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

K-9

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I think you've hit the nail on the head, there Wibbly. In this post-truth era where emotion and perception trump reality and fact, sides become even more entrenched, even more convinced how wrong the other side is.

Fascinating article here on the BBC about this issue : http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160823-how-modern-life-is-destroying-democracy

In reality, the perception of liberal bias is most likely, in my opinion, confined to the more popular forums such as AH and Politics. The other, what thousand or two don't appear to be suffering from this perception and continue on without the vocal minority proclaiming the end of Boards.

Twitter doesn't help, not sure about Reddit but I'd say down voting unpopular opinions may have a similar effect. Twitter tends to be very divided when it comes to politics than general everyday dog and cat stuff, so you've people sticking to their side reading opinions and articles about how great and right they are. That's all grand but opposite opinions or objective analysis and research isn't getting shared across the divide as much as it should.

That's the advantage of boards, you can read pieces that are disagreeing with your point of view. We'll probably dismiss it most of the time but exposure to it is better than not seeing it at all.

The older I get the more I realise I often just don't know on an issue, and am more interested in the discussion and the debate and discovering new facts and points of view I never thought of before.

America and Brexit definitely seemed very polarised. Maybe there's something to the point that Irish people use the net to be more outrageous and shocking because we are very middle of the road when it comes to general elections.

Also nobody really represents the right here, Renua were a disaster and FG are a bit ashamed of anything not nice centre right anymore. The 90's and up to the crash were more and more individualistic, society has moved more centre left in response to the crash but nobody represents that harder right left behind. Hell, you've the great right economic conservative hope Leo giving out Christmas bonuses and wanting to link welfare to inflation. The "IMF will sort ye all out" types are left feeling very frustrated.

Jayop

This is funny. I always thought the righties and the unionists in the NI threads and the SF bashers get away with murder.

Maybe it's all down to who reports the most posts. I've been infracted for fairly innocuous posts in the past and had them reversed. I can only assume they came from posts being needlessly reported.

Out of interest, how many posts would be reported in the PC in a day and is it usually the same people reporting them?

dudara

The world appears to be getting increasingly polarised, and as a consequence, less willing to engage with or listen to opposing views. Trump's election campaign shows no tolerance for the other side, Brexit resulted in a horrific series of racial incidents.

I see the same happening in the Politics Cafe and some other forums. What we end up with are two entrenched sides where the posters pop up and toss grenades into the other trench and then dive back. No meaningful discussion taking place, and no evolution of the debate. Anyone else who might be an interested poster gets turned off by the two entrenched sides, and doesn't take part. Thus we lose the chance to improve the dialogue.

I must admit that I groaned internally when I saw this thread start, but I must hold my hands up and admit that some really good observations have been made here. IMO Boards probably does overall reflect the politics of modern Irish society. What people get from Boards will probably be influenced by their own position, but that doesn't mean there isn't bias sometimes. It's good to keep our minds, both as mods and posters, critically open.

ancapailldorcha

I think it's important to bear in mind that Boards.ie is an online community. Mods are just there to keep the peace. If, for the sake of example, 75% of those under 40 in Ireland were fairly liberal then I would expect that to reflect on Boards. Obviously, mod bias isn't impossible but if this site were to turn into an echo chamber then I don't think it's fair to pin all of the blame entirely on the mods and admins. We seem to be seeing a shift toward echo chambers and away from having debates. I've been blocked on Facebook for voicing my disagreement with the predominant pro-Socialism narrative that prevails where I live.

Pelvis Parsley

>Trump is bad.

>Brexit is bad.

>We're not being open minded enough.

Pelvis Parsley

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think it's important to bear in mind that Boards.ie is an online community. Mods are just there to keep the peace. If, for the sake of example, 75% of those under 40 in Ireland were fairly liberal then I would expect that to reflect on Boards. Obviously, mod bias isn't impossible but if this site were to turn into an echo chamber then I don't think it's fair to pin all of the blame entirely on the mods and admins. We seem to be seeing a shift toward echo chambers and away from having debates. I've been blocked on Facebook for voicing my disagreement with the predominant pro-Socialism narrative that prevails where I live.

