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

Wibbs

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

TBH, I've never seen anything even close to a flagging bat signal like that in all my time here. I genuinely haven't HP. Now maybe in mod forums like AH or Politics it goes on, but going on what I have seen I'd really be surprised.

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.

I'd agree myself, it isn't unreasonable a question to ask. My personal take is that some bias will be at play. The irony for me is because the place is very old school and doesn't have the up/downvoting of reddit et al and has a dialogue within the community about how things are run(this thread for example) the tendency for a circlejerk and echo chamber is actually much lesser. Seriously H pick a reddit sub that is "red pill" or one that is "SJW" in tone and post an opposing opinion. Light the blue touch paper and step back time. There will be fireworks going off and your opinion will likely be drowned at birth. Seriously H, pick a site or community or sub that reflects what you identify with most and for fun post a slightly dissenting question and see what happens.

Actually I think that's one reason we see this sorta thing as a complaint on here. More and more folks these days actually want an echo chamber. They have forums, facebook, twitter, whatsapp etc groups where all mostly agree with the catechisms of the group. So when they come across a place like BOards, which yes may have a general liberal centre left "bias", but will accommodate other viewpoints this can throw people a little. They want, nay almost need it to be an echo chamber, a circlejerk. Evidence for this? Both the most vocal of "Right on" and the "Right" have the same complaints of bias on the place.

Stheno

No automated flagging/reporting in the cafe that I've ever seen

feargale

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

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.

And therein lies a slight slip of the mask - no mention of man bashing. Furthermore some give a far too wide interpretation to what constitutes racism or homophobia. And modding seems to be somewhat selective. Criticism of Islam, for instance, seems to attract more opprobrium than criticism of Christianity.
Is there any reason why policing should go beyond what the law demands? A few mods are far too trigger happy, and I have witnessed instances where warnings were issued for no discernible reason other than the fact that a poster vigurously argued with a mod and succeeded, in my opinion at least, in demolishing mod's argument. On occasion the mod hasn't the mojo to spell it out an unwarranted threat, but, knowing he/she is on weak ground will utter something like "maybe this thread is not for you." Also, some mods don't know how to mod while showing the respect that one would expect a criminal to receive from the authorities.
The majority of mods behave well. I would single out for honourable mention ancapailldorcha with whom I have had the most vigorous, almost heated arguments. He has never pulled rank.

dudara

With all due respect feargale, you're starting to pull away from the topic of bias, and moving towards perceived poor moderating not related to bias. Let's stick to the topic of bias please.

Elliott S

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This blinkeredness can also mean that people see bias where there isn't any, surely?

seamus

Elliott S wrote: »

This blinkeredness can also mean that people see bias where there isn't any, surely?

Indeed it does. There's a perfect example in this thread, where Wibbs points out an example of what may be perceived to be biased modding, when it turns out that no moderation took place at all.

Thing is, if you already believe bias exists, then you will see it everywhere. You will scrutinise everything to find the bias and convince yourself it exists.

One thing that makes me chuckle is the perception of hyper-organisation that people seem to think exists in the moderation of boards. Like there's some kind of private mail system where admins send directives out to moderators, or that there's otherwise some great interconnectedness there. And that boards might be auto-flagging or otherwise automatically catching posts based on keywords.

Unless things have drastically changed in the last 4 years, there is a huge swathe of moderators who don't really look at the mod forum and don't otherwise engage with the admins (or other mods) on any kind of regular basis. The busy forums' mods will have a high level of engagement, but other mods on quiet forums may not even be aware the mod forum exists, never mind be subject to any kind of policies or directives from on-high.
There are no automated systems for doing any moderation work. All reported posts are reviewed manually. All threads have to be reviewed manually.

Any perception of boards's moderation structure being a rigid hierarchy and slick, well-oiled machine, should be placed well aside.

Chips Lovell

feargale wrote: »

And therein lies a slight slip of the mask - no mention of man bashing...

It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list.

LoLth

So a fair summary so far (just to gather the posts in one place so the discussion can continue on topic):

Some users think there is a bias in the moderation of certain topics in certain forums. (the only references seem to be to the high traffic "common-knowledge" discussion forums).

