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

K-9

The Ireland is turning very right wing thread in AH is a "great" read, I really wonder if I'm living in the same country as the people who see the country as a Cuba or Venezuala and on the other side Singapore or Saudi Arabia. Those people will see bias everywhere never mind boards modding!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Elliott S

^^^^^

This sounds so paranoid, it's difficult to take seriously.

Tom Dunne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What I find interesting is that mods/cmods/admins showing a genuine interest in addressing concerns about the perception of bias is yet again being interpreted as some sort of coordinated effort to stifle debate and constructive debate in what is an uncharacteristically civil Feedback thread.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we are in a no win situation.

RDM_83 again

Thats a very good comparison Permabear, I do find it rather weirdly ironic that the Privilege concept is being utilized here though!

My overall view and I will try and make this constructive but most bluntly is whats the point of this thread? I will specify that I am talking about the current affairs and general forums here (AH, PC, main Politics, maybe AA Humanities tGC, tLL etc?) , I'm sure Fitness for example has bias involving Smiths machines vs Kettle Bells but thats not really Liberal Bias

There have been loads of threads on this topic directly and some such as the Ghost town thread that have involved it as a facet.
In terms of one of the biggest it ended in Dav declaring that "Right wing opinion is dangerous",

Elliott S wrote: »

^^^^^

This sounds so paranoid, it's difficult to take seriously.

I know I was ordered not to mention moderator decisions but in terms of this thread any users that have this concern its so frustrating because of course this may come off as paranoid, we're specifically not allowed to post what we believe is evidence of this so its easy to dismiss as paranoia or simply disgruntled users.

Even look at the way in Tom Dunnes post above its not talking about concerns about bias, its talking about how to tackle a perception of bias, the best way to tackle a perception of bias is to take the concerns on board and actually see if they have merit or if they are simply perception.

On this note I would like to ask what would be required for the moderators/cmods/admins to take this issue properly on board, if possible in a manner that can actually be carried out by the user(s), as individual incidents tend to be dismissed would it require a log of unactioned reported posts, similar threads on different topics being treated differently, what in specific would convince those with authority that this actually is harming a site thats suffering from a declining user base.

I am asking because this is a rather difficult thing to show apart from as groups of isolated incidents, I think myself and other users showed direct evidence of preferential treatment of threads/topics depending on political outlook in the Refugee Crisis thread on here but that thread was ended with that rather infamous statement by Dav I mentioned earlier which basically confirmed the idea that there is bias on this site and that site management isn't interested to many users.

In short what is required for this issue to be taken seriously rather than talked about on here, the thread be locked, another thread in a month, each time with users who don't fit the right view point (or even don't buy into the right view point wholeheartedly) more and more seeking out alternative discussion sites with the feeling they aren't wanted here

edit: Small addition - we often say that everybody sees bias here so its not a issue, how many left liberal posters have raised the issue of bias on feedback in the last 3-4 years?

K-9

Yeah, sorry about that.

Permabear you are right. To give an example from our view, You yourself would see bias in the cafe, too many left wing mods and would post about that often. When we had a Libertarian mod in politics, which lets face it is a tiny minority, niche, mostly online type thing in Ireland, that was perfectly fine for you as your own belief was catered for. Bias wasn't an issue then at all even though that was completely unrepresentative of real world politics in Ireland.

In general, it isn't really about balance, it's wanting "my" side represented for some reason.

Elliott S

Well it seems to me that no matter what good points moderators and admins make here, it's going to be dismissed as them protecting the status quo, whatever that is. So what's the point? What do people want to hear?

Trojan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This doesn't have any user level requirements:


Are you suggesting that admins, cat mods and mods (and ex-admins) shouldn't engage in this discussion?

Skylinehead

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I have no idea why you have decided to equate an ideology and a religion. Oh wait, I do. Do you think the post would be carded if it said "Wahhabi regime" (it wouldn't) or "Jew regime" (it probably would)? You're being incredibly disingenuous with that post.

