Mods need to step up in Politics Forum

nesf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I did no bitching I just pointed out the type of posts that add nothing to debates plus commented that I, personally, have been on the receiving end of 'oh, that's just left-wing crap' by some here who are bitching about how the charter is not enforced.

Perhaps those who are actually bitching should ensure they, themselves, stick to the rules before complaining about the MODS.

TBH I gave up reporting as it seemed a pointless king Cnut against the tide activity.

*shrugs*

I wasn't saying you were bitching I was speaking generally. I just actioned the post you pointed out, though I had to search for it. If it had been reported it'd have been dealt with earlier. Really we need stuff reported. We've enough mods now that we can action posts relatively quickly but there's a drought of reported posts etc.

Bannasidhe

nesf wrote: »

*shrugs*

I wasn't saying you were bitching I was speaking generally. I just actioned the post you pointed out, though I had to search for it. If it had been reported it'd have been dealt with earlier. Really we need stuff reported. We've enough mods now that we can action posts relatively quickly but there's a drought of reported posts etc.

Fair enough.

I think I may be like many others who felt in the past that reporting achieved nothing so stopped bothering. Personally, I now skip over the posts like the one I mentioned - be they from the right or the left - as if that is the best the poster can come up with by way of debate then no need to read it as I've heard it before - and it was a crap excuse for an argument then too .
I only noticed that one as I had been following the discussion here with interest.

nesf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Fair enough.

I think I may be like many others who felt in the past that reporting achieved nothing so stopped bothering. Personally, I now skip over the posts like the one I mentioned - be they from the right or the left - as if that is the best the poster can come up with by way of debate then no need to read it as I've heard it before - and it was a crap excuse for an argument then too .
I only noticed that one as I had been following the discussion here with interest.

Our thinking at the moment is that we target certain things. Ad hominem is close to the top of that list. Please report it, we might not always agree that it's actionable but there's no harm in reporting so long as you don't spam us.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This came up the last time and the reason was mods not having enough time so we added more mods but the reported posts didn't come. We now have more mod time than reported posts where it used to be the opposite. People should have started to report posts again after the last feedback thread but it didn't happen etc.

I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just pointing out that if it's not being reported it's not reasonable to be annoyed with us for not doing more.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Haven't been around much the last couple of days. I do report posts but again that is a matter of opinion as well, just like the mods. Tbh I could report 10/15 posts a day from reading threads but I tend to report the odd one because I don't want to overwhelm the mods. The vast majority of posts I'd report are actioned so it isn't the "silly reports" thing, its more so, so many are reportable and then you've the element of "both sides are at it", so I just leave it.

The "lets put all left wingers in one convenient box" post
quotes here are an example, doesn't seem to happen as much with right wingers though that's probably my bias.

That's the thing I'd note from this feedback thread, I think it was nesf who pointed out there is mud throwing from all sides on libertarian theory threads and republican ones, as good examples. When reading threads it gets to the the stage there are so many to report on both sides, it becomes pointless so I let them at it! If a thread is just pointless snipes at each other I would try and report and say it might be better closing it, but that's rare.

The political theory thread should be a higher level of discourse to me though. I think open and questioning posts are fine, I've asked pretty simple questions in there and as long as I asked respectfully, always got a response in kind. Coming in saying libertarians want to eat babies isn't really going to lead to any meaningful discussion. The problem is somebody is going to respond in kind and away we go.

Overheal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Personally I don't see this, I find that I report posts more when mods are not seemingly willing to act, and much less so when the mods appear to be active and involved.

Reports are a fantastic way of letting mods know what the posters in the forum feel the standard should be. More importantly it signals the users want some action taken; without reports a mod is left there wondering half the time "Is it necessary to intervene or will this sort itself out".

ed2hands

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear, just a few quick points. Am presuming i am the 'cohort'(or one of them) you are reffering to.
Am a tad peeved at being referred to in such a way, and for that matter to be called a troll.
Just to emphasise i'm not disputing that my posts have been harshly critical of the subject, but i certainly did not post them to troll. Nor have i used ad hominems except maybe when insults were levelled at me (which they were without good reason).
I do take on board the mods desire for more discussion though.

Have to point out that i do feel you yourself have posted (and thanked)the exact same type and worse of post you are complaining about on the Occupy theads; ie cutting,harsh,ridiculing.

Ironically, i first started browsing around then, saw some of your and others style on those threads, and presumed they were a normal/semi-acceptable if not large part of the forums daily happenings.
Am not having a go now, or saying you are never an interesting poster or anything like that. Just doing a little potkettleblacking i suppose.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hmm.
Wouldn't be too fond of that term either tbh if it was referring to me..