One explanation for this may be that while there may be a natural bias, the perceived extent of the bias may be exaggerated or minimalised based on the observers own bias (which makes sense and is completely natural)

Some topics are considered more closely moderated than others. Again this is understandable. A discussion on the number of red-haired members of the Dail is less likely to erupt into trench warfare than a discussion of a currently high profile topic or a deeply historic unresolved difference of opinion. Also, these more emotive topics would be more likely to cause offense and thus more likely to generate reports by users which would attract the attention of the mods.

So currently the real takeaway of this feedback is that mods need to be aware of their own personal bias when it comes to modding a thread that they find themselves invested in and to do their best to be impartial and/or be prepared to step back if they find that they cannot and allow another mod or cmod to take over.

That posts should be moderated based on their content and not the opinion expressed (within reason! and I would add, within context which would depend on the setting)

That there is no instruction from the site owners or admins or cmods to the mods to subdue X or Y topic beyond the standard list of allowed discussion - which has not changed in a good while - and there is no moderator concerted effort to suppress specific opinions. If there appears to be then it is either accidental, incidental or a misinterpretation.

The amount of protectionism on Boards has indeed increased. In my opinion this is in reaction to legal developments and others have added in changes in the userbase and its approach to social media.

looksee

Another - you would think obvious - point about the 'hive mind', or bias is that in some situations the majority of people do actually think much the same. Not because it is group think, but because for whatever reason most of them think that way. Do we have to keep a tally of posts to make sure that the smaller numbers of people who disagree get equal posting rights with those who think the other way?

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

One thing that makes me chuckle is the perception of hyper-organisation that people seem to think exists in the moderation of boards. Like there's some kind of private mail system where admins send directives out to moderators, or that there's otherwise some great interconnectedness there.

Oh sure. Though some forums would have more oversight and engagement and a possible "group think". The more popular ones for a start. After Hours being the most popular and most visible and most generally contentious is almost a separate community. Can depend on other less obvious factors too.

I can say from personal experience of modding different forums, some have more cmod and up engagement than others and the kind of engagement varies, both positive and negative. It's actually more a local "flavour" and illustrates a lack of an overall bias and plan. If there was some group think top down management all forums would be similar enough.

And yes I would have in my opinion seen a clear bias in how things were approached at times. EG can you imagine a public post by a Cmod(ex) describing the women of tLL posting in their feminism thread as whingers as a reply to someone who was questioning a mod decision in Helpdesk? The shítestorm that would follow would be loud and obvious. Well that's exactly what happened with a similar thread in tGC and it was never even acknowledged, never mind called on(and it was flagged).

So yes I have seen clear and obvious bias down the years on Boards. However it is genuinely rare IMHO. The sort of organised bias would be near impossible to muster site wide.

Unless things have drastically changed in the last 4 years, there is a huge swathe of moderators who don't really look at the mod forum and don't otherwise engage with the admins (or other mods) on any kind of regular basis.

If anything there is less engagement than four years ago.

LoLth

looksee wrote: »

Another - you would think obvious - point about the 'hive mind', or bias is that in some situations the majority of people do actually think much the same. Not because it is group think, but because for whatever reason most of them think that way. Do we have to keep a tally of posts to make sure that the smaller numbers of people who disagree get equal posting rights with those who think the other way?

I dont think thats something that can be moderated to be honest (and if it was it would be overmoderation in my opinion! Its the nature of public discussion.

Its very difficult defending your opinion or view against multiple lines of inquisition by multiple posters and it can be almost impossible if there are more waiting to pick up on any observed discrepency or mis-type. Unfortunately it happens and opinions get drowned by sheer weight of , on topic and technically acceptable posts. In an ideal world posters would allow discussion to flow and be a bit less dogged in their questioning of another poster but... ideal worlds dont tend to exist and emotive topics tend to increasingly common!