Cabaal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No admin, cat mod or mod is stopping anyone from posting in this thread and here you are suggesting that the very fact K-9 is posting is somehow stopping people
:rolleyes:

In case you didn't notice this is a discussion forum, people are allowed to post and that includes you, me and K-9. Just because you may not agree with K-9 its laughable at this stage that you are now suggesting his posts and other admin, cmod or mods posts are crowding out anyone else.

I'm sorry but in all honesty your posts come across as paranoid at this stage,

ancapailldorcha

And if mods didn't post here then we'd be accused of being detached or disaffected. We just can't win.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

Elliott S wrote: »

Well it seems to me that no matter what good points moderators and admins make here, it's going to be dismissed as them protecting the status quo, whatever that is. So what's the point? What do people want to hear?

Well for myself personally I would like a (hopefully detailed) explanation of what would be required for the issue of accidental or delibrate moderator bias in PC and AH to be taken seriously. I'm sorry if I sound overly pessimistic but I presume this thread will be locked with a post saying that disgruntled posters opinions have been taken into account and in a months time we will have a similar thread.

I can point to recent examples of how posters and threads are treated differently. These may be dismissed as isolated incidents but as many posters are aware there is an obvious pattern.
Hence why I am asking what level of proof is needed and what steps will have to be followed for this to be taken the same way something like misogyny was back in the day

K-9

I'll leave it at that pb, next I'll get attacked for my grammar and spelling that leaves my posts extremely muddled to you.

The point was libertarianism is unrepresentative of political opinion in Ireland as 90% of people wouldn't even know what it is and 99.9% of peoples don't vote for it. It's extremely socially liberal with things like unlimited and unrestricted immigration and so right wing economically FG and Renua are statist sell outs.

Libertarianism doesn't represent anybody except a select few and yet that wasn't a problem at all for you. Which is exactly my point, the beliefs are irrelevant, Liberterian, Communist, Far right fascist, okay I'm going too far.

That was my point. I don't want to go down rabbit holes you dig like grammar or what you think my opinion of a mod is. Btw, zero problems there, we get on well.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hatrickpatrick

LoLth, the reason 'legal issues' sounds like a cop out isn't because of the law around media, it's because what specific content would break the law is not being addressed. Personal harassment would fall under this, as arguably would anti-religion stuff - but beyond that, there is absolutely no Irish law which says "do not write an opinion that might piss somebody off". General comments about particular political ideologies do not fall under any anti free speech laws that I know of, so if Boards decides to shut down a discussion on feminism, abortion or gay marriage for example, it's pretty clear that this is not because of a legal issue. If I am wrong, quote the relevant laws? Expressing disdain or ridicule for ideologies is not a crime, civil or criminal.

It has been admitted, both in this thread and the other thread, that potentially emotive threads are watched more closely and moderated more strictly than others. This has no basis in law and is purely a decision by the Boards leadership - and crucially, a decision which up until now has never actually been publicly acknowledged.

I put it to you that if this is indeed the case - that potentially emotive or controversial topics result in less tolerance or leeway than other topics - then the site rules and/or forum charters should be updated accordingly. The issue here is with secret, undeclared policies.

Wibbs

RDM_83 again wrote: »

edit: Small addition - we often say that everybody sees bias here so its not a issue, how many left liberal posters have raised the issue of bias on feedback in the last 3-4 years?

Good question R. I have found the "lefties" tend to come at it more sideways, far less direct. I suspect because contrary to the vibe of this thread they know they'd be slammed for it if they were more public. Seriously, read any thread on the site concerning "social justice" or whatever currently popular Yank term de jour and look at the derision that falls upon those calling for more "correctness". Then come back to me about the liberal bias on the site.

