Mods need to step up in Politics Forum

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Im not sure the idea of maintaining mod freedom or the idea of context is actually all that helpful. .........

It prevents authoritarian blinkered nonsense.

Sand wrote: »

I think Permabear would make a decent Politics mod in that he is well known for his views, .........

Quite the contrary. He's demonstrated that hes far too eager to "wade in" on this thread.

On the other hand, Bollocko has contributed in a restrained manner, has no apparent blazing agenda and has experience modding the most lively section of the site in an impartial manner.............

Overheal

nesf wrote: »

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.

Mods are chosen for their own judgement, not their collective judgement? I understand what you mean, but surely if the mods are the right people, any one of them should be able to act in an according manner without needing to have a Dark Crystal-esque accord.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

Mods are chosen for their own judgement, not their collective judgement? I understand what you mean, but surely if the mods are the right people, any one of them should be able to act in an according manner without needing to have a Dark Crystal-esque accord.

It's important to maintain consistency. This can require consultation in some cases.

nesf

Overheal wrote: »

Mods are chosen for their own judgement, not their collective judgement? I understand what you mean, but surely if the mods are the right people, any one of them should be able to act in an according manner without needing to have a Dark Crystal-esque accord.

We work solo but something like charter or a general set of rules need to be agreed by consensus.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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

Yeah, I'm assuming that too.

Dades

lucyfur09 wrote: »

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.

That's all well and good when you are dealing with a thread-starter, but you can't just move individual posts in an otherwise decent thread to the 'cafe'.

And can someone who remembers explain how the old appeals process worked?

Sand

@Nodin

It [context/mod freedom] prevents authoritarian blinkered nonsense.

It's important to maintain consistency [vs. Mods acting on individual judgement]. This can require consultation in some cases.

Dont you see the contradiction in those two views Nodin?

Lets look at the much quoted "Dont be a dick" maxim. If you take two people, you'll have two opinions as to what being a dick is. Defining it strictly means theres a minimum standard applied. Refusing to define it and instead relying on context leads to inconsistency (preventing authoritarian blinkered nonsense), and or mods being afraid to act due to fears theyll be considered to be out of step with the overall moderation policy.

You end up with a rush to the bottom in terms of standards. Which is what we seem to have...

Quite the contrary. He's demonstrated that hes far too eager to "wade in" on this thread.

2 people, with 2 different opinons on what would make a "good mod". If there isnt a consistent definition of "good mod" then what hope is there for a consistent application of the rules if its to be governed by context and opinion?

@Nesf

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.

Perfect world thats all youd need, but your idea of what is meant by contribution and not being a dick is just your own idea. Plenty of people are going to have their own ideas and standards - rarely does anyone think theyre being a dick...

@realies

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

And objectively, they may be right. If someone believes their "My mate told me..." or "That ugly bint on TV is a cow..." view on a matter should be taken as seriously as the well argued and referenced view of another poster then theyre frankly wrong.

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.

100% agreed - The standards arent exactly high brow stuff, its just an attempt to raise the discussion above loudmouth shouting down that you can find in any pub. Christ, not so long ago I was told someone should go and shoot Merkel - thats a heartfelt and honest opinion. But its not the standard Politics should be aiming for.

The problem is that whilst new users might seek guidance from the rules and the mods on whats expected, the mods seem to be seeking guidance from the new users as to whats expected. Nobody wins there.

nesf

Dades wrote: »

And can someone who remembers explain how the old appeals process worked?

You argued long and hard with the mod by PM, if unsuccessful you could take it to Feedback where the complainer usually (but not always) grandstanded and there was a free-for-all approach to dealing with it.

It was a nightmare. Sure trolls and obviously wrong cases got dealt with the contempt they needed but sometimes they turned into crusades with previously banned posters chipping in their bit of a rant and so on or a genuine case is practically abused.

Nobody won. The Admins and mods couldn't deal with things cleanly. Too much public shouting and me too posting by people with a vendetta against certain mods and nearly always threads descended into trainwrecks.