Some posters mistake overwhelming opposition with deliberate suppression or bullying. Moderators should be watchful for the times when this is actually the case but careful not to be over protective - everyone on the site is technically supposed to be an adult and should know when to step back and breathe for a bit before putting the whole "its an online discussion" into perspective.

seamus

Fado fado there was a vBulletin upgrade that included the ability to view threads in a tree view rather than linear.

At the time there was some wailing when people accidentally activated this view in their options. And it was removed. It was considered to be archaic, a lot like USENET.

Now I actually think it would be great to have it back; multi-branched threads really allow for some very robust conversations because they tend to naturally become 1-to-1 or 1-to-2 rather than 1-to-200.

The longer threads on boards become badly stifled by three conversations going on at once criss-crossing eachother, or new posters coming in and responding to a point that was refuted back in page 3.

FA Hayek

The Rose of Tralee thread is interesting. Would that thread get the same treatment if for example the Sydney Rose voiced her opinion that the 8th amendment should be kept? I suppose that is a question for media in general but I would guarantee you that instead of plaudits for her being brave and courageous we would be received with howls of derision, RTE/RCC conspiracies with funny father Ted meme's to boot. There is always bias, we just don't want to admit it.

There is certainly a vagueness around some topics. Perhaps bias is the right word, perhaps not. But there are some un-mentionable topics on boards.ie that gets extra scrutiny. Immigration is certainly one that gets extra attention, Islam is another. Travellers, forget it. Those threads are always locked. It would appear that topics that attack the liberal world view seem to attract extra heat. If that is because of the topic at hand or the posters posting style I do not know, but it is there alright.

Then however, some topics and discussions are given extra leeway which seems at odds when topics I mentioned above are controlled and directed in a certain fashion. Take for example, if I compared the actions of a progressive or liberal politician or public figure to a Paedophile grooming kids. I would be infracted straight away given the seriousness of the accusation. Yet, if someone did this to a conservative political figure, no one bats an eye.

Another example would be Israel. Any topic about Israel usually descends into a troll feat about Zionist bloodlust, genocide, Hitler, New World Order, Jews controlling the media and lots of other craziness. No one really bats an eye, yet if accusations were made against travellers or muslims in the same manner, well an infraction would not be far behind.

There is no conspiracy here, no memo to moderate a certain way. I just think some moderators wear their bias on their selves and treat some forums like their own soap box and shape the discussion in one particular way while being aggressive to others that does not conform to their prevailing view. This is clearly evident in one particular forum.

Boards is being shaped too much by its moderators and not its users. It is destroying the site if its not already.

K-9

Anti Semitic is stamped down on pretty sharpish imo, shows you how perceptions differ.

Travellers and Islam threads are difficult, there's little room for reaoned debate on those it seems to me. Very hard to get a reasoned debate going without it getting drowned out by extremes. People will say well, come down hard on the muppets but then we get cries of oppression and liberal bias, and mods end up in threads like these...

I need a drink!

LoLth

FA Hayek wrote: »

The Rose of Tralee thread is interesting. Would that thread get the same treatment if for example the Sydney Rose voiced her opinion that the 8th amendment should be kept? I suppose that is a question for media in general but I would guarantee you that instead of plaudits for her being brave and courageous we would be received with howls of derision, RTE/RCC conspiracies with funny father Ted meme's to boot. There is always bias, we just don't want to admit it.

that is assuming that anyone would pass comment on it at all. Generally discussion is brought about by the unexpected. Also, if it were greeted with howls of derision, that is not the moderation showing bias, that would be societal/poster opinion being expressed. It also depends on the forum it was posted in. Some forums may not allow memes as they detract from the more serious nature of the discussion, others have meme's / jokes / humour and satire as part of the expected status quo for the treatment of subject matter.

There is certainly a vagueness around some topics. Perhaps bias is the right word, perhaps not. But there are some un-mentionable topics on boards.ie that gets extra scrutiny. Immigration is certainly one that gets extra attention, Islam is another. Travellers, forget it. Those threads are always locked. It would appear that topics that attack the liberal world view seem to attract extra heat. If that is because of the topic at hand or the posters posting style I do not know, but it is there alright.

and, as already discussed this is because of legal issues, general trends for certain topics to attract a type of poster/post. We recently had a thread on Traveller culture that went along quite well. Its when a thread on a group starts out with some generic anti-group sentiment or descends into anti-X or anti-Y that it is generally better to close the thread than to let is continue. Now, if the thread was closed purely because it discusses a particular ethnic group and not because of the language used or the context of the thread, then it is an issue that needs to be addressed. As already posted, emotive topics are more likely to cause offense in readers that disagree and are therefore more likely to generate reports which in turn calls for closer moderator attention.