So for example the sexism in After Hours stuff. There was a thread hereabouts concerning it(which had more than a few naysayer including yours truly), but it was more about a general reporting of posts, make derisory/handwringing comments on threads about the "terrible sexism" and so on. Until mods, or particular mods decided that enough was enough and ran with the top down "campaign" including missives from on high. To be clear I have no access nor knowledge of what goes on with AH mods, but that was what it felt like from an outsider point of view. It felt very much like a crusade at the time.

It has been dialled right back since then. Back to the "don't be a dick" rule, rather than the "I'm permanently offended so cater for me" nonsense. More and something common to most minority views here the type that thinks "I have a viewpoint, why doesn't your community conform to mine". I've had a couple of women ask me "why isn't the gentleman's club more open to women/our viewpoints(they really mean theirs)". Just as I said to those who asked similar of the Ladies Lounge(not just men BTW), the clue is in the effing forum name.

In the end is there a centre left bias here on Boards? Yes, of course there is. Duh. It's a general reflection of wider Irish society, or at least a demographic based slice of it. On the other hand you also read more minority viewpoints here that you'd almost never encounter in the real world of Ireland.

Skylinehead

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It has been admitted, both in this thread and the other thread, that potentially emotive threads are watched more closely and moderated more strictly than others. This has no basis in law and is purely a decision by the Boards leadership - and crucially, a decision which up until now has never actually been publicly acknowledged.

I put it to you that if this is indeed the case - that potentially emotive or controversial topics result in less tolerance or leeway than other topics - then the site rules and/or forum charters should be updated accordingly. The issue here is with secret, undeclared policies.

Of course controversial threads are watched closely. We proactively moderate them in order to lessen the moderation load that would inevitably happen if the thread was allowed to run naturally. Controversial topics end up with far more abuse etc than other threads. Is this seriously supposed to be an issue? It's common sense, you're making a mountain out of a fairly microscopic molehill here.

Outlaw Pete

Skylinehead wrote: »

Controversial topics end up with far more abuse etc than other threads.

That's true in fairness.

Pretty much the same way the 3 Arena would expect more trouble during a Snoop Dogg gig than they would were Enya playing.

hatrickpatrick

Skylinehead wrote: »

Of course controversial threads are watched closely. We proactively moderate them in order to lessen the moderation load that would inevitably happen if the thread was allowed to run naturally. Controversial topics end up with far more abuse etc than other threads. Is this seriously supposed to be an issue? It's common sense, you're making a mountain out of a fairly microscopic molehill here.

Not if it means that such threads are more likely to be locked / less likely to be given leeway - for the same behaviour - than other threads. That's called inconsistency.

seamus

You're demanding a level of consistency that's incompatible with the organisational structure of boards.

Skylinehead

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not if it means that such threads are more likely to be locked / less likely to be given leeway - for the same behaviour - than other threads. That's called inconsistency.

No, they're more likely to be locked because of vastly different amounts of the "same" behaviour. Just like real life. What do you actually expect from such situations? If a thread takes up far too much of our time, it gets locked, usually after repeated attempts at keeping it on track. The gangster thread was a good example - just not worth it in the end.

Earthhorse

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Hence why I am asking what level of proof is needed and what steps will have to be followed for this to be taken the same way something like misogyny was back in the day

I can't speak on behalf of the website obviously but I would say it's been acknowledged by some that boards content is a reflection of Irish society and that there may be some unconscious bias seeping into decisions of moderators at times because they are only human. I think that's about as strong a case has been presented here and don't believe the issue requires addressing beyond that.

The fact that it comes up frequently isn't really proof enough that the issue is more serious than that. Feedback threads are started about posting images in AH, having downvote buttons etc. on a regular basis but that doesn't mean a change needs to be made that will only make the website worse.

hatrickpatrick

seamus wrote: »

You're demanding a level of consistency that's incompatible with the organisational structure of boards.

Explain?

Skylinehead wrote: »

No, they're more likely to be locked because of vastly different amounts of the "same" behaviour. Just like real life. What do you actually expect from such situations? If a thread takes up far too much of our time, it gets locked, usually after repeated attempts at keeping it on track. The gangster thread was a good example - just not worth it in the end.