It was also highly unusual to see mod decisions overturned in these threads. Which is not necessarily a good thing since I don't really see many bans I'd consider fair being overturned in DRP (except of course when you overturn one of my bans Dades ).

nesf

Sand wrote: »

Perfect world thats all youd need, but your idea of what is meant by contribution and not being a dick is just your own idea. Plenty of people are going to have their own ideas and standards - rarely does anyone think theyre being a dick...

Yeah, like I said it'll have to be spelt out more for some people.

Doc Ruby

Overheal wrote: »

without needing to have a Dark Crystal-esque accord.

Now you put it like that, I must demand the mods have a Dark Crystal-esque accord, its too awesome not to. And further, that all disputes henceforth be resolved via TRIAL BY STONE!

Dades

nesf wrote: »

You argued long and hard with the mod by PM, if unsuccessful you could take it to Feedback where the complainer usually (but not always) grandstanded and there was a free-for-all approach to dealing with it.

So basically a DR forum where everyone in the gallery can stick their oar in? I do recall the old feedback forum now you mention it.

I'm not seeing the benefit of reinstating that approach, tbh.

nesf

Dades wrote: »

So basically a DR forum where everyone in the gallery can stick their oar in? I do recall the old feedback forum now you mention it.

I'm not seeing the benefit of reinstating that approach, tbh.

It had some epic threads (anyone remember Rozie?) but yeah, it sucked really as a system for dealing with things clearly and fairly.

gandalf

Just to come back to this thread briefly. On of the main issues I believe is that threads that are either of low quality discussion wise or are not really even a politics thread are left in the forum too long. I reported the following two threads in the Irish Economy sub forum this morning.

The first whilst only being started this morning had a moderator reply to it yet when I reported it as not being a discussion was closed by another moderator on the forum. It should have dealt with by the first moderator. This demonstrates a absence of any joined up thinking from the moderating team at all and imho there is no way that one could argue that a thread started in this way will generate any sort of meaningful discussion.

Thread 2 was started yesterday morning is clearly a one liner and is clearly asking for advice that is not really related to politics. What is missing here is pro-activity by the moderators. When I moderated politics (I know you are all going to groan and go "oh no here we go again") after I logged on I glanced over any new threads that were started since I last logged in. A quick jump into the thread to see it did meet the requirements for posting and if it didn't I locked it straight away or contacted the OP to get them to expand their viewpoint (and viably pointing this out in the thread). I would think that a quick check of the new OP's should be standard practice for all the active mods on that forum. I perfectly understand that checking every response is impossible and that as mods you rely on the users of the forum to report issues on individual responses in threads but if you actually stopped a lot of the crud threads at source it would help to reduce the workload down the line and improve the user experience no end.

As I said it is just a thought but as other contributors have pointed out if the current charter was enforced properly the quality of interaction in the forum would expand greatly.

nesf

gandalf wrote: »

Just to come back to this thread briefly. On of the main issues I believe is that threads that are either of low quality discussion wise or are not really even a politics thread are left in the forum too long. I reported the following two threads in the Irish Economy sub forum this morning.

The first whilst only being started this morning had a moderator reply to it yet when I reported it as not being a discussion was closed by another moderator on the forum. It should have dealt with by the first moderator. This demonstrates a absence of any joined up thinking from the moderating team at all and imho there is no way that one could argue that a thread started in this way will generate any sort of meaningful discussion.

Sure, but I don't have a problem with another moderator overruling me in this kind of situation. What matters is a mod deals with it.

gandalf wrote: »

Thread 2 was started yesterday morning is clearly a one liner and is clearly asking for advice that is not really related to politics. What is missing here is pro-activity by the moderators. When I moderated politics (I know you are all going to groan and go "oh no here we go again") when I logged on I glanced over any new threads that were started since I last logged in. A quick jump into the thread to see it did meet the requirements for posting and if it didn't I locked it straight away or contacted the OP to get them to expand their viewpoint (and viably pointing this out in the thread). I would think that a quick check of the new OP's should be standard practice for all the active mods on that forum. I perfectly understand that checking every response is impossible and that as mods you rely on the users of the forum to report issues on individual responses in threads but if you actually stopped a lot of the crud threads at source it would help to reduce the workload down the line and improve the user experience no end.