Then however, some topics and discussions are given extra leeway which seems at odds when topics I mentioned above are controlled and directed in a certain fashion. Take for example, if I compared the actions of a progressive or liberal politician or public figure to a Paedophile grooming kids. I would be infracted straight away given the seriousness of the accusation. Yet, if someone did this to a conservative political figure, no one bats an eye.

If you see this, report it. if you report it and nothing is done, query it. if you are not satisfied with the response, query the cmod. The only way a bias can be confirmed is if we see it. Then we can deal with it as necessary, either by giving the mod a heads up or , if its a pattern, taking it furhter. But we can only see a pattern if it is reported at the time. Trawling back through posts loses context and may suggest a pattern where none actually exists.

Another example would be Israel. Any topic about Israel usually descends into a troll feat about Zionist bloodlust, genocide, Hitler, New World Order, Jews controlling the media and lots of other craziness. No one really bats an eye, yet if accusations were made against travellers or muslims in the same manner, well an infraction would not be far behind.

thats a new one. boards mods are anti-Zionist? Other posters have accused the opposite! If you see something that you feel is racist/hatespeech then definitely report it regardless of what group it is targetting.

There is no conspiracy here, no memo to moderate a certain way. I just think some moderators wear their bias on their selves and treat some forums like their own soap box and shape the discussion in one particular way while being aggressive to others that does not conform to their prevailing view. This is clearly evident in one particular forum.

K-9's response pretty much covers this. I would add though, if you can point to an exact demarcation where a moderator can say "this is too far and no longer opinion" then please do so, as long as that line can be applied across topics and across groups. Until then, mods are needed to make judgement calls which, outside of the time, tone and trend that influence the decision may appear too harsh or too lenient and may indicate a pattern where none exists. If one does exist, then it shouldn't and its something we will be happy to take a look at. Please bring it to the attention of the Cmod to check over.

Boards is being shaped too much by its moderators and not its users.

Mods do indeed shape the content of boards' forums. its why they are here. They try to ensure that the forums dont contain material that is illegal and that there is actual discussion instead of a unified hatefest or a close ranked nest of fans. How much is too much? is it too much for you or for everyone?

It is destroying the site if its not already.

in your opinion. others quite like the moderated discussion environment (as already posted by an other user and in another thread - look at the feedback discussion on Downvoting). Personally I think that statement is extremely unfair to the mods who keep boards from so many fates far worse.

If you want the content of boards.ie to improve, then please do so by making well reasoned discussions and be willing to have your views challenged in a reasonable and respectful manner. The mods cant do that for you. They can and should, however, do their utmost to ensure that you have a platform on which to do so without suffering abuse or ridicule.

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh sure. Though some forums would have more oversight and engagement and a possible "group think". The more popular ones for a start. After Hours being the most popular and most visible and most generally contentious is almost a separate community. Can depend on other less obvious factors too.

I can say from personal experience of modding different forums, some have more cmod and up engagement than others and the kind of engagement varies, both positive and negative. It's actually more a local "flavour" and illustrates a lack of an overall bias and plan. If there was some group think top down management all forums would be similar enough.

And yes I would have in my opinion seen a clear bias in how things were approached at times. EG can you imagine a public post by a Cmod(ex) describing the women of tLL posting in their feminism thread as whingers as a reply to someone who was questioning a mod decision in Helpdesk? The shítestorm that would follow would be loud and obvious. Well that's exactly what happened with a similar thread in tGC and it was never even acknowledged, never mind called on(and it was flagged).

So yes I have seen clear and obvious bias down the years on Boards. However it is genuinely rare IMHO. The sort of organised bias would be near impossible to muster site wide.

