A respectful discussion about the perception of liberal bias...

hatrickpatrick

...in Boards' moderation.

Title appropriated from a post by Permabear, plagiarism complaints can be delivered by PM along with an appropriately amusing selection of dank memes.

A moderator locked the original discussion thread, which was discussing the closure on Politics Cafe of a thread about perceived liberal hypocrisy, but stipulated that we could continue the conversation in a new thread, one which did not address a specific instance of moderation which has now been resolved (but without the issues around it having been resolved).

Here's my last post from that thread:

My argument here is that the thread was completely innocuous, and any mod looking at it should have said "shouldn't have been reported, case closed". It broke no rules and violated no aspect of the charter, and I can't imagine any reason for it being reported other than "we don't want a mens' rights circlejerk". The problem with that is that there are countless other circlejerks which are allowed on Boards no questions asked, and it's when only a handful of subjects or topics of conversation are flagged as "potentially problematic" and therefore worthy of pre-emptive thread closure, that one arrives at a conclusion of either (a) Boards is hypersensitive to certain subjects and doesn't want them discussed lest "objectionable" viewpoints be aired, or (b) Boards is hypersensitive to controversy and doesn't want heated debate of any kind.

The many Sinn Fein threads over the years easily constitute a hyperbolic load of hyperbollocks ( ), but you don't see them being locked after just 5 posts. Same with Israel/Palestine threads, same with water charges threads, same with threads about crooked politicians, etc. But once a thread is about a sacred cow tenet of the social justice movement - abortion, feminism, immigration, religion to name just a few - it tends to be kept very strictly under the thumb of the mods, if it's even allowed at all. God forbid anyone have a lively and heated discussion on these subjects, mirite?

You must admit that it's become very difficult to continue to believe that Boards does not engage in ideological policing at least to some extent. This wasn't always the case. If I could pinpoint when it began, I think I'd point to somewhere in the region of late 2011 - mid 2012. It has accelerated wildly in the last two years, to the point at which anything remotely controversial tends to get suppressed or neutered as quickly as possible.

And I want to point out that I'm a left wing poster myself and I tend to actually agree with the viewpoint Boards is perceived as pedalling. I just don't come to an online discussion forum to have my own views reinforced in a totally artificial echo chamber in which dissenting voices are silenced - what's the point? I can go off and talk to myself if that's what I'm looking for. :pac:

Boards, as I see it, is coming to resemble the film "Hot Fuzz" - spoiler warning -

The neighbourhood watch committee in an "idyllic", peaceful rural town in England achieves total harmony and happiness by discreetly murdering anybody who so much as steps on a protected blade of grass or hands a painting slightly crooked.

So let's have that discussion we were told we could have!

LoLth

slightly edited to title to make it a discussion and not a statement.


edit: feck! I did a nice long post to respond to this but the proxy here decided it didnt like the session I was in and that I should have another session instead with all new content created.... I'll rewrite if I get the time. yay for wasted lunch break \o/

Chips Lovell

I would hope that Boards would engage in ideological policing, at least to some extent.

Stuff like racist, homophobic or woman bashing threads, I'd expect to be shut down in short order. If they weren't, I'd lose interest in coming here very quickly.

seamus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My argument here is that the thread was completely innocuous, and any mod looking at it should have said "shouldn't have been reported, case closed".

Surely that depends on the reason it was reported though, right?
The main point of contention here appears to be the fact that it was locked without any kind of explanation, which was an oversight by the mod, a simple and common mistake to make.

It broke no rules and violated no aspect of the charter, and I can't imagine any reason for it being reported other than "we don't want a mens' rights circlejerk". The problem with that is that there are countless other circlejerks which are allowed on Boards no questions asked

But of course, it wasn't disallowed.

It was locked for review or whatever, a pretty common thing to do. Then reopened again.

You can't say this only happened because it was a pot shot at "liberals", whatever that's supposed to be. Because it could have and does happen to loads of other threads.