That's all fair enough. Any forum is going to reflect the breakdown of views of its members.

What about unconscious bias on behalf of mods and admins though? I've no doubt that a lot of them are well intentioned people, but this perception of bias didn't spring up in a vacuum.

K-9

Pelvis Parsley wrote: »

>Trump is bad.

>Brexit is bad.

>We're not being open minded enough.

Disillusionment with political parties is the common link there I think, the EU had a higher favorability rating than politicians in the UK, not that it is saying much!

You see it with the rise of Independents here. The 3 traditional parties got about 55% of the vote in the last GE, they'd have had 90-95% in the 80's.

Pelvis Parsley

K-9 wrote: »

Disillusionment with political parties is the common link there I think, the EU had a higher favorability rating than politicians in the UK, not that it is saying much!

You see it with the rise of Independents here. The 3 traditional parties got about 55% of the vote in the last GE, they'd have had 90-95% in the 80's.

Excellent point. I think the wheel will turn again to a degree, certainly on this side of the pond, as people realise that a gathering of independents can't hold the same away as a cohesive political group. The days of tweedledum and tweedledee alternating the reins of power are over though. Some would say that's no harm!

K-9

Jayop wrote: »

This is funny. I always thought the righties and the unionists in the NI threads and the SF bashers get away with murder.

We all think "our side" is more virtuous and right and proper! I bet you if you look back on most threads you"ll see similar type posts on your own side of the debate that were giving as good as they got. It's a basic human behaviour really.

Maybe it's all down to who reports the most posts. I've been infracted for fairly innocuous posts in the past and had them reversed. I can only assume they came from posts being needlessly reported.

Sometimes the mod just made a wrong call or misunderstood a post. If somebody is halfway reasonable and can put their point of view across I've no problem in reversing it. It isn't about being right or wrong, as long as the call was reasonable no harm done. A good few cards get reversed every week by discussion by pm, maybe posters just aren't aware of that.

Out of interest, how many posts would be reported in the PC in a day and is it usually the same people reporting them?

I'd guess the number is down from the old cafe which is a good sign, not sure on numbers but I'd say it is in the top 3 or 4 forums for reports.

There probably are a few posters who'd report a fair bit, some people just don't want to. Reports do help a lot as it gives mods a chance to get there before a thread might go way downhill.

The actual reported post is far more important than who reported it, but going back to the initial point, a few will rarely, if ever report their own side. Then you've people who report if a thread is turning to shyte, which is great.

Tom Dunne

Jayop wrote: »

Maybe it's all down to who reports the most posts.

It would be a dark day on Bards.ie if that was the main reason for actioning a reported post.

Jayop wrote: »

I've been infracted for fairly innocuous posts in the past and had them reversed. I can only assume they came from posts being needlessly reported.

Yes, there is an issue with what can generously be described as needlessly reporting posts. But I firmly believe it falls into the realm of the polarisation that we are seeing not only here on the site, but in wider society too.

ancapailldorcha

Pelvis Parsley wrote: »

What about unconscious bias on behalf of mods and admins though? I've no doubt that a lot of them are well intentioned people, but this perception of bias didn't spring up in a vacuum.

Well, I obviously can refute any sort of bias on our part. The thing is that we're volunteers. We need to be interested in a forum to mod it. Imagine trying to mod soccer with no interest in it at all. Anyone with such an interest almost certainly has a team they follow. Same thing with Politics. Makes a cool head all the more important.

Tom Dunne

Pelvis Parsley wrote: »

What about unconscious bias on behalf of mods and admins though? I've no doubt that a lot of them are well intentioned people, but this perception of bias didn't spring up in a vacuum.

I don't believe the source of that vacuum is Boards.ie.

K-9

You also need some knowledge or interest in the topic, otherwise it would be easier to make a wrong call or not understand context.

Tbh mods are often transparent in their politics, team, Apple device etc. and I think a good argument can be made for that over somebody with no opinions, and probably has some type of hidden bias anyway. At least people know what to look out for and a good mod will be well aware of their biases.

Jayop

Cheers Tom and K9.

I guess the point I was badly making is that as a leftie I see the modding favoring the right the same as people from the right see it favoring my side. Can't see past our own bias really.