As I said it is just a thought but as other contributors have pointed out if the current charter was enforced properly the quality of interaction in the forum would expand greatly.

Well, I was dealing with a 5 year old and a 2 year old this morning, so my attention to the forum could at best be sporadic. Lives etc.

gandalf

nesf wrote: »

Sure, but I don't have a problem with another moderator overruling me in this kind of situation. What matters is a mod deals with it.

It does worry me that you considered that this thread would allow any sort of decent discussion to grow from it. It started imho as gloating the fact that the IFSRA dissolved.

Well, I was dealing with a 5 year old and a 2 year old this morning, so my attention to the forum could at best be sporadic. Lives etc.

nesf this is not aimed at you personally I have 18 month old here so I know what you are going through (actually I don't, you know what I am going through). There are by my reckoning there are maybe 4 active mods, a couple of sporadic ones and a trophy mod on Politics so it is a shared responsibility. All I am suggesting is that new threads be given a quick once over when you guys log on. While there are a lot of big threads in Politics there normally is not a whole lot started on a daily basis unless there is a big story breaking at the time.

nesf

gandalf wrote: »

It does worry me that you considered that this thread would allow any sort of decent discussion to grow from it. It started imho as gloating the fact that the IFSRA dissolved.

I don't personally have a problem with such so long as it's on-topic for the forum. The other mods disagree with me. I don't have a problem with them overruling me here.

I'm far more concerned in my modding with abuse, thread spoiling and mistruths being posted as facts. We all bring different things to the table, few of us are omni-mods. I fix the problems that leap out at me in threads etc.

gandalf wrote: »

nesf this is not aimed at you personally I have 18 month old here so I know what you are going through (actually I don't, you know what I am going through). There are by my reckoning there are maybe 4 active mods, a couple of sporadic ones and a trophy mod on Politics so it is a shared responsibility. All I am suggesting is that new threads be given a quick once over when you guys log on. While there are a lot of big threads in Politics there normally is not a whole lot started on a daily basis unless there is a big story breaking at the time.

I was more getting at that early on a Sunday morning most of us will be busy and won't be able to forensically go through threads yet. That's where reported posts come in, they allow us to focus down on things. I looked at every reported post this morning but didn't get a chance to carefully read the forum because my toddler was acting up and if I didn't have kids I'd have probably been having a lie in given it's a Sunday. It's unreasonable to expect coverage all the time even with multiple mods on weekends.

gandalf

nesf wrote: »

I was more getting at that early on a Sunday morning most of us will be busy and won't be able to forensically go through threads yet.

You have misread what I said. I said that if each of the mods did a quick look in the new threads that were posted since they last looked in they could catch the ones that breached the forum charter quickly. I never said anything about forensically going through each thread in detail.

Nodin

gandalf wrote: »

It does worry me that you considered that this thread would allow any sort of decent discussion to grow from it. It started imho as gloating the fact that the IFSRA dissolved.
.....

I wasn't aware there was an clear set in stone set of guide-lines on such matters, nor was I aware it was available to non-moderators. In fact, I thought there were just opinions on the subject........

Sand wrote:

Dont you see the contradiction in those two views Nodin? .....

No.

gandalf

Nodin wrote: »

I wasn't aware there was an clear set in stone set of guide-lines on such matters, nor was I aware it was available to non-moderators. In fact, I thought there were just opinions on the subject........

I would counter that it is covered under the charter.

1. Starting Threads

Topics should be relevant to the politics board.

Topics should not be verbatim quotes from some article without comment from the thread starter. Add a comment before or after the post, offering your opinion on the subject, or at the very least, your reason for adding the topic.

Please remember that we are not a blog, a news feed nor an announcement forum - if you are not willing to discuss what you post, then please don't post it.

If a quoted article is available online, please supply a link to the article rather than quoting the entire article verbatim.

This isn't AH or Humour. Threads (and posts) that are not based on serious and legitimate Political discussion will be removed without warning. There are other forums for the silly stuff.

