewriting the charter into a much, much shorter document rather than the exhaustive list that it is at the moment.

Changing the rules so a ban from one Politics forum is a ban from all Politics forums.

And similar.


To give you an idea of what lines we're thinking along at the moment. Nothing is a final solution just a first act and we'll see what happens after it. I don't think immediate drastic change is the way to handle this, we're better off dealing with one problem at a time.

gandalf

Making noise is a very dismissive term about the legitimate concerns of regular users of the forum that you moderate nesf.

nesf

gandalf wrote: »

Making noise is a very dismissive term about the legitimate concerns of regular users of the forum that you moderate nesf.

No insult was intended.

gandalf

nesf wrote: »

Some of the things we're discussing in the mods forum:

Clamping down on one liners and similar to try and improve thing.

Rewriting the charter into a much, much shorter document rather than the exhaustive list that it is at the moment.

Changing the rules so a ban from one Politics forum is a ban from all Politics forums.

And similar.


To give you an idea of what lines we're thinking along at the moment. Nothing is a final solution just a first act and we'll see what happens after it. I don't think immediate drastic change is the way to handle this, we're better off dealing with one problem at a time.

Thanks for the update. I do appreciate you coming on here and engaging with us. With regard to one-liners it already is covered in the charter it just enforcement of it that is needed.

I hope that the re-drafting of the charter does not mean a watering down of it?

Drastic change is not what is being asked here, enforcement of the charter is.

Again thanks for giving us feedback.

nesf

gandalf wrote: »

I hope that the re-drafting of the charter does not mean a watering down of it?

No, more something along the lines of broad guidelines like Scofflaw's post here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68360283&postcount=4

Expanded a bit and worked around a with but simple one line instructions, as concise as possible to make it as idiot proof as possible. As always, just guidelines, nothing restrictive on the mods.

Ken.

As more a reader of than a poster in politics I have a solution that might work.

A new sub forum of after hours called 'A.H. does Politics'. If possible this sub forum could also show up in the list of sub's for politics.

The rules could be some of the rules of politics with some of the rules of after hours and obviously the usual site rules(don't be a dick,no libelous or defamatory posts etc.)

Mods could be drawn 50/50 from politics and A.H.

Feel free to add or take away from the above.

nesf

lucyfur09 wrote: »

As more a reader of than a poster in politics I have a solution that might work.

A new sub forum of after hours called 'A.H. does Politics'. If possible this sub forum could also show up in the list of sub's for politics.

The rules could be some of the rules of politics with some of the rules of after hours and obviously the usual site rules(don't be a dick,no libelous or defamatory posts etc.)

Mods could be drawn 50/50 from politics and A.H.

Feel free to add or take away from the above.

The Politics Café was meant to do something along these lines and in fairness some users did use it for this purpose but many didn't bother and stayed posting crap in the main forums.

Nodin

nesf wrote: »

Some of the things we're discussing in the mods forum:

Clamping down on one liners and similar to try and improve thing.

Rewriting the charter into a much, much shorter document rather than the exhaustive list that it is at the moment.

Changing the rules so a ban from one Politics forum is a ban from all Politics forums.

And similar.


To give you an idea of what lines we're thinking along at the moment. Nothing is a final solution just a first act and we'll see what happens after it. I don't think immediate drastic change is the way to handle this, we're better off dealing with one problem at a time.

Don't paint yourselves into a corner with the one-liners. Context is all.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

The Politics Café was meant to do something along these lines and in fairness some users did use it for this purpose but many didn't bother and stayed posting crap in the main forums.

I suppose the problem is the vast majority of those posters aren't aware they are posting crap, plus the cafe is pretty quiet so they aren't going to get a reaction.

nesf

Nodin wrote: »

Don't paint yourselves into a corner with the one-liners. Context is all.

Exactly what I'm arguing at present in the forum. Context is key to everything really.

Sand

Im not sure the idea of maintaining mod freedom or the idea of context is actually all that helpful. It seems to devolve into chaos where rules are applied or ignored depending on fairly random views of context. Blatant abuse, trolling, whataboutery, hostility and ignorance are mostly tolerated as something that cant be dealt with - something thats a development, welcome or unwelcome, of new users arriving. This dominates the expected behaviour of the forum - the charter is rarely enforced, so why bother following it? Actual application of the rules in that context (to borrow the term) are the exception, not the rule so even in the case they are applied, they dont have any positive effect.