Pelvis Parsley

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I don't believe the source of that vacuum is Boards.ie.

Well, you wouldn't.

And there we are.

K-9

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I don't believe the source of that vacuum is Boards.ie.

In fairness wrong calls have been made at times. The other thing is some people just aren't suited to a site that moderation plays a big part in. Some will just move on to another site, others will think their view of it is right and boards is just evil.

But we do have a good few posters who wont be long telling us we got something wrong and that's a good thing mostly. Can be a tough crowd though! Bit like a goalkeeper or referee, people will tend to remember that time you got it wrong and forget everything else.

Tom Dunne

Jayop wrote: »

I guess the point I was badly making is that as a leftie I see the modding favoring the right the same as people from the right see it favoring my side. Can't see past our own bias really.

And that's the point I am making.

As moderators, we are in a no-win situation.

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness wrong calls have been made at times. The other thing is some people just aren't suited to a site that moderation plays a big part in. Some will just move on to another site, others will think their view of it is right and boards is just evil.

But we do have a good few posters who wont be long telling us we got something wrong and that's a good thing mostly. Can be a tough crowd though! Bit like a goalkeeper or referee, people will tend to remember that time you got it wrong and forget everything else.

Agree 100%.

K-9

Jayop wrote: »

Cheers Tom and K9.

I guess the point I was badly making is that as a leftie I see the modding favoring the right the same as people from the right see it favoring my side. Can't see past our own bias really.

Sure its allowed, but most reports are valid, even if a bit biased. Again, just because somebody doesn't get a card or on thread warning doesn't mean the mod hasn't took note of it, they could be waiting to see how the posters react. The best part of modding is seeing a troll get ignored, the posters mod themselves!

Wibbs

There may be an unconscious bias going on mind you. A possible recent example. This thread about some wan in the Lovely Girls Rose of Tralee event who is in the Pro Choice abortion camp. To the general hive mind of Boards(™) being pro choice is a central tenet of faith, just like gay marriage is great!! was, though we're still in two minds about the transexuals. What appears to be a rereg of some nature comes along and posts from t'other viewpoint. They get nuked as a rereg and their posts are deleted, which is fine. However those shooting them down for the pro choice side's response posts are left up. Three such posts on the first page, including the rereg's original post in quotes. This morning on another thread about gluten I part replied to what it seems was also a rereg and my quite long reply post and not just to them was nuked(BTW when you delete a regular user's post it's good manners to leave a note why, or you could have edited the posts involved.).

My point being my post was nuked, but the pro choice posts responding to a rereg pro lifer were left public. That looks like a bias towards what the consensus holds. Put it another way and let's be honest here; how likely would a series of pro life replies to a pro choice rereg remain visible?

Peregrine

Wibbs wrote: »

There may be an unconscious bias going on mind you. A possible recent example. This thread about some wan in the Lovely Girls Rose of Tralee event who is in the Pro Choice abortion camp. To the general hive mind of Boards(™) being pro choice is a central tenet of faith, just like gay marriage is great!! was, though we're still in two minds about the transexuals. What appears to be a rereg of some nature comes along and posts from t'other viewpoint. They get nuked as a rereg and their posts are deleted, which is fine. However those shooting them down for the pro choice side's response posts are left up. Three such posts on the first page, including the rereg's original post in quotes.

That post wasn't deleted by a mod and the poster wasn't nuked either. The poster deleted the post in question themself of their own accord. The posts quoting the post remain.

A mod wasn't even anywhere near that post and we still get the blame! :P

Wibbs wrote: »

This morning on another thread about gluten I part replied to what it seems was also a rereg and my quite long reply post and not just to them was nuked(BTW when you delete a regular user's post it's good manners to leave a note why, or you could have edited the posts involved.).

My point being my post was nuked, but the pro choice posts responding to a rereg pro lifer were left public. That looks like a bias towards what the consensus holds.

That was me. When certain re-regs who re-reg between five and fifty times a week posts, their posts and all posts quoting it get deleted. In theory, it's great to notify people when their posts get deleted but when you're banning the same people and deleting their presence multiple times a day, it's just not possible.