But once a thread is about a sacred cow tenet of the social justice movement - abortion, feminism, immigration, religion to name just a few - it tends to be kept very strictly under the thumb of the mods

Because these are the noisiest topics. Can you point me to any other social topics which are contentious but don't involve people constantly throwing around inanities like SJW, liberal, etc?

On an off-topic-ish sidenote; it goes to show just how meaningless labels like "liberal" are when a news site calling itself "theliberal.ie" is a mouthpiece for conservative catholic opinion pieces.

LoLth

My argument here is that the thread was completely innocuous, and any mod looking at it should have said "shouldn't have been reported, case closed". It broke no rules and violated no aspect of the charter, and I can't imagine any reason for it being reported other than "we don't want a mens' rights circlejerk". The problem with that is that there are countless other circlejerks which are allowed on Boards no questions asked, and it's when only a handful of subjects or topics of conversation are flagged as "potentially problematic" and therefore worthy of pre-emptive thread closure, that one arrives at a conclusion of either (a) Boards is hypersensitive to certain subjects and doesn't want them discussed lest "objectionable" viewpoints be aired, or (b) Boards is hypersensitive to controversy and doesn't want heated debate of any kind.

A few things here.

1. the reason for the thread closure has been explained as a mistake. Not a deliberate attempt to stifle opinion but a mod consulting co-mods to determine if the thread was better suited elsewhere. A post should have been made to say this was the case, it wasnt, admins were notified, admins spoke to mods and cmods, case resovled. To continue to assume it had some darker ulterior motive behind the closure is pure speculation and not very conducive to a productive discussion. Neither by the way, is describing threads you may not agree with or consider uninteresting as a "circlejerk". Its an offensive (in terms of being aggressive) term and has no place in a respectful discussion and, imho, undermines the validity of your own argument and opinion.

as for your conclusions:

a. Of course there are subjects that boards doesnt want discussed, or at least handled very carefully if they are discussed. These are usually for legal reasons only such as the discussion of illegal imagery or medical advice given by anonymous accounts or links to sources of copyrighted material. Women's / Men's / heterosexual / homosexual rights do not fall under this umbrella, neithe rdoes religion however there are still limiting factors such as hatespeech / blasphmey / incitement / slander to be considered. Look at the news and tell me that society in Ireland has not become more litigious in recent years. Now look at boards and see how exposed it is. There has to be some form of restriction, this is a private website, hosted by Irish owners and it has accountability. There are alternatives out there that do not have such restrictions, I personally find the level f interaction on such fora to be far inferior to the discourse to be found here but thats personal preference and my perception.

b. not true. heated debate is good. The best points are raised through heated debate. there was an excellent AH debate recently that I really enjoyed. (I will link when I get a chance to look for it) Its when heated debate turns to soapboxing / personal attacks / deliberate insult that the issues arise. Is modding heavier on some topics? yes. it has to be because not all topics are equal in the eyes of the user. you criticise the colour of someone's shirt, thats generally ok. You call their faith into question and, in many instances, we are already into reported post for personal abuse/trolling/baiting. its the nature of discussion.

The many Sinn Fein threads over the years easily constitute a hyperbolic load of hyperbollocks ( ), but you don't see them being locked after just 5 posts. Same with Israel/Palestine threads, same with water charges threads, same with threads about crooked politicians, etc. But once a thread is about a sacred cow tenet of the social justice movement - abortion, feminism, immigration, religion to name just a few - it tends to be kept very strictly under the thumb of the mods, if it's even allowed at all. God forbid anyone have a lively and heated discussion on these subjects,

ther ehave been many many SF threads closed. and many SF-oriented posters banned in the past. Most notably to me in teh run up to an election when the SF social(ist?) media get rolling and they are scarily effective at thread derailing and subtle soapboxing. That you havent noticed this is unusual, or is testament to the good work done by mods in the past. As for your list of topics, these are emotive topics so, as I already suggested, they provoke reaction and attract trolls as well as those who hold contraversial opinions. More reaction equals more mod attention required which would naturally translate into a perception of heavier modding.

mirite?

this smacks of trying to play to an audience and I have no idea why you have chosen to include it in a written opinion. to answer your question, in my opinion, no you are not.

