Moderation in the Irish Water thread?

Going Forward

After much soul searching an Irish Water thread was reopened.

It gets good views on boards.

At the time of reopening there were warnings about behaviour etc.

Things appeared to be going reasonably bar the odd hiccup.

Over the past weekend things went into meltdown.

One poster was relentlessly baited, but quite bizarrely the intended victim got a ban.

I was accused of being a member of some organisation by another poster.

I reported the post and no response.

I've PMed two Mods about it, one hasn't replied the other, who in the thread advised people who have problems with how the thread is moderated, to PM a mod but when I did he won't discuss what was posted and advised me to post here.

What exactly is the point of publicly advising people to PM a mod if they they're either going to ignore it or say, not my problem, go somewhere else.

Let's face it, a mod reminding people to pm mods is not anticipating that the PMs are going to be of a complimentary nature.

They're naturally going to be highlighting perceived problems.

There's really no point in mods when they actually receiving the PMs then hiding behind excuses such as

a. Saying they didn't actually see the thread implode, that's fine, no one expects them to be online all the time, but the posts are still there to discuss. As is the inaction of any mod to single them out.

Instead later, everyone gets a blanket warning and cards start getting handed out with renewed vigour particularly to anyone who's been on the receiving end of what wasn't being moderated in the first place.

b. I'm only voluntary here, miss some stuff, not getting involved, go away PM someone else about it or bring it to feedback.

c. If you don't like it you can close your account.

or worse still not even replying.

I'd like someone to explain what is the point of having mods if they're only going to be closing the door after the horse has bolted.

I tried to intervene in the baiting episode but was later accused of back seat moderation by others.

I did that after the suggestion during the down period of the cafe that threads might be self moderating.

I'd like someone to have a look at this.

The Hill Billy

Your first port of call in instances where you see an issue with forum moderation should be the CMods.

I presume that the thread you are referring to is the Irish Water discussion thread in Politics Café. If that's the case - I'd suggest sending a PM with the details to bluewolf, K-9 or Toots (I think mike_ie is afk at the moment) so that they can look into the matter for you.

tHB

Decent Skin

I have to concur with Going Forward above.

I was personally told in-thread that I should "see someone" due to being not "all there" (slight paraphrase as I can't remember the exact phrase); that was reported and no action taken.

I was then challenged to explain a post and did so via revealing some minimal personal info, highlighting that it was off-topic; this resulted in me being asked to reveal further info, and baited that if I didn't reply that it would "show that (I'm) a spoofer" - note: not "spoofing", but the personalised version.

That's when GF intervened and the poster admitted - twice - that they were baiting. Again no action taken.

There certainly seemed to be a concerted effort to go off-topic and ensure that I would no longer participate.

I then got a message from a mod saying that because of below par posting that I was banned for a month; that in itself doesn't particularly bother me as the thread was gone to pot at that stage and I had said on-thread that I was bowing out until people wanted to discuss the actual issues, but IMHO there was some horrendously biased lack of moderation going on as well as some woeful levels of personal digs and off-topic postings, as well as a blatant double-standards petty challenging and smearing of "one side" of posters and backslapping / cheerleading of their own.

As I said, I got sucked in by the end, so no major issues re the ban (apart from maybe the length) but there has to be some even-handedness and consistency; despite the mod telling me that "appropriate cards and bans were handed out", the other posters involved have no cards visible beside their names / posts and are still posting.

I've closed an account before due to the same rubbish, even to the point of being accused of something that I didn't do (a complete misinterpretation of my backing-up of an anti's post) and am very tempted to do so again after the above.

Beasty

This feels like a complaint rather than feedback

Decent Skin

Beasty wrote: »

This feels like a complaint rather than feedback

Maybe so, but Is a complaint not merely negative feedback ?

Beasty

The Help Desk forum is supposed to deal with complaints

Lovely Bloke

yeah the usual, criticise mods around here and anyone who can do anything about it starts to obfuscate, bluster and do anything BUT deal with the complaint.

What difference does it make where it's dealt with? An Admin has already posted in this thread and not told the OP to do one to some other backwater of the site.

"Computer says no, CMod says no" - it's all a part of the Mods.ie reputation this site has.

Looks, it seems the user above has set out his complaint in a fair manner, outlining his points and not getting emotional about it, not calling anyone names, and generally being polite, and still he gets this absolutely infuriating treatment.

If he goes off on one after this it will be really convenient for the "powers that be" can use that to ignore him and dismiss him as just another loudmouth malcontent.

Instead of, you know, looking at the issue and addressing the complaint.

Instead he gets the red tape treatment. You started this in the wrong area, sorry, computer says no.