Nodin

gandalf wrote: »

I would counter that it is covered under the charter.

And his opinion is that it was ok. As it was, there was a brief comment with the link.

Just to ask a general query - is this still a feedback thread or are we into Advanced Backseat Moderation 1?

nesf

gandalf wrote: »

You have misread what I said. I said that if each of the mods did a quick look in the new threads that were posted since they last looked in they could catch the ones that breached the forum charter quickly. I never said anything about forensically going through each thread in detail.

New threads aren't enough, we'd need to dig through all new posts from the previous night and morning. Doubled with not knowing when the last mod was around looking at things.

5 forums worth of new posts every day is not a 5 minute job in the morning.

gandalf

Nodin wrote: »

And his opinion is that it was ok. As it was, there was a brief comment with the link.

It was not a discussion.

Just to ask a general query - is this still a feedback thread or are we into Advanced Backseat Moderation 1?

Have we entered an alternative universe where Feedback is not the place to offer feedback?

All I see from you is a contribution based on debunking contributors to this thread who you seem to have personal issues with?

gandalf

nesf wrote: »

New threads aren't enough, we'd need to dig through all new posts from the previous night and morning. Doubled with not knowing when the last mod was around looking at things.

5 forums worth of new posts every day is not a 5 minute job in the morning.

Yes but new threads would be a very good start as you are not even nipping them in the bud then it would make me wonder how you are managing to handle all the posts in the forum.

Actually I would say that checking the new threads in the 5 forum would take under 5 minutes unless every new thread is a steaming pile of crud that has to be dealt with.

I understand the workload you are under in Politics I experienced it first hand.

nesf

gandalf wrote: »

Yes but new threads would be a very good start as you are not even nipping them in the bud then it would make me wonder how you are managing to handle all the posts in the forum.

Actually I would say that checking the new threads in the 5 forum would take under 5 minutes unless every new thread is a steaming pile of crud that has to be dealt with.

I understand the workload you are under in Politics I experienced it first hand.

It takes me a good bit longer than 5 minutes because it takes fairly careful reading to spot some of the troublemakers. Ideally sure, you could skim stuff but you miss a fair bit of the thread spoiling and trolling then.

The workload today is around 4-5 times what it was when I started modding the forum what, 4 years ago? It used to be fairly trivial to keep on top of things, not so much any more unless you give a lot of time to the forums.

Nodin

gandalf wrote: »

All I see from you is a contribution based on debunking contributors to this thread who you seem to have personal issues with?

Outside of here, I don't believe we've ever interacted.

I've consistently taken the same line on these inevitable threads whenever they might arise, regardless of who was involved. As ever, I prefer to take a back seat until the 'elitists' and 'hatchet wielders' (regardless of who they are) grow a mite too strident.

gandalf

Nodin wrote: »

Outside of here, I don't believe we've ever interacted.

I've consistently taken the same line on these inevitable threads whenever they might arise, regardless of who was involved. As ever, I prefer to take a back seat until the 'elitists' and 'hatchet wielders' (regardless of who they are) grow a mite too strident.

Just an observation that you only seemed to "spring to life" when Permabear was mentioned by Sand?

So because we are asking for the already established charter to be enforced we all of a sudden labelled as "elitist" or "hatchet wielders" (whatever that means in the context of this thread?).

Also the fact you say inevitable threads would lead me to believe that you recognise that there is an ongoing issue with the Politics forum yourself?

Nodin

gandalf wrote: »

Just an observation that you only seemed to "spring to life" when Permabear was mentioned by Sand??

...somebody was suggested as moderator who I view as too ready to wield the hatchet. I've objected to such before.

gandalf wrote: »

So because we are asking for the already established charter to be enforced we all of a sudden labelled as "elitist" or "hatchet wielders" (whatever that means in the context of this thread?).?

That's far from the tone set by a few contributors so far. It is a public forum, some seem more eager for a private members club.

gandalf wrote: »

Also the fact you say inevitable threads would lead me to believe that you recognise that there is an ongoing issue with the Politics forum yourself?