You must admit that it's become very difficult to continue to believe that Boards does not engage in ideological policing at least to some extent. This wasn't always the case.

in this you are wrong. boards has always had moderation and has always policed its content. Of course there is an element of ideological policing, there has to be.

If I could pinpoint when it began, I think I'd point to somewhere in the region of late 2011 - mid 2012.

are you alluding to an event or are you perhaps conflating several events such as the passing of the blasphemy laws and the EU laws on the responsibility of online media?

It has accelerated wildly in the last two years, to the point at which anything remotely controversial tends to get suppressed or neutered as quickly as possible.

again you assume that it is only boards that has changed and not the userbase demographic and the way in which social media usage has changed. Should boards move faster to react to this? should boards move at all? should boards distance itself from facebook style "look at me" and twitter opinion-by-link-to-other-opinion ? Our users will decide that ultimately and as an admin I will try to influence that decision based on hwat I think is best for the site, even if it is commercially sub-optimal or not the most popular option available.

And I want to point out that I'm a left wing poster myself and I tend to actually agree with the viewpoint Boards is perceived as pedalling. I just don't come to an online discussion forum to have my own views reinforced in a totally artificial echo chamber in which dissenting voices are silenced - what's the point? I can go off and talk to myself if that's what I'm looking for.

Completely agree on the echo chamber point. I dont want that either and funnily enough neither does anyone on boards, except for those that misuse the site for pontificating their beliefs or soapboxing their political agendas. There is a line though between encouraging debate and allowing repetition of the same debate time and again. no one wants to see the same consorship / religion / sexuality / children / politics discussion play out for the hundreth time between one or the other set of the same posters again and again and again.

I, personally, think onlne discussion has become more and more difficult to moderate and manage and it is to the detriment of online communities in general. I would love to tell you honestly what I thought of the restaurant I had dinner in last week but laws differing between how my opinion is treated when I say it to a few people in the pub and when I post it publicly on a forum that has the potential (note: just potential, not actual) to be read by thousands make the expression of my honest opinion impossible. Now think how much more sensitive those passionate about politically "hot" topics are.


on a final note: the fact that this thread is open and that you could post on the last feedback thread without sanction would surely render your comparison at the end of your post inaccurate.

maregal

The OP is 100% correct in their observations and I salute him for raising the issue even though the mod bias works in his favour. This is not a new issue. Boards.ie 's reputation precedes it and it is well known to be a bastion of hypersensitive leftism and quick to engage in censorship. Having said that, the issue only affects politically-themed threads which constitute only a fraction of the site.

I've noticed that at least one mod is staunchly pro-Palestinian. This is fine for a regular poster, but mods by their inherent nature should be neutral. Solution? Appoint mods who are apathetic to politics, have no history of discussing same, and can be trusted to moderate without bias. Solution two: Don't cave under pressure from the SJW crowd. These agitators love to stir up drama and delight in labeling their opponents as bigots, racists, and misogynists, all the while smashing the report button. Their sheer numbers can pressurize a mod into taking action even though it's not warranted. Finally, allow threads to run their natural course rather than preemptively locking them because you predict they'll get "messy" (whatever that means).

Chips Lovell

What does SJW stand for?

Wibbs

Social Justice Warrior. Another imported Yank term, like "cuck" etc. Lots of the lines drawn are imported from the same source too.

Chips Lovell

I've seen "cuck" being used a bit recently. Kind of baffled how an insult last used in Shakespearean drama has managed to be revived.

LoLth

maregal wrote: »

The OP is 100% correct in their observations and I salute him for raising the issue even though the mod bias works in his favour. This is not a new issue.

no its not. No one has denied any form of policing, in fact I believe I have already stated that its always been here.