If anything there is less engagement than four years ago.

Jaysus, you are trawling back to find stuff, disgruntled angry ex users are supposed to be the ones to never forget!

Seriously, I remember that DRP thread Wibbs, was about 3 or 4 years ago, wouldn't happen now as Boards has changed a lot and is more professional in approach. But we need to be careful that personality doesn't get lost as corporate speak increasingly creeps in.

In fairness you and other mods wouldn't be long speaking up either, there definitely isn't and never was a hive mind or group think in the mod forum. That's needed to make sure we learn from mistakes or suggest new ways of dealing with things.

Pawwed Rig

seamus wrote: »

Fado fado there was a vBulletin upgrade that included the ability to view threads in a tree view rather than linear..

I miss those as the time I get to spend on boards these days is more spread out with a few minutes here and there. I can rarely stay involved in a fast moving thread as by the time I get back to argue my point the thread has moved on.

Esel

seamus wrote: »

Fadó fadó there was a vBulletin upgrade that included the ability to view threads in a tree view rather than linear.

At the time there was some wailing when people accidentally activated this view in their options. And it was removed. It was considered to be archaic, a lot like USENET.

Now I actually think it would be great to have it back; multi-branched threads really allow for some very robust conversations because they tend to naturally become 1-to-1 or 1-to-2 rather than 1-to-200.

The longer threads on boards become badly stifled by three conversations going on at once criss-crossing eachother, or new posters coming in and responding to a point that was refuted back in page 3.

Struck a couple of fadas in at the start of your post - hope you don't mind!

I remember that feature - you still see it, and it is definitely great for following 'sub-thread' diversions.

Screen size could be an issue (possibly a major issue?). Also, as so much work has been done on new layouts already, it might not be trivial to retrofit.

If it actually is an easy option, I think it would help a lot, in mega-threads especially.

Nix on the USE*** thing - too hard to explain and the kids will just say "What? But... bit... torrents."

Up mods, down no mods.

Up good mods, down bad mods.

No vote available.





Subscription is one way forward.

As Short Round said: "You gotta pay!".

Look at the spin-offs.

LoLth

One post deleted because it decided to cite specific examples and hold them up for explanation.

This thread has been moving along on track so far and has produced some useful feedback that will make the site better overall. lets not derail it now please.

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

Seriously, I remember that DRP thread Wibbs, was about 3 or 4 years ago, wouldn't happen now as Boards has changed a lot and is more professional in approach.

I won't but I could point to other stuff that has happened in the last 12 months. However as I said it's a rare enough thing.

we need to be careful that personality doesn't get lost as corporate speak increasingly creeps in.

Oh sure, though I think that ship has somewhat sailed.

Actually on that last point, in my humble the "corporate" need to be all to all, with the attendant "improvements" to the site have impacted the community and not in a good way. The very openness to feedback has created feedback. Further it would be opinion that the vast majority of such feedback is pointless/navel gazing/PR exercise/axe grinding.

Take this thread. You could damn near swap out "liberal bias" for "right wing bias" with not too many tweaks. We've seen threads and posts here and elsewhere about how Boards has become more aggressive/sexist/right wing/[insert phobic of your choice here]. What does that say about the reality of things?

LoLth

Wibbs wrote: »

Take this thread. You could damn near swap out "liberal bias" for "right wing bias" with not too many tweaks. We've seen threads and posts here and elsewhere about how Boards has become more aggressive/sexist/right wing/[insert phobic of your choice here]. What does that say about the reality of things?

I think it says that the site is a community made up of individuals that join groups and those groups each have their interpretation of what is and is not "good" for the rest of the community. Which is pretty much how you would expect a community to run if it were not forced into a particular pattern of thinking. Which , to me, indicates that either the mods are doing a really good job at not intruding too much or the mods really aren't doing much at all! imho, thats a good thing as it allows the tone of the discussion to be set by the community and mod "guidance" should only be required when it strays past a line of acceptability to either side.

The placement of those lines and the amount of activity required by the moderators is where the issue of perceived bias comes in as this has an effect on the tone and of course a direct impact on what type of user finds boards an attractive community to be part of.