Two points here:

One: That does not address the pre-emptive locking of threads because they might get derailed.

Two: The whole point of moderation is to allow normal discussion to go on without getting derailed or bogged down in rule violations - closing the entire thread, thereby shutting down both the actual discussion and the troublemaking is nonsensical and frankly lazy moderating. It's no different than cancelling an entire class trip because of one or two class clowns, or shutting down an entire nightclub because there are a few fights in it among hundreds of people.

And again, it is a policy which is not clearly spelled out in the site rules, which is the underlying issue to all of this. If lazy moderation and pre-emptive strikes are the other of the day, then that should be clearly defined in the forum charter.

Look, all I'm suggesting here is that the site rules / forum charters be strictly adhered to by mods. That means no moderating for reasons which are not clearly spelled out in the aforementioned documents, and no exceptions to the aforementioned documents either. How anyone can claim that this is a level of consistency beyond Boards' capability utterly confounds me - I'm simply asking that moderators be constrained to what is written in black and white and not allowed to engage in opinion-based moderating of threads or posts which do not break the rules.

Skylinehead

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Two points here:

One: That does not address the pre-emptive locking of threads because they might get derailed.

Is this in reference to the PC thread at the start of this? I swear it was explained to you multiple times that this was not the reason it was closed. But hey, I don't know the details there.

Two: The whole point of moderation is to allow normal discussion to go on without getting derailed or bogged down in rule violations - closing the entire thread, thereby shutting down both the actual discussion and the troublemaking is nonsensical and frankly lazy moderating. It's no different than cancelling an entire class trip because of one or two class clowns, or shutting down an entire nightclub because there are a few fights in it among hundreds of people.

And again, it is a policy which is not clearly spelled out in the site rules, which is the underlying issue to all of this. If lazy moderation and pre-emptive strikes are the other of the day, then that should be clearly defined in the forum charter.

Or shutting down an entire nightclub because it's nothing but brawling every night. We can trade poor analogies all day if you want, but it won't get us anywhere.

Look, I don't mean to be rude, but you call it lazy moderation when all you're doing here is complaining. You don't have to take time out of your day to deal with absolute messes of threads like the gangster ones where half the users are determined to break the rules. What do you suggest we do? Put more rules in the OP? They're already full of them, and when people continue to ignore them en masse, there's not a lot of options.

Earthhorse

hp, Surely you agree that mods will make mistakes though?

looksee

Hatrickpatrick: Look, all I'm suggesting here is that the site rules / forum charters be strictly adhered to by mods. That means no moderating for reasons which are not clearly spelled out in the aforementioned documents, and no exceptions to the aforementioned documents either. How anyone can claim that this is a level of consistency beyond Boards' capability utterly confounds me - I'm simply asking that moderators be constrained to what is written in black and white and not allowed to engage in opinion-based moderating of threads or posts which do not break the rules.

On the whole moderating is done according to site rules and forum charters. However if you are suggesting there should be enough rules to cover every tiny, different circumstance then both the site rules and the charters would be impossibly long, and in order to deal with the rules lawyers would have to be written in a style that no-one would read. Not that most people (including me) read most charters anyway.

There are no policies or secret instructions that are not clearly visible to all users. Mods of various forums are reasonably free to mod according to the style and subject of the forum. You need a different approach in modding, say, AH and Gardening (though it has got a bit lively in there at times); Politics and Personal Issues, Cycling and Antiques and Collectibles. The only reasonable way to accommodate all these variables is to give Mods flexibility to mod according to their discretion. And if you disagree with a mod decision there are numerous options for disputing it.

No-one has ever claimed that modding is exactly the same all over the site, and the people doing the modding are individuals, volunteers, and doing their best for the site. Most users do take a positive attitude to the site, accept that no-one is perfect and offer suggestions for improvements in a constructive way, which is why it works as well as it does.