Boards.ie's reputation precedes it and it is well known to be a bastion of hypersensitive leftism and quick to engage in censorship.

you seem to have a way of getting those you are talking to on your side. please continue with these wonderful assertions.

Having said that, the issue only affects politically-themed threads which constitute only a fraction of the site.

I think you will find that there has to be an element of protectionism for more than just political threads. Religion , social issues, demographics, humanitarian, technological, legal etc. I'm pretty sure almost every topic has some degree of disagreement and also has a line that is considered "too far" by the law if not the majority of society.

I've noticed that at least one mod is staunchly pro-Palestinian. This is fine for a regular poster, but mods by their inherent nature should be neutral. Solution? Appoint mods who are apathetic to politics, have no history of discussing same, and can be trusted to moderate without bias.

so your solution is to go completely black and white and have mods who have zero interest or knowledge of the topic they are modding. Mods should enforce the charters and site rules without any judgement or discretion? If you will pardon my own element of judgement, I think thats a terrible idea.

Solution two: Don't cave under pressure from the SJW crowd.

which you define as...

These agitators love to stir up drama and delight in labeling their opponents as bigots, racists, and misogynists,

ehhh, by agitators do you mean people with opinions? What if their opponents *are* bigots / racists / misogynists? It should be noted that boards tries to limit namecalling and encourages users to handle these instances by reporting it to a mod so they can handle it and thus avoid the thread getting derailed and dragged off topic.

all the while smashing the report button.

which it seems you have a problem with too

Their sheer numbers can pressurize a mod into taking action even though it's not warranted.

very rarely happens. I cant think of an example offhand of this happening but I do know it has happened and has been called by a co-mod, reviewed by a cmod and corrected. Its also what we have the dispute resolution forum for.

Finally, allow threads to run their natural course rather than preemptively locking them because you predict they'll get "messy" (whatever that means).

and this bit I agree with . Thing is though, sometimes mods , through experience *know* which way a thread is going to go or know that there are 10 other threads on the same topic. Takes mod discretion. something that would be missing if the mod was not at least familiar with the subject matter or interested enough to keep up to date with current developments. So , while I agree, I think a qualifier of "most of the time" or "where plausible" should be used.

seamus

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I've seen "cuck" being used a bit recently. Kind of baffled how an insult last used in Shakespearean drama has managed to be revived.

When you get found out as sh1thead with a sh1thead's opinion, you need to have a word that you can throw at the other person in lieu of a point. Because your opinion is sh1t and you have no basis for it beyond your own bias.

It was "PC Brigade", then "SJW" came in, "cuck" is a newer one, though mostly only used by men with really bad self-confidence issues who need to assert their alpha maleness.

oscarBravo

maregal wrote: »

Solution? Appoint mods who are apathetic to politics, have no history of discussing same, and can be trusted to moderate without bias.

You're asking that people volunteer their time monitoring conversations on a topic they have no knowledge of or interest in. Maybe football referees should be people with no interest in the sport?

To every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, obvious, and wrong.

Chips Lovell

Of all the words to pick though? What next? Knave? Bawd? Whoreson?

seamus

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Of all the words to pick though? What next? Knave? Bawd? Whoreson?

It's short for "cuckold". Intimating that the individual being referred to is a pathetic excuse of a man who is submissive to women and has no respect for himself.

Like I say, typically used by sad individuals who have "interesting" views on gender rights, and believe that being an "alpha male" is something of importance.

Chips Lovell

Oh I knew that alright. It's just that the only time I've seen it it's been thrown around as a general insult in discussions that had nothing to do gender.