FA Hayek

LoLth wrote: »

that is assuming that anyone would pass comment on it at all. Generally discussion is brought about by the unexpected. Also, if it were greeted with howls of derision, that is not the moderation showing bias, that would be societal/poster opinion being expressed. It also depends on the forum it was posted in. Some forums may not allow memes as they detract from the more serious nature of the discussion, others have meme's / jokes / humour and satire as part of the expected status quo for the treatment of subject matter.

Yes, somewhat agreed. My point was more of a general point when it comes to online media and social media. Those who hold traditional conservative opinions are often held up to ridicule. There seems to be a herd mentality in this regard. Boards.ie is not exclusive in this, its just very prevalent online.

Someone mentioned earlier that Facebook had been actively closing and editing groups that had conservative opinions. Twitter banned a leading conservative figure about a month ago on fairly flimsy circumstances. The net is many places seems to have a soft-left tinge.

LoLth wrote: »

and, as already discussed this is because of legal issues, general trends for certain topics to attract a type of poster/post. We recently had a thread on Traveller culture that went along quite well. Its when a thread on a group starts out with some generic anti-group sentiment or descends into anti-X or anti-Y that it is generally better to close the thread than to let is continue. Now, if the thread was closed purely because it discusses a particular ethnic group and not because of the language used or the context of the thread, then it is an issue that needs to be addressed. As already posted, emotive topics are more likely to cause offense in readers that disagree and are therefore more likely to generate reports which in turn calls for closer moderator attention.

Legal issues seems to be a huge vague catch all in fairness. Take for example the Pat Hickey scenario. There is a long running thread here which the mods have no issue with it seems. Fair play. Yet, on sites like the Independent.ie or thejournal.ie all discussion related to him is censored. It just seems that certain sites are nervous of some issues more so then others. Thejournal.ie it seems doesn't censor discussion on migrants, travellers or Islam, so why should boards.ie ? I would have the same criticism to these other sites as well mind.

LoLth wrote: »

If you see this, report it. if you report it and nothing is done, query it. if you are not satisfied with the response, query the cmod. The only way a bias can be confirmed is if we see it. Then we can deal with it as necessary, either by giving the mod a heads up or , if its a pattern, taking it furhter. But we can only see a pattern if it is reported at the time. Trawling back through posts loses context and may suggest a pattern where none actually exists.

I did report it and nothing was done. Not surprised because the person who posted that was a mod of the same forum. What was the likely hood of anything being done? Close to zero, so why bother going through all these hoops for no end gain?

I am nervous of posting the example here because it seems the scope of the discussion will not allow it, however in turn we are trying to argue a point about bias where we are not allowed to show actual examples. Like fighting with one arm tied behind your back.

Anyway, that to me would be a good example of bias or at least just very poor moderating. I also find it distasteful that someone would use the issue of child abuse to score some petty political points. The comment was bad and as someone who has family members who suffered child abuse, I found it beyond the pale. The thing is though, if it was fair game to use that line of argument from the other side, although I would have not liked it, at least I know that there was a fairness and balance. If I compared the actions and speech of say the Sydney Rose of Tralee to child abuse I would be banned. No question.

LoLth wrote: »

thats a new one. boards mods are anti-Zionist? Other posters have accused the opposite! If you see something that you feel is racist/hatespeech then definitely report it regardless of what group it is targeting.

Not anti-zionist, just that a lot of leeway is given to that line of speech here. If someone came in and said Muslims have a 'bloodlust' they would be banned, if they said the same about travellers, ban hammer out again. Someone said this about 'zionists' the past week and nothing was done. Again, this is not about getting justice or revenge or any of that nonsense, its about consistency. I have no problem with people saying that zionists have a bloodlust if they believe that if one can say the same about other groups of people.

LoLth wrote: »

K-9's response pretty much covers this. I would add though, if you can point to an exact demarcation where a moderator can say "this is too far and no longer opinion" then please do so, as long as that line can be applied across topics and across groups. Until then, mods are needed to make judgement calls which, outside of the time, tone and trend that influence the decision may appear too harsh or too lenient and may indicate a pattern where none exists. If one does exist, then it shouldn't and its something we will be happy to take a look at. Please bring it to the attention of the Cmod to check over.