RichieC

nesf wrote: »

And this kind of ad hominem crap that fails to attack the argument is exactly what I'd like to eradicate from the forum.

I'm sorry but there was no Ad Hominem in that post you quoted.

"libertarianism is wrong because Permabear believes in it" - Ad hominem.

I worry that word is being bandied around. I've never suggested in a forum post that libertarianism is wrong because of the posters.

I have suggested Objectivisism is wrong because Ayn Rand "invented" it. I could have easily said it's wrong because it's near identical to LaVeyen Satanism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

RichieC wrote: »

I'm sorry but there was no Ad Hominem in that post you quoted.

"libertarianism is wrong because Permabear believes in it" - Ad hominem.

I worry that word is being bandied around. I've never suggested in a forum post that libertarianism is wrong because of the posters.

I have suggested Objectivisism is wrong because Ayn Rand "invented" it. I could have easily said it's wrong because it's near identical to LaVeyen Satanism.

The Prince of Rationality part of your post was the Ad Hominem. You make a negative and/or mocking point about the person and then use that to discredit their position.

RichieC

nesf wrote: »

The Prince of Rationality part of your post was the Ad Hominem. You make a negative and/or mocking point about the person and then use that to discredit their position.

No it wasn't. I was pointing out the hypocrisy.

nesf

RichieC wrote: »

No it wasn't. I was pointing out the hypocrisy.

But your post doesn't look that way or read that way and that's what matters. You should be playing the ball not the man in posts in 99% of cases (I'll grant there are ones where this doesn't apply but this isn't one).

RichieC

nesf wrote: »

But your post doesn't look that way or read that way and that's what matters. You should be playing the ball not the man in posts in 99% of cases (I'll grant there are ones where this doesn't apply but this isn't one).

I did that the other night and still got a red card for it. A warning for calling someone in a youtube video a meathead? that is outrageous, especially considering the content of the video.

I could guarantee I could call all Irish politicians worse and no one would open their mouths.

But no... speak ill of libertarians and you have the mods down on you like a ton of bricks, who are also, as it happens, Libertarians.

nesf

RichieC wrote: »

I did that the other night and still got a red card for it. A warning for calling someone in a youtube video a meathead? that is outrageous, especially considering the content of the video.

I could guarantee I could call all Irish politicians worse and no one would open their mouths.

In a thread on Objectivism what did you think would happen? It's off-topic and bull. In an attack thread on Libertarianism your post wouldn't have been sanctioned. Time and place.

And feck off with the claims of bias, the vast majority of the mods, myself included, think Libertarianism is wrong.

RichieC

nesf wrote: »

In a thread on Objectivism what did you think would happen? It's off-topic and bull. In an attack thread on Libertarianism your post wouldn't have been sanctioned. Time and place.

The comment was directed at the head of the ARI.. it was pertinent to the topic. I was pointing out the the "atheist" organisation is a pro Zionist organisation.

Information I think readers of the thread are entitled to know. Ayn herself was a staunch zionist and Anti Arabic racist. are these comments off topic?

I don't think they are.

"And feck off with the claims of bias, the vast majority of the mods, myself included, think Libertarianism is wrong."

Well they are obviously giving more protections to their holy cow threads if that's the case.

No way in the world my post deserved a red card, ed2hands either.

nesf

RichieC wrote: »

The comment was directed at the head of the ARI.. it was pertinent to the topic. I was pointing out the the "atheist" organisation is a pro Zionist organisation.

Information I think readers of the thread are entitled to know. Ayn herself was a staunch zionist and Anti Arabic racist. are these comments off topic?

I don't think they are.

But that is bloody ad hominem. Whether Rand was a baby murdering mass rapist or not makes no difference as to whether her philosophy made sense.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichieC

nesf wrote: »

But that is bloody ad hominem. Whether Rand was a baby murdering mass rapist or not makes no difference as to whether her philosophy made sense.

oh, please, are we going to point out every logical fallacy that's not directed at a poster and red card it? I bloody well doubt it.

Pointing out a person who created a philosophies personal faults is well within the realm of fair.

Naz_st

Just had a quick scan through this thread, and as a long-time daily reader but seldom poster on the politics forum, I thought I'd mention that recently (last year or so) I've noticed that the way I use the forum has changed subtly, but in a way that might lend support to the suggestion of degradation of post quality. I find myself more often than not these days when reading a thread, scrolling quickly down the page and keeping an eye out for posts:
- by a moderator (bold name)
- by certain poster's names I recognise as generally making good points (regardless of whether their political persuasion is akin to my own)
- that have high numbers of thanks

I tend to simply ignore the rest. Sadly, if there was a way to whitelist posters in the forum and only show their posts I'd probably do so...