The arrival of threads complaining about any particular forum are only indicative that it exists. Their validity or otherwise is a different matter, especially considering the habit of people to think that their way is the correct way and none other.

The politics forum is run reasonably well. There's certain things that go on I disagree with, but rarely does anything irk enough for me to feel I should start a 'feedback' thread. I'm also old enough to realise that now and again, I might actually get it wrong.

gandalf

Nodin wrote: »

...somebody was suggested as moderator who I view as too ready to wield the hatchet. I've objected to such before.

Explain what you mean by "wield the hatchet"? Do you mean enforce the rules that already exist in the forum?

That's far from the tone set by a few contributors so far. It is a public forum, some seem more eager for a private members club.

For someone who pertains to being mature you seem to be taken to flights of amateur dramatics on occasion. Where has anyone suggested seriously that it be turned into a private forum, all people are asking for is that the charter in place be enforced in a consistent manner. In previous threads I have come out against Politics ever being restricted to the whole membership of the site and I was responsible for having limited membership to the Soccer forum put in place.

The arrival of threads complaining about any particular forum are only indicative that it exists. Their validity or otherwise is a different matter, especially considering the habit of people to think that their way is the correct way and none other.

The politics forum is run reasonably well. There's certain things that go on I disagree with, but rarely does anything irk enough for me to feel I should start a 'feedback' thread. I'm also old enough to realise that now and again, I might actually get it wrong.

The politics forum is serviced from a moderation point of view in an inconsistent fashion that is effecting the quality of the discourse there for quite a bit of time now. The fact that people have started multiple threads shows that there is on-going concern.

As for getting things wrong we all do we are all human. If this was a once off issue with a single moderation issue then I don't think you would find any threads about it but the problem is that we are not looking at a once off occurrence we are looking at an ongoing problem where the rules in place are not being enforced in a consistent manner. That is the crux to a number of users like me posting in this thread.

Nodin

gandalf wrote: »

Explain what you mean by "wield the hatchet"?
.

I mean people who wish to use Mod powers to enforce a particular view. Or a "huge cull".
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75834235&postcount=39

gandalf wrote: »

Do you mean enforce the rules that already exist in the forum?.

No, more their own interpretation of them.

gandalf wrote: »

For someone who pertains to being mature you seem to be taken to flights of amateur dramatics on occasion. .

As our exchange has gone on, you've been adopting an increasingly hostile and personalised tone. It doesn't help.

gandalf wrote: »

Where has anyone suggested seriously that it be turned into a private forum, all people are asking for is that the charter in place be enforced in a consistent manner. .

Here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75852755&postcount=60
Its essentially the implication of the attitude expressed here (2nd paragraph)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75833092&postcount=35

gandalf wrote: »

The politics forum is serviced from a moderation point of view in an inconsistent fashion that is effecting the quality of the discourse there for quite a bit of time now. The fact that people have started multiple threads shows that there is on-going concern.
.

There will never be 100% consistency. Secondly, this has been about "standards" not consistency, and standards can be a subjective matter.

gandalf

Nodin wrote: »

As a rule I don't answer loaded questions. However - I mean by people who wish to use Mod powers to enforce a particular view. Or a "huge cull".
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75834235&postcount=39

LOL he answered a question honestly when queried by nesf and to be fair I agree with the sentiment. If people cannot be arsed to contribute to the forum in a constructive manner then they should have their access removed.

No, more their own interpretation of them.

That quite a few other share. What is your interpretation of them?

As our exchange has gone on, you've been adopting an increasingly hostile and personalised tone. It doesn't help.

Apologies if I offended but I thought you were mature enough to handle a few barbs. I will sugercoat my comments for your ears in future

Here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75852755&postcount=60

Asking for a separate private forum not as you asserted earlier asking to replace Politics with a "private members club".

Its essentially the implication of the attitude expressed here (2nd paragraph)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75833092&postcount=35

That is your interpretation of it. Mine would be that he wants the charter enforced.

There will never be 100% consistency. Secondly, this has been about "standards" not consistency, and standards can be a subjective matter.

Never asked for 100% but the moderators attempting to work in a co-ordinated fashion would be a nice start.