LoLth

seamus wrote: »

It's short for "cuckold". Intimating that the individual being referred to is a pathetic excuse of a man who is submissive to women and has no respect for himself.

hah! I always thought it was an amalgamation of terms for female/male genitalia based insults. yay interwebs teaching new and important stuffs every day....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LoLth

I dont have time to respond fully right now but I do just want to say that this thread is for an overall perception of bias. lets try to leave direct observations out of this please. If this turns into a thread filled with "here's why i dont like the X mods" or "look at this by X or Y mod" I will have to trim bits.

I know it makes discussion difficult but it is a necessary caveat to prevent the anti-mod pile-ons we have witnessed in the past.

Respectful means more than just a lack of namecalling.

boldified so its a mod note and not opinion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There are 2 self identified more right wing mods in the politics cafe which I believe has escaped your attention.

There is a great range of opinion in the cafe but echo chambers do occur and we don't like them either, the immigration thread is a good example of there being a more right wing hive mind on a thread and often there are no differing opinions. Makes it a boring and quiet thread unfortunately imo.

hatrickpatrick

LoLth wrote: »

A few things here.

1. the reason for the thread closure has been explained as a mistake. Not a deliberate attempt to stifle opinion but a mod consulting co-mods to determine if the thread was better suited elsewhere. A post should have been made to say this was the case, it wasnt, admins were notified, admins spoke to mods and cmods, case resovled. To continue to assume it had some darker ulterior motive behind the closure is pure speculation and not very conducive to a productive discussion.

Would a similar thread about Enda Kenny, water charges, polling stations being closed, a ministerial visit, etc have been locked "for review"? Of course not. It only happens with potentially controversial threads - which you subsequently admit in the same post. Boards treats potentially controversial subjects differently.

Neither by the way, is describing threads you may not agree with or consider uninteresting as a "circlejerk". Its an offensive (in terms of being aggressive) term and has no place in a respectful discussion and, imho, undermines the validity of your own argument and opinion.

It's not offensive when used in general internet slang, it just means a conversation in which the same viewpoints feed off eachother and no opposing views are tolerated. If it came across as aggressive, perhaps it's because I spend a fair amount of time on Reddit where it's a common everyday term, and this usage hasn't filtered through to the wider forum-sphere?

a. Of course there are subjects that boards doesnt want discussed, or at least handled very carefully if they are discussed. These are usually for legal reasons only such as the discussion of illegal imagery or medical advice given by anonymous accounts or links to sources of copyrighted material.

That's not ideological though, that's legal. Big difference.

Women's / Men's / heterosexual / homosexual rights do not fall under this umbrella, neithe rdoes religion however there are still limiting factors such as hatespeech / blasphmey / incitement / slander to be considered. Look at the news and tell me that society in Ireland has not become more litigious in recent years. Now look at boards and see how exposed it is. There has to be some form of restriction, this is a private website, hosted by Irish owners and it has accountability. There are alternatives out there that do not have such restrictions, I personally find the level f interaction on such fora to be far inferior to the discourse to be found here but thats personal preference and my perception.

So you're saying that these restrictions are purely based on the potential for litigation? I find that hard to believe, to be honest. A thread which comments generally on modern feminism for instance is not going to get the site sued unless it starts libelling or harassing named individuals, but they still regularly get closed, usually when some mod just says "we've talked about this for too long". Pure opinion-based thread closures along the lines of "this conversation is not going well" are unbelievably common, and only with contentious issues such as these.

b. not true. heated debate is good. The best points are raised through heated debate. there was an excellent AH debate recently that I really enjoyed. (I will link when I get a chance to look for it) Its when heated debate turns to soapboxing / personal attacks / deliberate insult that the issues arise. Is modding heavier on some topics? yes. it has to be because not all topics are equal in the eyes of the user. you criticise the colour of someone's shirt, thats generally ok. You call their faith into question and, in many instances, we are already into reported post for personal abuse/trolling/baiting. its the nature of discussion.