Despite my tagline, I assure you that I have no stance on the gluten debate and, if you'll excuse my ignorance, don't even know what it is.

You're seeing bias that simply isn't there — at least, in both the cases above. I'm not saying that all mods are fully impartial all the time. That would be ridiculous.

Wibbs wrote: »

Put it another way and let's be honest here; how likely would a series of pro life replies to a pro choice rereg remain visible?

Well, once again, it depends on the re-reg. If it's a regular re-reg then I'd delete all posts and quotes. I seem to vaguely remember such a case in the past few weeks. Frankly, I don't even read them most of the time for my potential bias to even come into effect.

LoLth

If a re-reg is banned then their posts are not deleted automatically so the choice to remove a post depends on the content.

if the content is unacceptable then it should be deleted and removed from any posts that quote it or the quoting posts removed if they dont have any additional contribution. I can see how leaving up the responding posts but removing the original could be perceived as bias.

thing is, a lot of users will feel that they are being punished if their response to a troll/pointless post is also removed. So some mods choose to avoid this and let the posts remain.

of course, maybe the mod was in a hurry and didnt have time to tidy the posts to remove the unacceptable-quoted material out.

Its a good point though and one which we never really took the time to sit down and work out the best way to handle that situation. If its creating the appearance of a bias (or indeed, if it is evidence of a bias, then we should take the time required.)

Wibbs

Peregrine wrote: »

That was me. When certain re-regs who re-reg between five and fifty times a week posts, their posts and all posts quoting it get deleted. In theory, it's great to notify people when their posts get deleted but when you're banning the same people and deleting their presence multiple times a day, it's just not possible.

It would take you two seconds to post "posts deleted" or something similar. Like I say it's simple good manners and I hate to break it to you that's part of our "job" as moderators. People take time to post, the least they may expect is mods to take time to moderate. Is it any wonder users can sometimes come away with the impression that mods are heavy handed, reactionary and dismissive?

Despite my tagline, I assure you that I have no stance on the gluten debate and, if you'll excuse my ignorance, don't even know what it is.

I never said you did.

You're seeing bias that simply isn't there — at least, in both the cases above.

Seems like you not reading posts is spreading to here. I wrote "There may be an unconscious bias going on mind you. A possible recent example" and "That looks like a bias towards what the consensus holds". I have mentioned perception driving opinion often enough in the thread.

LoLth wrote:

Its a good point though and one which we never really took the time to sit down and work out the best way to handle that situation. If its creating the appearance of a bias (or indeed, if it is evidence of a bias, then we should take the time required.)

Personally I really dislike deleting posts L. Outside of obvious spammers of course and one or two of the obsessive reregs. I avoid it where I can. It's less to do with bias TBH L. I see it from the user point of view when I'm reading a thread and then go back and posts you knew were there are missing. It's a bit of a WTF? moment. Too soviet russia edits you for me. People will always be more suspicious of things they know are hidden even when they're nuked for very valid reasons. This goes double if there's no explanation why.

On sites where "it just happens" and mods just act like that, that's OK, because it's expected. But Boards has a feeling of transparency and dialogue. For all the Boards is crap stuff that goes on, it's mostly allowed to go on. It would be nuked from orbit on many if not most sites out there. This is Boards double edged sword. Any perceived change to transparency is jumped on.

Peregrine

Wibbs wrote: »

It would take you two seconds to post "posts deleted" or something similar. Like I say it's simple good manners and I hate to break it to you that's part of our "job" as moderators. People take time to post, the least they may expect is mods to take time to moderate. Is it any wonder users can sometimes come away with the impression that mods are heavy handed, reactionary and dismissive?

No, it takes much longer than two seconds to post it across multiple threads where posts were deleted. Would the spam filter even let me post the same thing across multiple threads? How long would I have to wait between posts? It took me the best part of five minutes to clean up after that specific re-reg — partly because I was on my phone but I use my phone more often than not — and it may have taken taken the best part of ten minutes if I was to post a note across multiple threads.

And then do it again and again? Possibly a few minutes later even. For years and years? Let's be realistic.

Wibbs wrote: »

I never said you did.