Beasty

Well here we simply get the usual suspects coming in to have their rants against anyone they see in authority around here

Decent Skin

Beasty wrote: »

Well here we simply get the usual suspects coming in to have their rants against anyone they see in authority around here

First time here so I hardly qualify as a "usual suspect" ?

And even usual suspects (whoever they are) surely have a point from time to time ?

If it were a "rant against anyone in authority" then I certainly wouldn't have commented, backing up the OP's completely accurate account 100%, however as it is quite obviously more than that it's unclear as to why you made that statement or referred a real issue in such a dismissive manner ?

Beasty

Decent Skin wrote: »

First time here so I hardly qualify as a "usual suspect" ?

And even usual suspects (whoever they are) surely have a point from time to time ?

If it were a "rant against anyone in authority" then I certainly wouldn't have commented, backing up the OP's completely accurate account 100%, however as it is quite obviously more than that it's unclear as to why you made that statement or referred a real issue in such a dismissive manner ?

My comments were certainly not aimed at you or the OP

Decent Skin

Beasty wrote: »

My comments were certainly not aimed at you or the OP

Appreciate the clarification.

dudara

As THB has suggested, please contact the relevant CMods first.

As this is a specific complaint about a thread in PC, let's treat it as such. Any generic complaints should not be posted here. Otherwise, we'll start circling the drain again.

The Hill Billy

Sweet Jesus! We're damned if we do, Baldy & we"re damned if we don't.

If we are perceived to bend the rules you jump up & down. If we explain the rules - you still jump up & down. It doesn't bloody matter what we do - does it?

I'm only hoping that other posters are starting to see your Feedback 'contributions' for what they are - just an opportunity for you to stick your finger in any passing wound & have a good root to cause a bit of pain where it's not necessary.

Stheno

dudara wrote: »

As THB has suggested, please contact the relevant CMods first.

As this is a specific complaint about a thread in PC, let's treat it as such. Any generic complaints should not be posted here. Otherwise, we'll start circling the drain again.

That's my bad that op posted here I told them to to to feedback or a cmod

Alf Stewart.

Yellow carded on thread for posting that someone's experience of a website was, and I used this exact phrase, "careless with the truth".

It was a "personal dig" apparently.

I thought the purpose of the thread was to debate. If someone is exaggerating, I thought it right, and in the spirit of the debate to point it out.

It's a confusing forum, hard to know what's actionable and what's not these days.


Here's the flow of discussion.

Godge wrote: »

Boylan has asked several questions.

I did try and go on the Sinn Fein website and find them. Unfortunately, they aren't easy and I kept being asked to become an online supporter. Maybe that would have given me access but I got fed up with it.

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

You mean this box appeared?



I think you might be a bit careless with the truth there.

That warranted a yellow?

C'mon.

dudara

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Yellow carded on thread ....
That warranted a yellow?

C'mon.

Have you contacted the relevant mod, or failing that, started a DRP thread? Feedback is not the place for this.

Alf Stewart.

dudara wrote: »

Have you contacted the relevant mod,

I comtacted them alright.

They said "what would I call it, if it wasn't a personal dig"

I explained caliing someone out on an exaggeration was hardly a personal dig, that's what debates are about.

or failing that, started a DRP thread? Feedback is not the place for this.

No, I feel highlighting it in feedback is more apt.

The modding is inconsistent, it's laughable.

dudara

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

No, I feel highlighting it in feedback is more apt.

The modding is inconsistent, it's laughable.

DRP is the place for contesting mod actions and having them examined in a consistent process. A track record of DRPs helps CMods and Admins establish where things are working well and where they are not.

Going Forward

dudara wrote: »

As THB has suggested, please contact the relevant CMods first.

As this is a specific complaint about a thread in PC, let's treat it as such. Any generic complaints should not be posted here. Otherwise, we'll start circling the drain again.

Acknowledged.

I have no interest in spectators chipping in their 2 cents worth either.

But I was advised to bring it up here by the moderator who did reply to my PMs.

I've no interest in going to a private messaging system on this, because anyone interested, be they CMods or otherwise, can just look at the thread and come to their own conclusions.

I don't envisage anyone admitting, nor have I any interest in getting someone to admit that they havent been moderating in a balanced fashion either.

But there is a renewed vigour for moderation in the thread evident now and it appears more balanced.

I don't think you'll find too many posters seeking that, so you can take it that my bona fides are genuine.

Something seems to have happened, in spite of mods not replying to my PMs.

How long it lasts of course, will be the test.

Decent Skin

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Yellow carded on thread for posting that someone's experience of a website was, and I used this exact phrase, "careless with the truth".

It was a "personal dig" apparently.

I thought the purpose of the thread was to debate. If someone is exaggerating, I thought it right, and in the spirit of the debate to point it out.