Fair enough. However, how can you reconcile Dav's remark last year about 'right-wing opinion is extreme' to that statement. I know he no longer works at boards.ie but is that editorial stance still the line in the sand?

LoLth wrote: »

If you want the content of boards.ie to improve, then please do so by making well reasoned discussions and be willing to have your views challenged in a reasonable and respectful manner. The mods cant do that for you. They can and should, however, do their utmost to ensure that you have a platform on which to do so without suffering abuse or ridicule.

Fair enough. Again though abuse and ridicule tends to be one way in certain discussions and forums, in my opinion. Others disagree. Hence, why we are having this discussion. It is clear that some people feel disenfranchised, its self evident as this topic has popped up more then once.

LoLth

I can see how many may think "legal issue" is a bit of a catch all and possibly a cop out. thing is, its a very very vague set of rules and guidelines handed down by both the EC and Irish law on how to handle online media usage (if I post here am I expressing an opinion or publishing a statement? if boards allow it to stand are they deliberately facilitating me or is there an argument that they didnt know etc etc) . no two discussion forums in Europe seem to interpret these issues in the same way and , as yet, there has been no consistent clarification despite requests. Is boards being overly cautious? maybe. Should we take more risks? whats the worst case scenario for the poster? whats the worst case for the rest of the posters? I'll be honest, I'd prefer if people could just post what they want in terms that are based on discussion rather than the textual equivalent to a gladiatorial arena of opinion, but legally that cant ever happen. Its not actually boards' fault, its people that did it. not all, just a few that prefer to "win" rather than accept that others may actually disagree. I am also aware of how legal caution could be misconstrued as political or idealogical bias (and vice versa).

If you reported it and nothing was done then I doubt that the poster was a mod has anything to do with it. Mods are users outside of their own fora and are treated as such. Inside their own forums they are much much more restricted and more accountable. Misbehaviour by a moderator in a forum they are supposed to be caretaking is treated very seriously precisely because of the added responsibility and impact involved.

point taken on the Zionist issue. its a tough one to call and I think it depends on the discussion taking place and where it is happening. It also really depends on context and style of discussion. If any user posted "[GROUP] are evil and should be exterminated!" then I would certainly hope any mod on this site will sanction the user, delete/edit the post and have a serious word about their future in their forum, maybe flag it for category or site level action. If instead a reasonable discussion can be had, without the distasteful assertions then I would hope the mod would monitor the thread and ensure it does not descend into unacceptable posting and be mindful of (yes again) legal considerations and that some topics, no matter how tastefully worded cannot be acceptable.

can you PM me a link to the post by Dav you are referring to? I am not aware of that being policy nor do I think it was given as a directive to the mods.

I know we're never going to make everybody happy. Thats an impossible aim. What we can do is try to make the ones that want to use the forums as a discussion forum and that are interested in reading diverse opinions happy so that we attract more of those users, regardless of their own beliefs or bias because they will provide the same degree of diversity and generate discussion. Claims of bias will always be there as will claims of incorrect procedure or disagreement with rules. That doesnt mean we should ignore these topics when they arise, we, the admins, should discuss it with the users and over time try to judge whether we need to re-tune the rules and guidelines to better meet the poster requirements. (this has a knock on effect for the commercial side of the site but thats for the staff to worry about and thankfully it , usually, is a positive relationship between the goals).

FA Hayek

LoLth wrote: »

If you reported it and nothing was done then I doubt that the poster was a mod has anything to do with it. Mods are users outside of their own fora and are treated as such. Inside their own forums they are much much more restricted and more accountable. Misbehaviour by a moderator in a forum they are supposed to be caretaking is treated very seriously precisely because of the added responsibility and impact involved.
.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The person who wrote that was not just a mod, it was a mod who was posting in a forum they themselves were modding. Does not exactly bode well for any decision.

I will PM the post by Dav. Not sure it was an instruction per say but it did seem a pretty strongly worded statement about the editorial line of the site. If I have that wrong perhaps can we get some clarity.