That was purely tongue-in-cheek.

Wibbs wrote: »

Seems like you not reading posts is spreading to here. I wrote "There may be an unconscious bias going on mind you. A possible recent example" and "That looks like a bias towards what the consensus holds". I have mentioned perception driving opinion often enough in the thread.

I was trying to be absolute in saying that there was no bias there — conscious or unconscious — , but you're right, I didn't phrase that well.

Wigglepuppy

Jayop wrote: »

This is funny. I always thought the righties and the unionists in the NI threads and the SF bashers get away with murder.

Yeah what's that about - one trolling like mad in After Hours now and someone who called them a bigot was carded but they were able to continue winding up away and breaching "Don't be a dick". Very annoying.

Stheno

Wigglepuppy wrote: »

Yeah what's that about - one trolling like mad in After Hours now and someone who called them a bigot was carded but they were able to continue winding up away and breaching "Don't be a dick". Very annoying.

Did you report the post/s?

Wigglepuppy

Stheno wrote: »

Did you report the post/s?

Yup. Two of them.

Wibbs

Peregrine wrote: »

No, it takes much longer than two seconds to post it across multiple threads where posts were deleted. Would the spam filter even let me post the same thing across multiple threads? How long would I have to wait between posts? It took me the best part of five minutes to clean up after that specific re-reg — partly because I was on my phone but I use my phone more often than not — and it may have taken taken the best part of ten minutes if I was to post a note across multiple threads.

And then do it again and again? Possibly a few minutes later even. For years and years? Let's be realistic.

If it's that much difficulty leave it to mods not modding from phones. That's frankly ridiculous. If your description is true(which TBH have some issues with) you can't possibly moderate effectively from a phone. Never mind that five minutes should hardly be stretching you. Not across multiple threads. On a Sunday. If it is, add more mods to the forum. I dunno what spam filter you speak of, but I can't recall having any issue with multiple posts across multiple threads. TBH what I'm hearing is your lot as a mod, rather than ways to make the forum better for users.

That was purely tongue-in-cheek.

Maybe add a smiley in future as your tone is coming across badly, so may need more illustration for the rest of us.

Stheno

Wigglepuppy wrote: »

Yup. Two of them.

If you are not happy with how they are dealt with you should contact a CMod

hatrickpatrick

K-9 wrote: »

Stheno asked about the reported post. She wasn't sure whether to move, close or keep the thread open, she just didn't know imo.
The issue has been addressed at length on this thread, the other feedback thread and in the mod forum. I'm a bit uncomfortable at raking over every single detail, you wouldn't get this level of analysis in a professional job.

The mod asked for advice and a wrong call was made. All we can do is learn from it and move on. I accept Boards isn't perfect and you raise valid points, but it's unfair to focus on one single mistaken call or one mod imo.

I wasn't actually trying to start anything, what I'm trying to get at is simply the perception that specific subjects of discussion are essentially "triggers" (pun intended) which seem to elicit an almost automatic "we're only grudgingly going to allow this subjects to be discussed and we'll go absolutely ballistic at literally the slightest offense" - even when other threads about other subjects are far less hawkishly monitored and policed.

In other words, I'm trying to get to the bottom of whether or not the fact that this thread addressed a potentially controversial social justice issue automatically flagged it in some way, for no reason other than it might be controversial.

As there have been opposing views on this subject over the course of this and the previous thread - that is, whether Boards does in fact treat controversial subjects differently and applies stricter rules to those threads - I feel that this is not an unreasonable question to ask. Again, wasn't actually trying to start anything, was just wondering what the pretext was for questioning the thread at all, where other threads about other political issues are not questioned. I'm saying that I don't see why social justice issues should be treated differently to any other contentious political issue, water charges being a pretty good example at the moment.

K-9

Actually hp, a big reason why I'd have posted to advise the mod to keep the thread open was because closing or moving it would lead to a ****storm, which we got! So we are very aware of perception.

Father's rights wasn't the issue at all. As you can see from the way the thread developed nobody posted much about father's rights, no debate about it ensued.

Unfortunately an issue close to my own heart got hijacked by somebody with an agenda about leftie, liberal media, an ulterior motive was involved.