RichieC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Correct, I don't see the problem and I do not think it is reasonable at all.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Certainly the one's who have sanctioned me. Bluewolf and Black Swan. though, Black Swans sanction was actually fair. my post was certainly over the line in that case, though hardly egregious.

nesf

RichieC wrote: »

oh, please, are we going to point out every logical fallacy that's not directed at a poster and red card it? I bloody well doubt it.

Pointing out a person who created a philosophies personal faults is well within the realm of fair.

It is bloody well not in a thread on philosophy in the Political Theory forum and you will either obey this rule or be banned from the forum, it is that simple.

Bannasidhe

nesf wrote: »

But that is bloody ad hominem. Whether Rand was a baby murdering mass rapist or not makes no difference as to whether her philosophy made sense.

But - just to play Devil's Advocate here - was Rand's philosophy not based upon, and informed by, her personal opinions and experiences making reference to those opinions pertinent to a discussion of a political ideology based in part on her philosophy?

Could we, for example, discuss National Socialism in Germany without also referencing its Anti-Semitism?

I used to lecture in the political theorists of the 16th/17th/18th centuries and found it was impossible to explain the political pronouncements of the likes of Grotius, Knox, Hobbes, Voltaire, Rousseau, Locke etc without placing them in the context of the times and societies they lived in. Hobbes and his advocacy of a strong central power makes sense when you know he lived through the English civil war and Cromwell's dictatorship.

RichieC

Well as I already stated I will be leaving them to their circle jerk.

Why wasn't that thread put to the philosophy forum if it is philosophy anyway? My gut tells me Rand would be laughed out of the forum.

nesf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But - just to play Devil's Advocate here - was Rand's philosophy not based upon, and informed by, her personal opinions and experiences making reference to those opinions pertinent to a discussion of a political ideology based in part on her philosophy?

Could we, for example, discuss National Socialism in Germany without also referencing its Anti-Semitism?

I used to lecture in the political theorists of the 16th/17th/18th centuries and found it was impossible to explain the political pronouncements of the likes of Grotius, Knox, Hobbes, Voltaire, Rousseau, Locke etc without placing them in the context of the times and societies they lived in. Hobbes and his advocacy of a strong central power makes sense when you know he lived through the English civil war and Cromwell's dictatorship.

Showing that her philosophy is informed by the context of her time and prevailing political and philosophical opinions then is fine. To dismiss her point purely because she was a zionist is not ok.

Edit: I should expand on this. Showing that her philosophy is informed by her Zionism is fine generally, dismissing her philosophy because she was a Zionist isn't. But you have to show the Zionist influence for it to be relevant and even then you can't reject the entire philosophy unless you can show that it is broadly informed by her Zionism. Etc.

nesf

RichieC wrote: »

Why wasn't that thread put to the philosophy forum if it is philosophy anyway? My gut tells me Rand would be laughed out of the forum.

Maybe because Political Theory implicitly involves discussions of politics and philosophy and the intersection between them?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

nesf wrote: »

Showing that her philosophy is informed by the context of her time and prevailing political and philosophical opinions then is fine. To dismiss her point purely because she was a zionist is not ok.

Edit: I should expand on this. Showing that her philosophy is informed by her Zionism is fine generally, dismissing her philosophy because she was a Zionist isn't. But you have to show the Zionist influence for it to be relevant and even then you can't reject the entire philosophy unless you can show that it is broadly informed by her Zionism. Etc.

What I thought.

My issue here is that in one thread I was discussing the implications of Laissez Faire as a political system and that lack of governmental regulation of employment practices enabled horrendous exploitation of workers (historical fact) only do have this dismissed out of hand ( paraphrasing slightly as it was a while ago) 'the same old Dickensian Crap being trotted out' by one of the most vocal Libertarian advocates for greater enforcement of the charter rules on this thread.

I do think that if people practised what they are preaching here the standards would rise - lead by example and all that.

nesf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What I thought.

My issue here is that in one thread I was discussing the implications of Laissez Faire as a political system and that lack of governmental regulation of employment practices enabled horrendous exploitation of workers (historical fact) only do have this dismissed out of hand ( paraphrasing slightly as it was a while ago) 'the same old Dickensian Crap being trotted out' by one of the most vocal Libertarian advocates for greater enforcement of the charter rules on this thread.

I do think that if people practised what they are preaching here the standards would rise - lead by example and all that.

Is that a historical fact though? Was the exploitation of workers caused by the political system or something else? Etc. I agree it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but if it is dismissed out of hand well then that's obvious to everyone and I hope people know who to take seriously.