I think Permabear would make a decent Politics mod in that he is well known for his views, so he would always be vulnerable to claims of bias from left wing posters, but he is not oblivious to that. Logically, hed have to make sure he has an objective, strong case that his fellow mods would back him on before he acts against posters.

Thats the core problem - appointing a new mod isnt going to result in them clearing out Politics like a Clint Eastwood movie. Permabear might arrive in and infract or ban 40 people on his first morning, all in line with the rules of the forum as laid out in the charter. However, if hes going against the rest of the moderating teams tone of mostly ignoring the charter in favour of context he'll get isolated and be very vulnerable to complaints.

All Politics mods probably face the same problem - they need to be consistent with the overall moderation policy. Normally, this is explained in the charter - so long as a mod is consistent with the charter, they can feel sure they're backed up. But in Politics, the charter is theoretical and it doesnt seem to describe the actual forum policy and standards that are applied or not applied - context is apparently the key, and context is always arguable. One moderator might view something as an infraction, another moderator might see the exact same issue as not a problem within a certain context.

This leaves individual moderators more and more inclined to devolve to the lowest common denominator.

Look at the "scumbag" rule applied in politics. Its a rule where context is entirely dismissed. The use of "scumbag", "scum", "beard" etc might be justified, or not justified, but its an automatic infraction in Politics regardless of context. And guess what? People dont use the term all that much, and generally speaking it leads to a better debate.

When it comes to rules, context is the problem. Clarity is the solution.

@realies

Everyone should be able to post in the politic forum if they want and it should be up to the mods there to impose bans or infractions on posters who don't come up to politics standards what ever they are ?

It seems some people would like a bit of elitism there ? There is enough of that around thanks.

Well, Im not sure anyone knows what the Politics standards are - thats a large part of the problem.

But whats the problem with elitism? Elitism gets a bad rap these days. Setting and raising standards is always going to be elitist - why is it a bad thing for people to try to meet a standard rather than presuming they were born perfect, gods gift?

Offy

Without getting involved in this thread to much Id like to say this is very old news and has gone on for years now. I stopped posting there a long time ago because of issues raised in this thread. You need to find a new solution for an old problem.

nesf

Sand wrote: »

Im not sure the idea of maintaining mod freedom or the idea of context is actually all that helpful. It seems to devolve into chaos where rules are applied or ignored depending on fairly random views of context. Blatant abuse, trolling, whataboutery, hostility and ignorance are mostly tolerated as something that cant be dealt with - something thats a development, welcome or unwelcome, of new users arriving. This dominates the expected behaviour of the forum - the charter is rarely enforced, so why bother following it? Actual application of the rules in that context (to borrow the term) are the exception, not the rule so even in the case they are applied, they dont have any positive effect.

I think Permabear would make a decent Politics mod in that he is well known for his views, so he would always be vulnerable to claims of bias from left wing posters, but he is not oblivious to that. Logically, hed have to make sure he has an objective, strong case that his fellow mods would back him on before he acts against posters.

Thats the core problem - appointing a new mod isnt going to result in them clearing out Politics like a Clint Eastwood movie. Permabear might arrive in and infract or ban 40 people on his first morning, all in line with the rules of the forum as laid out in the charter. However, if hes going against the rest of the moderating teams tone of mostly ignoring the charter in favour of context he'll get isolated and be very vulnerable to complaints.

All Politics mods probably face the same problem - they need to be consistent with the overall moderation policy. Normally, this is explained in the charter - so long as a mod is consistent with the charter, they can feel sure they're backed up. But in Politics, the charter is theoretical and it doesnt seem to describe the actual forum policy and standards that are applied or not applied - context is apparently the key, and context is always arguable. One moderator might view something as an infraction, another moderator might see the exact same issue as not a problem within a certain context.

This leaves individual moderators more and more inclined to devolve to the lowest common denominator.

Look at the "scumbag" rule applied in politics. Its a rule where context is entirely dismissed. The use of "scumbag", "scum", "beard" etc might be justified, or not justified, but its an automatic infraction in Politics regardless of context. And guess what? People dont use the term all that much, and generally speaking it leads to a better debate.

When it comes to rules, context is the problem. Clarity is the solution.

@realies


Well, Im not sure anyone knows what the Politics standards are - thats a large part of the problem.