It's a confusing forum, hard to know what's actionable and what's not these days.


Here's the flow of discussion.


That warranted a yellow?

C'mon.

The same poster referred to by Alf above described someone else's post as "a lie" today; that'd be worst than "careless with the truth", but again, no action towards them, but there was towards Alf and this "side".

padd b1975

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

just curious what the P in DRP stands for?

Dispute Resolution Process.

I think.....

Decent Skin

dudara wrote: »

DRP is the place for contesting mod actions and having them examined in a consistent process. A track record of DRPs helps CMods and Admins establish where things are working well and where they are not.

Personal experience of last time out was that the two heavy handed inconsistent moderation issues - about the exact same thread - were "marked as resolved" with no action done when I closed the account, so I doubt they showed up on anyone's track record or as an issue to be fixed ?

dudara

What can we do when you close your account and no longer engage? We can't leave it hang open indefinitely, so the accepted procedure is to close the DRP thread. Either way, the thread is preserved in our archive for future reference or review.

Stheno

Decent Skin wrote: »

The same poster referred to by Alf above described someone else's post as "a lie" today; that'd be worst than "careless with the truth", but again, no action towards them, but there was towards Alf and this "side".

That's incorrect.

intheclouds

dudara wrote: »

What can we do when you close your account and no longer engage? We can't leave it hang open indefinitely, so the accepted procedure is to close the DRP thread. Either way, the thread is preserved in our archive for future reference or review.

They shouldn't be marked with a green happy Resolved, if they have been not been resolved in favour of the poster. It totally skews it when you look at the thread titles, like things are being happily resolved but when you dig in its not so.

The Hill Billy

Stay on-topic please. This thread is not about DRP tags.

tHB

Alf Stewart.

Stheno wrote: »

That's incorrect.

I seen that yellow, and thought it harsh also.

This is a site to debate. When someone isn't being truthful, and it's pointed out to them, that is hardly fair, or warranted to card them?

What is the correct protocol when someone is being dishonest/posting nonsense or exaggerating?

There does be some bizarre moderation decisions on that thread at times.

Decent Skin

dudara wrote: »

What can we do when you close your account and no longer engage? We can't leave it hang open indefinitely, so the accepted procedure is to close the DRP thread. Either way, the thread is preserved in our archive for future reference or review.

I engaged in the first and got absolutely nowhere, with suggestions that a complete misinterpretation would be upheld (with no steps to check with the poster supposedly "slighted", as I can guarantee that that poster would have laughed at the suggestion that I was having a go at them) so it is certainly incorrect to mark them as "Resolved" when neither was; "Closed" would be a more accurate reflection of the facts, as anyone glancing over the thread would realise that they were not, in fact, "Resolved".

Anyway, that was just an aside which was merely to highlight that the self-confessed baiting and harassment over the weekend is not an isolated incident, and there is an ongoing issue with that IW thread and its moderation.

The weekend just gone which prompted the OP was, however, absolutely crazy in terms of who was responsible for what, and subsequently who was let away with what.

Edit: was typing the above when Hillbilly requested the DRP, so while the reference above is relevant in-context I do not want to be viewed as ignoring same

dudara

intheclouds wrote: »

They shouldn't be marked with a green happy Resolved, if they have been not been resolved in favour of the poster. It totally skews it when you look at the thread titles, like things are being happily resolved but when you dig in its not so.

"Resolved" not does automatically mean a favourable outcome, and it is not meant to imply that. "Resolved" simply means that an outcome has been reached. This can be both for, and against the OP.

In the case of someone closing their account, what can we do? They are no longer engaging with the process, and the Admin decision is to close the DRP, hence marking it as resolved.

EDIT: I also posted while THB was typing, so let's leave it here, if you don't mind.

Decent Skin

Stheno wrote: »

That's incorrect.

If that is the case then my apologies on that single aspect; I certainly did not see anything when viewing (while logged out) while checking what "appropriate actions" were taken after the PM exchange regarding my ban.

Stheno

Decent Skin wrote: »

If that is the case then my apologies on that single aspect; I certainly did not see anything when viewing (while logged out) while checking what "appropriate actions" were taken after the PM exchange regarding my ban.

It is as Alf has referenced.

and therein lies the problem, people can miss that action is taken, they may not be aware if people have been banned etc. Or then you have views that action is too lenient or too harsh, as we've seen on this thread.

With a forum like the cafe, and particularly with threads like Irish Water there appears to be no middle ground, you've two sides of the argument who refuse to meet anywhere in the middle.

In my opinion, closing the thread permanently would not be a bad idea, as at this stage it's simply an echo chamber of the same subject matter going around and around in circles. Not that I'm suggesting that will happen however.