And why can't you just ban or delete those specific posters rather than locking the entire thread? Furthermore, this does not address the elephant in the room, which in my view cuts to the heart of this issue - closure of threads for no reason other than "ok, enough talking about this".

ther ehave been many many SF threads closed. and many SF-oriented posters banned in the past. Most notably to me in teh run up to an election when the SF social(ist?) media get rolling and they are scarily effective at thread derailing and subtle soapboxing. That you havent noticed this is unusual, or is testament to the good work done by mods in the past.

The only time I've seen SF threads get closed is when there's already a megathread for SF discussion on the Cafe. Now, if there were to be a megathread for discussing PC culture and feminism, and all other threads on the subject were to be locked, I'd have no issue with that. That's not ideological moderation, it's simply tidying up the forum so that the entire forum doesn't consist of multiple threads about the same subject. Perfectly reasonable.

As for your list of topics, these are emotive topics so, as I already suggested, they provoke reaction and attract trolls as well as those who hold contraversial opinions. More reaction equals more mod attention required which would naturally translate into a perception of heavier modding.

But why can't the debates just stay open as long as people want to debate them? Keep removing personal abuse when and if it occurs - I don't think you'll find anybody here suggesting that this is a bad thing. What smacks of at best lazy moderation and at worst ideological moderation is when an entire thread, a busy thread full of conversation, is locked because some posters within it break the rules - or as I've said, more often, when some moderator perceives the debate to have "run its course". It doesn't matter if a conversation is going around in circles - if it's contained within a thread specific to that discussion, what's the harm in letting people discuss it until they decide that they're bored of discussing it?

this smacks of trying to play to an audience and I have no idea why you have chosen to include it in a written opinion. to answer your question, in my opinion, no you are not.

Fair enough. I still don't agree, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

in this you are wrong. boards has always had moderation and has always policed its content.

The Boards of the 2000s was far less hypersensitive to controversy, dark humour, etc than the Boards of today. This is surely impossible to deny?

Of course there is an element of ideological policing, there has to be.

No, there doesn't have to be. Moderation should be about breaking the site rules or forum charter, and nothing more than that. If certain ideologies are not allowed, then that should be explicitly stated in either the site or forum rules. Doing otherwise is unimaginably dishonest.

are you alluding to an event or are you perhaps conflating several events such as the passing of the blasphemy laws and the EU laws on the responsibility of online media?

I'm not alluding to any specific event, I'm merely commenting on the fact that when I joined Boards in 2007, AH and the politics forums were far more lively and heated than they are now. There were far fewer "off limits" topics for discussion, and lampooning of what the userbase felt were ridiculous incidents, comments or stories was commonplace.

again you assume that it is only boards that has changed and not the userbase demographic and the way in which social media usage has changed. Should boards move faster to react to this? should boards move at all? should boards distance itself from facebook style "look at me" and twitter opinion-by-link-to-other-opinion ? Our users will decide that ultimately and as an admin I will try to influence that decision based on hwat I think is best for the site, even if it is commercially sub-optimal or not the most popular option available.

All I'm saying is that there is no rational reason for conversations about competing political and social ideologies - "emotive" subjects, as you have pointed out - to be more restricted now than it was in the past. Unless Boards has unofficially adopted a "safe space" policy which most 100% certainly did not exist previously, and has never been formally announced in the interim.

Completely agree on the echo chamber point. I dont want that either and funnily enough neither does anyone on boards, except for those that misuse the site for pontificating their beliefs or soapboxing their political agendas. There is a line though between encouraging debate and allowing repetition of the same debate time and again. no one wants to see the same consorship / religion / sexuality / children / politics discussion play out for the hundreth time between one or the other set of the same posters again and again and again.

If they're confined to their own threads, why not? It's not as if Boards' vbulletin system is akin to 4chan where there can only be a finite number of threads in action at any one time. If somebody sees a debate they've seen before, they can just scroll on by - nobody is forcing them to click into such threads and read every post within.