But whats the problem with elitism? Elitism gets a bad rap these days. Setting and raising standards is always going to be elitist - why is it a bad thing for people to try to meet a standard rather than presuming they were born perfect, gods gift?

Part of the issue is that the charter is an inherited document from when the site had a very different userbase. This is one of the reasons for a rewrite, the current mods can knock heads together and agree a plan of action going forwards and be on the same page when it comes to enforcement.

Personally I'd like to replace it with one line (Contribute or GTFO and don't be a dick) since that pretty much sums up what I think but I think too many people won't get it unless it's spelt out more.

gandalf

I honestly do not agree with you about the user base. The only difference is there are more people. I would hazard a guess that the muppet to normal user ratio would be the same as back in the "good old days".

nesf

gandalf wrote: »

I honestly do not agree with you about the user base. The only difference is there are more people. I would hazard a guess that the muppet to normal user ratio would be the same as back in the "good old days".

The signal to noise ratio across the site has dropped significantly over the time I've been modding on here. There were always muppets but it's much harder to find good posts now than it used to be.

Sunnyisland

Sand wrote: »

@realies

Well, I'm not sure anyone knows what the Politics standards are - that's a large part of the problem.

But whats the problem with elitism? Elitism gets a bad rap these days. Setting and raising standards is always going to be elitist - why is it a bad thing for people to try to meet a standard rather than presuming they were born perfect, gods gift?

Elitism to me means some people will have you believe that there views on a matter are to be taken more serious or carry more weight more so than others, As a person who only has learned the use and ways of PC and laptops quite recently and maybe not as quite academic as others here I would find that quite unfair,As other posters here have said some times it takes a while to get used to the politics thread and everyone should be given a chance once they abide by the rules set out by the Mods. More enforcement of the charter would IMO smooth out the problems pretty quick as problem posters would soon be sent on there way.

nesf

realies wrote: »

Elitism to me means some people will have you believe that there views on a matter are to be taken more serious or carry more weight more so than others, As a person who only has learned the use and ways of PC and laptops quite recently and maybe not as quite academic as others here I would find that quite unfair,As other posters here have said some times it takes a while to get used to the politics thread and everyone should be given a chance once they abide by the rules set out by the Mods. More enforcement of the charter would IMO smooth out the problems pretty quick as problem posters would soon be sent on there way.

I think everyone wants to see new people coming in who are willing to become informed. The problem is posters that refuse to become informed and continue to clutter up threads with garbage that has to be refuted over and over again.

Sunnyisland

nesf wrote: »

I think everyone wants to see new people coming in who are willing to become informed. The problem is posters that refuse to become informed and continue to clutter up threads with garbage that has to be refuted over and over again.

Well nesf can them threads not be closed Immediately and persistent posters warned with a ban if they continue.In the non drinkers forum the charter is enforced very efficiently with any threads or posts outside the charter rules locked pronto.

nesf

realies wrote: »

Well nesf can them threads not be closed Immediately and persistent posters warned with a ban if they continue.In the non drinkers forum the charter is enforced very efficiently with any threads or posts outside the charter rules locked pronto.

We need to get multiple mods on the same page first before we can act and we need to clean it up one step at a time to give people a chance to cop on.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

The signal to noise ratio across the site has dropped significantly over the time I've been modding on here. There were always muppets but it's much harder to find good posts now than it used to be.

Perhaps because people who might contribute good posts have become pissed off and departed.

dr.bollocko

It might be beneficial to engage the posters of the politics forum now in a feedback style thread in the politics forum itself.... Such that the current regulars who might not frequent feedback might also be able to put their 2c in.

Similar to the current "discussion on the rules" thread but perhaps a smaller scope.

The only reason I suggest this is I am concerned that the full range of potential feedback might not be being raised in here. That's not to knock or belittle the contributions in this thread however as you said I feel there is only a minority of the posters who often post in politics caring to share an opinion here.

Ken.

nesf wrote: »

The Politics Café was meant to do something along these lines and in fairness some users did use it for this purpose but many didn't bother and stayed posting crap in the main forums.

Well then could the offending threads not be moved to the cafe and a pm sent to the op not to open a similar thread in the main forum again or bans will be issued.

coffee_cake

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.

Okay I think we got bogged down in DRP stuff, can we agree something on this?
The AH mods could PM us maybe if they ban someone for trolling on political threads and we can review it then for politics