Fair points on the rest though.

looksee

FA Hayek wrote: »

Yes, somewhat agreed. My point was more of a general point when it comes to online media and social media. Those who hold traditional conservative opinions are often held up to ridicule. There seems to be a herd mentality in this regard. Boards.ie is not exclusive in this, its just very prevalent online.

Could you give an example of what you mean by 'traditional conservative opinions?' Are you referring to the state's leaning towards religion? Are you referring to the role of men as heads of families? Do you mean that the gay marriage referendum should not have been passed? Or are you talking about economic policies?

It would be very easy to argue that liberalism is also held to ridicule, but, as with conservatism, it is usually necessary to push the arguments to the extreme ends of opinions to make the ridicule effective.

K-9

I would be mlndful of giving minority opinions in a thread some leeway but it's a balancing act, if we go too soft we could be inconsistent and let somebody away with stuff that those posting on the majority side are treated harsher for. That's unfair as well.

FA Hayek

looksee wrote: »

Could you give an example of what you mean by 'traditional conservative opinions?' Are you referring to the state's leaning towards religion? Are you referring to the role of men as heads of families? Do you mean that the gay marriage referendum should not have been passed? Or are you talking about economic policies?

It would be very easy to argue that liberalism is also held to ridicule, but, as with conservatism, it is usually necessary to push the arguments to the extreme ends of opinions to make the ridicule effective.

Take the SSM referendum of last year for example or even those on the site who espouse a pro-life position. There is no point really having a discussion about abortion here unless you are extremely patient and have to put it with your opinion being ridiculed en mass safe. To reiterate I would not exactly be the pro-life type either but at least I see where they come from as I do with the pro-choice people.

As a matter of interest in say AH and any of the Politics forums, are there any mods there who would be pro-life or would have been anti-SSM? I do not think there is one. Since 38% of the population voted against it and the 8th amendment appeal would be much more closely contested referendum, do people then not see that the problem? Of course the easy thing to say is that the other side are afforded the right to reply and discuss in a civil manner etc.etc. Yet, if the rule makers and moderators of the discussion are so heavily sided in one way, then consciously or unconsciously bias will creep into decisions.

K-9

I'd be a bit similar to you FA, I would be more pro life in view, but the reality of the situation makes me grudgingly pro choice. I appreciate the point on the threads, I tend to avoid them because of those problems but ventured into one last week. It wasn't too bad for the day or 2 I followed it, but the more extreme and invested sides put me off. I kind of see why politicians run a mile from it!

On moderation, I raised that point earlier, it's getting harder to find potential mods who want to mod the 2 politics forums so I'm afraid just getting a suitable candidate is the priority. The days of getting differing political views, that ship has sailed unfortunately.

Again, temperament is the key, the ability to take a step back, not taking stuff personally, objectivity, a mod that aren't afraid of saying "well I don't think I agree with that".

Just on political mods, how many differing outlooks do we need? A FG supporter will probably be anti SF so we need to address that, then we need a Loyalist one, FF need represented, the left, the right, Libertarians, Communists...

Bit of an exaggeration but you get my point?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Outlaw Pete

Personally I feel the liberal left posters on Boards have gotten away with blue murder down the years. They quite simply ruled the roost. Take almost any thread topic that has traditionally been synonymous with heated debate and as sure as God made apples the users expressing opinions that went against the general accepted consensus, would be inevitably find themselves being hit with a tsunami of ad hominem sneers as an obvious means of discrediting them.

To be quite honest, I think it was very much deliberate as those threads would more often than not end up locked as soon as they would descend into an all out brawl and so, job done. Not suggesting that it has only ever been the so called liberal left contingent on Boards that would have resorted to 'playing the man and not the ball' but tbf, it absolutely tended to be only them that got away with it. The 'attack the post and not the poster' rule on Boards (while quite obviously an essential one) has always been far too selectively applied.

In saying that, it doesn't appear to be anywhere near as bad of late as it used to be, for whatever reason.

I of course appreciate that there is a small chance God did not make apples.