I, personally, think onlne discussion has become more and more difficult to moderate and manage and it is to the detriment of online communities in general. I would love to tell you honestly what I thought of the restaurant I had dinner in last week but laws differing between how my opinion is treated when I say it to a few people in the pub and when I post it publicly on a forum that has the potential (note: just potential, not actual) to be read by thousands make the expression of my honest opinion impossible. Now think how much more sensitive those passionate about politically "hot" topics are.

Who is going to sue Boards because somebody suggested that no more immigrants should be allowed into the EU, or that mainstream feminism is hypocritical, or that Donald Trump is a decent candidate for president, or that abortion should / should not be legal, or that a particular ideology is a toxic one? On what grounds could they render such a lawsuit and on what grounds could a court possibly find in its favour?

on a final note: the fact that this thread is open and that you could post on the last feedback thread without sanction would surely render your comparison at the end of your post inaccurate.

:pac:

This is after (A) my original thread was locked, reopened and then locked again (and two previous threads on this subject have suffered the same fate in recent months), and my own thread title - a quote from another user - was edited after I posted the thread?

I am honestly wondering if my post will submit after I hit "submit reply". In the last thread, I had just typed out a post like this one and when I tried to submit, the thread had been locked in the two minutes between clicking the post button and having the post typed out. I can link you to a litany of similar threads here which were locked long before those posting within them felt that the subject had actually been resolved.

K-9

There's another problem with moderation, it's becoming harder and harder to get new mods to want to volunteer their time for politics anyway, and existing mods don't find it appealing either. Threads like this play a part in that imo. Lots of posters don't think it is worth the crap anymore.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

It's short for "cuckold".

Apparently not. It's short for "cuckservative" I believe. Interesting word and I like new words(though I see that one going the way of pet rocks), but not as an automatic response. Then it gets tiresome very rapidly. To the subject at hand?

maregal wrote: »

This is not a new issue. Boards.ie's reputation precedes it and it is well known to be a bastion of hypersensitive leftism and quick to engage in censorship.

Perception more than reality in my humble M. Yes there are quite the number of handwringers and handwringing that can go on about the place, but the demographic is mostly young male college types where that's more in play culturally, or middle aged suburban men who wear beige and watch box sets of the Star Trek of their youth. Loud noises tend to frighten both and both tend towards left of centre, though the middle aged are more likely to be reactionary and right wing.

However you can say quite a lot that would have many of the above foaming at the mouth and so long as you're playing the ball not the man/not being a dick then it won't get censored. I'm on record as saying I think multiculturalism is a largely a failure, I don't want any more non contributing immigrants into the EU, think the Traveler culture promotes anti social behaviour and deprivation, think current feminism is both up itself and full of utter nonsense and that people love to show off how virtuous and right on they are every time a dead kid gets photographed. And guess what? It doesn't get censored. I can point to any number of posts and posters that would go against the "liberal" flow and don't get censored.

I do agree that the perception is there. I personally suspect that really kicked off during the period when AH went all earnestly hair shirt about perceived sexism. That and the imported from the US of A social political red pill and college liberal guff and drawn lines. Both sides have gone full retard IMH.

As for the closed thread? Simple mistake. May well have been based on a personal bias/report post button mashers, but it was reopened. that's the takeaway point for me.

Stheno

Wibbs wrote: »

As for the closed thread? Simple mistake. May well have been based on a personal bias/report post button mashers, but it was reopened. that's the takeaway point for me.

Twas, to e honest I was a bit wrecked, read the OP, posted in the relevant area to ask if it belonged in the cafe, another mod responded saying they thought it had a few places, so I closed it so as to get other responses rather than letting it build and then be moved.

When closing it I genuinely thought I posted "closed pending mod review" but didn't.

I then posted twice more in the mod area about reopening it, and as I was offline most of this week during the day it was reopened after discussion.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Here's the thing though, a mod needs to be several things. They need to have an interest in the forum, be level-headed and able to take a step back when needs be, impartiality and the time and inclination to deal with the sh*t that comes with this gig.