Outlaw Pete

Disagreeing with you a lot today, seamus, it's not deliberate

seamus wrote: »

You're demanding a level of consistency that's incompatible with the organisational structure of boards.

Honestly can't understand why you would think the level of consistency being asked for is beyond the organisational structure of boards. There have been many moderators down the years that have no problem doing just that. They have however been few and far between, on the busier forums at least.

Don't want to turn this thread into the Ghost Town one, but it did appear as if certain points made on that thread were finally being taken on board. That Boards was willing to start to accept some uncomfortable truths. Was I wrong there? Is that not the case? As it seems from many of the replies over the last page or so (not yourself, seamus) that heads are now firmly back in the sand on a many issues.

Folks, generally speaking, users on Boards have NEVER been moderated equally. Certain rules such as 'attack the post and not the poster' have been used as a battering ram at times (the civility rule running a close second) on certain users whose opinions were not wanted on the forum. Lets not pretend that is/was not the case. I am not saying that such moderation was never warranted, as much of it was, but the point is that in comparison those expressing right-on, politically correct opinion, pretty much were able to fill their boots when it came to attacking posters rather than posts... and they knew it.

We have been asked on this thread to not give examples and so I won't but there are mountains of them. Read almost any Irish forum that discusses the moderation here and what you will find generally is people complaining about inconsistent moderation and quite often specific mods been cited as moderating they way in which they did/do because of their quite obvious own personal opinions on the topic at hand.

It's an issue. A big one and if Boards wants to thrive rather than survive, then it's one that needs to be addressed. As I said before, it's nowhere near as bad as it was and that's not just an opinion, that's a fact. I see threads on AH now and I can't believe at times that users are expressing certain opinions because in 2005-2010 they would have been scalped quick sharp for saying similar, by mods and users alike. In saying that, I don't post nearly as much now as I used to and I certainly don't get knee deep in discussions as I had done before and so if some users are still saying that they find certain charter rules seem only to apply to them, while other users seem to be teflon coated in that regard, then I would listen to them, as nothing will kill Boards off faster than users feeling that they are not being fairly treated here.

One thing I noticed over the years, and which later became quite common in the DRF, was admin saying: "What other users got away with is irrelevant. ". That, or similar, has been said a lot in the DRF and I get the reasoning behind why users shouldn't be able to post examples of what other users have seemingly got away with but there is something to all that nonetheless. The fact that it was never entertained means that mods/admin have never really had to deal with specific examples of inconstancy being put before them. Do it in FB and you'd be very quickly accused of axe grinding. Not suggesting it should be allowed as part of the DRP but there should be some way for users to be able to get answers as to why some users get away breaking charter rules and others do not.

Stheno

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

One thing I noticed over the years, and which later became quite common in the DRF, was admin saying: "What other users got away with is irrelevant. ". That, or similar, has been said a lot in the DRF and I get the reasoning behind why users shouldn't be able to post examples of what other users have seemingly got away with but there is something to all that nonetheless. The fact that it was never entertained means that mods/admin have never really had to deal with specific examples of inconstancy being put before them. Do it in FB and you'd be very quickly accused of axe grinding. Not suggesting it should be allowed as part of the DRP but there should be some way for users to be able to get answers as to why some users get away breaking charter rules and others do not.

Modding the cafe which is a fairly busy and often very polarised forum, I come across this a lot, posters feel provoked and post in the heat of the moment.

Given feedback in the few months since I've been modding the cafe, this is now something we take into account both when discussing what to do, and when actioning posts, so that there is an equal sanction for both the provoker and provokee.

It does take extra time from a mod perspective, but it's ultimately more fair to check back and see what caused a poster to deserve a card, if there was a cause and to action it.

In very busy threads though, that may mean going back two or three pages of posts, which makes equality in terms of treating both parties fairly quite onerous in terms of time.

Another thing I've found that works quite well, and if any of the cafe regulars are reading this they might chime in, is to engage via pm to diffuse situations.