I've only modded Politics for a short while so I can't comment on the post you quoted but nothing has been quietly dropped. If we need a new mod, we discuss it and come up with names. We then choose who might make a good mod with the final step being the candidate accepting the role. We choose from available members, that's all it is.

It's late so I am not going to quote your previous post but you mentioned not being able to post certain opinions on certain topics such as feminism or Donald Trump. Feminists regularly get criticised on this site and often very harshly so. We also have multiple pro-Trump voices on this site. Some guff is banned and rightly so but as long as people can express their beliefs in a logical and civil manner then there'll be no problem.

K-9

Temperament is a big one, that means dealing with crap calmly (a left and right wing biased poster pming me at the same time and seeing bias in moderation is water of a ducks back to me), ability to step back and see an error or other point of view (I often wipe out or reduce cards/bans if a poster is half way reasonable and can explain their thinking), knowing other mods/admins disagreeing is just a difference of opinion, not taking disagreements with posters personally, stuff like that is highly valued in politics in particular.

The cafe is a thankless job. We've asked several times for existing mods on the site to put their name forward and nobody wants it for some odd reason! That's in my time as C-mod. A few ordinary posters have turned it down as well, you'd think they'd be queuing up!

Stheno admitted she called it wrong, but she asked what to do (a great sign) in the forum. Normally there'd be 4 or 5 mods to advise but there wasn't with holidays and real life stuff. I should have copped that and chipped in and this wouldn't have happened.

Considering how busy and contentious the forum is it's very rare issues like this come up. I don't think posters realised there are right wing mods there at all, they just assumed they are all left because of confirmation bias. I only know they are right wing because of coming across posts in the forum as political leaning never comes up in the mod forum and that's the way it should be.

I don't know about other parts of boards but I think the wrong forum was picked for examples of liberal bias, there are loads of (sometimes very odd) opinions present in the cafe and as long as nobody goes completely mad, all are welcome.

PS. Can somebody put up the youtube clip of the bishop shouting "leftie, liberal bias in the media", its the Stone of Clanrickard episode.

jackofalltrades

K-9 wrote: »

There is a great range of opinion in the cafe but echo chambers do occur and we don't like them either, the immigration thread is a good example of there being a more right wing hive mind on a thread and often there are no differing opinions. Makes it a boring and quiet thread unfortunately imo.

If you ever want to see a more clearer example of the bias people are talking about look not further than immigration threads.
Fine when the liberal view is winning the debate, closed down when it isn't.
Banned from AH, then from the Political Cafe.
You could only discuss the issue in the ghost town that was Humanities.
It took at last one thread to point out the complete farce about how these threads were being handled until it could be discussed in the PC.

At which time the moderators bent over backwards to accommodate an increasingly disrespectful left/liberal side, all for the sake of balance.
A moderator at one stage asked for more posts from the liberal side of the argument.
Which in my 12 odds years on the site I've never seen before or since.

I'd say the site is slowly making progress overall in creating a more level playing field.
But that doesn't mean posters are just going to forget all the nonsense that's gone on in the past.

ancapailldorcha

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If you ever want to see a more clearer example of the bias people are talking about look not further than immigration threads.
Fine when the liberal view is winning the debate, closed down when it isn't.
Banned from AH, then from the Political Cafe.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. The threads on the Syrian refugee crisis got so bad that anyone who was anything less than utterly opposed to taking even one in was insulted and villified to the point where the thread had to be locked. The Café even needed to be rebooted it got so bad.

K-9

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. The threads on the Syrian refugee crisis got so bad that anyone who was anything less than utterly opposed to taking even one in was insulted and villified to the point where the thread had to be locked. The Café even needed to be rebooted it got so bad.

The Cafe issues were much wider than that, it's unfair to just focus on one thread or subject as the reason.

ancapailldorcha

K-9 wrote: »

The Cafe issues were much wider than that, it's unfair to just focus on one thread or subject as the reason.

Fair point but it was an issue.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.