I've found most posters are very willing to engage and appreciate the couple of pms chatting about how their posting style in the cafe might be percieved differently than what they intended

I even on occasion have enjoyed interacting with posters who take up a lot of mod time, including one memorable moment when a poster sent me a pm apologising for thinking I was a bloke and not a "chick"

Modding is about balance, especially in the busy and more polarised forums, and while I realise that this thread originated from a mistake I made, I think some valid points have been made, yet there cannot be a carte blanche approach to modding on boards. I know given the variety of forums I moderate (world religions, seperation and divorce, work and jobs and the politics cafe) that a different approach is required across such a broad spectrum.

A one size fits all rule would never ever work across all four, modding seperation and divorce where people can have very sensitive issues could never be done like in the cafe for example.

RDM_83 again

Lost a different reply earlier since the site kept freaking out (seriously its beyond a joke at this stage)

Earthhorse wrote: »

I can't speak on behalf of the website obviously but I would say it's been acknowledged by some that boards content is a reflection of Irish society and that there may be some unconscious bias seeping into decisions of moderators at times because they are only human. I think that's about as strong a case has been presented here and don't believe the issue requires addressing beyond that.

As has been pointed out we aren't allowed to use evidence to back up this point of view, of course the argument sounds weak its impossible for it not too, this is why I have repeatedly asked, What is needed and whats the correct process for raising this in a way where evidence can be used and the issue taken serious.

Skylinehead wrote: »

Is this in reference to the PC thread at the start of this? I swear it was explained to you multiple times that this was not the reason it was closed. But hey, I don't know the details there.

It was explained but one of the main points brought up was ignored, why was the default response to a report to lock a thread that wasn't breaking any rules, its a good example of how these "mistakes" only happen to threads and comments that aren't the right opinion.


Anyway to me at least its not about having a rule to cover every situation, its not about the fact that the user base tilts towards a particular type of left liberal socio-political viewpoint*.
What its about is an equal and impartial application of the rules for threads and posters.

1 - No locking or moving certain threads, while allowing threads with an OP that fits the "right" opinion to stay open even though they contain the same amount of content and links and so on e.g either they are both following the rules or neither are - there was a recent pretty good example of this - I can't post it however :rolleyes: - So instead I'l reference the treatment of the migration threads

2A - Apply the same standards of posting to every poster, no matter what side of an argument they are on and if they are a power user/mod or not, particularly if they are engaging in baiting and/or misrepresenting users. Have a recent example of this too.

2B - Understand that the reason users care about this is because though its downplayed even picking up a few cards results in much much harsher sanction- I've got 4 cards in AH in 4 years, managed to get it reversed thankfully but last mod interaction resulted in my being banned for an offense that would probably warrant a yellow/red card.
If your on the wrong side of the argument unless you hold yourself to a higher standard than the other posters you will pick up cards.

3 - Treat reports from all users the same

4 - Don't stifle discussion according to some completely arbitrary guidelines, seriously the Rachel Dezail/Trans-Racial thread had more politically correct moderation than The Guardian

5 - Don't try and divert these threads into the "you can't have consistency between Personal Issues and AH" or "Do you want a rule for everything". This always happens and people are nearly always asking for Consistency (within forums) and (visible) Application of the basic rules

6 - If a forum like AH or board in general has a certain outlook just admit it and put a Mission Statement in, Like Dav's statement gets brushed under the carpet by the Mods and Admins but it was an admission that Right Wing opinion is treated differently.

Don't presume that the user base is particularly happy, these threads are always the feedback regulars (I know I have a fascination with here), occasionally threads do blow up, there is a very substantial minority (possibly an equal split) that view this dynamic as existing and keep in mind the active user base is falling quiet sharply.




*Which is actually very much arguable-look at the multiculturalism poll in AH that was hundreds and hundreds of users voting and the result wasn't what, I would say the Social and Society mods/Admins/ Power-users do definitely fit the bill though