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

osarusan

Without permission to reference specific examples of threads/mod decisions where posters think bias is evident, and also without knowledge of whether mod action was actually taken (it's not always visible etc), having a discussion about bias is virtually impossible, I would have thought.

LoLth

osarusan wrote: »

Without permission to reference specific examples of threads/mod decisions where posters think bias is evident, and also without knowledge of whether mod action was actually taken (it's not always visible etc), having a discussion about bias is virtually impossible, I would have thought.

While it is, admittedly, more difficult it is not impossible. The restriction on specifics was imposed to prevent this thread from becoming another "explain exactly why this mod did this!" thread where mods have to defend their actions in some sort of court of public opinion. They dont, and they shouldnt. This is a forum for feedback on the site in general.

On the current topic drift:

Forum Charters: have been discussed. It has been explained repeatedly in the past why they cannot and will never be re-written to cover every possible eventuality. The charter should be a foundation for users to know how the forum is expected to run and not a rulebook for the mods as to what they can and can not action. (in a perfect world mods could just post up "dont be a dick" and that'd be it. let the forum continue form there. However, many threads were had over what actually constitutes "being a dick" and how rude it was to be called a dick or be described as acting like a dick and so, charters were born to help make things a bit clearer for the users. For those of you who think admins/cmods/mods never listen to user feedback, there you go. a prime example that is now being contested as not being far enough - "make charters more complete" - or too far "we used to just have "dont be a dick" and that was a better time for discussion". )

Mod Consistency: this is something that is already being tackled as has been discussed already in other threads and again, based on user feedback.

Mod actions and accountability: this has been done to death at this stage. We hold mods accountable and to a higher standard in forums that they mod. We also take their behaviour as a user into account in forums outside of those they mod into account as a mod should know not to make things more difficult for other mods. However, in discussion, mods are users just like any other outside of the forums they mod.

Bias: No-one has said that there is definitely not a bias. There have been suggestions that the bias is not as large as some may think or that it is more visible on some forums than others. What we have denied is that there is a boards.ie driven mandate of modding bias.

Legal issues: if you think that legal implications for an online forum only come from posting illegal material and hatespeech, please read more on the subject. Slander/ possible slander / potentially libelous opinions / linking to / instructing on bypassing copyright material etc etc are all potential legal issues. even the fact that we dont use a bot to mod gives rise to legal considerations. I dont have a stake in boards beyond the community of posters - I am a volunteer and the only reason I do this is to help provide a community for discussion - but I fully agree with the commercial side of things when they say that feel free to post what you want when you are the one footing the legal bill or having to defend your responsibilities in court. regardless of monetary implications (offers have been made in the past to pay legal bills if X or Y is allowed for discussion) legal responsibility is currently not entirely on the user and so a level of policing is required. Thats the cost of running a site and thats the cost of using it too.

Mods/cmods/admins responding on thread: Mods are users and are allowed post in feedback to give their opinion. Cmods are also users and post their opinion in feedback. Sometimes mods and cmods provide explanation of mechanics and decisions. They dont have to. We (admins) dont (cant) force them to. Admittedly, I like it when they do because it shows an element of willingness to stand by a decision they took. Admins and staff are the only ones that post in feedback from a position of authority , though most of the time admins post opinion as part of a discussion unless directly providing an answer to a query on site policy. If mods/cmods didnt post in feedback, they would have less input than users into the running of the site and would have less opinion in the formation of the rules and standards we ask them to enforce and uphold. If admins/staff didnt post here then we'd be accused of ignoring users. We are engaging in the feedback process that we put in place specifically to allow all types of users to interact and voice their opinion. User says there is a bias, mod says there isnt, cmod says there isnt, admin says they dont see it. We're not overruling the user, feedback is feedback. Its all useful and if even one user thinks there is a bias then it has been brought to the attention of the admins and we will incorporate that into our dealings with the cmods and mods. (also, if ten mods/cmods/admins have the same opinion that does not necessarily mean they are closing ranks or ganging up, it just means they have the same opinion, maybe the topic is something they have already discussed and have come to a conclusion that they share)

managing expectation: This forum is for feedback. In the past, feedback has brought about change but it is not instant and it is not absolute. we are not going to rewrite charters tomorrow or clear out the mod teams. We work with the mods through discussion and sometimes policy (after discussion and consideration). This does not mean feedback is being ignored or that it is pointless, it is the feedback that forms the foundation of those discussions and that is taken into account when considering policy changes and updates. Any poster that thinks feedback is a place to come and get a judgement on X or Y and an instant fix for an issue I am sorry to disappoint but the days of fast moving dictatorship have been replaced by sometimes almost glacial committee. Not a decision that was made by Dev/Cloud/Regi one morning on a whim but a change that came about as the result of User feedback and majority opinion that has continued to evolve as a result of user feedback and majority opinion. Its not finished changing yet either.


Now. This topics was created for a respectful discussion on the issue of bias on boards.ie or at least the perception of it. Can we please drop the accusatory and combative language and claims of conspiracy or deliberate attempts to undermine the validity of feedback by one side or other. Feel free to give your opinion and have that opinion questioned or countered (that goes for both sides of the discussion, admins included) or dont post.

hatrickpatrick

looksee wrote: »

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.

So you're openly admitting that there are things which are not allowed, but are not actually covered either by the site rules or forum charters?

That's a step in the right direction here I guess...

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.

I agree - that is why different forums have different charters, which are stickied and free for everyone to read.

The only reasonable way to accommodate all these variables is to give Mods flexibility to mod according to their discretion.

No, it isn't. The only way to accommodate all these variables is to have different charters for different forums, and stick to them.

There's nothing wrong, by the way, with updating a charter or changing the rules. Again, the issue here is with undeclared rules and moderating beyond the rules.

And if you disagree with a mod decision there are numerous options for disputing it.

:pac:

No-one has ever claimed that modding is exactly the same all over the site,

I've never claimed that myself!

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.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that there are certain subjects which are moderated more harshly than others - as admitted in the previous thread - and that the site rules and forum charters have never publicly acknowledged this.

Honestly, in either this or the previous thread it was publicly admitted that potentially controversial / emotive topics of discussion are watched like hawks and that there is far less leeway allowed before shutting them down. This was a great moment - finally, an admission of something most of us complaining here have known about for years, but which has always been denied or dismissed up until now.

If the site rules or the forum charters acknowledged this, then this entire problem would disappear, for me at least. My beef is with the dishonesty of it all. Nowhere in the rules/AH or PC charter does it say "if your chosen topic of conversation might result in controversy or heated debate, expect it to be locked at the slightest offence, unlike other threads which are allowed plenty of leeway and which continue for weeks on end".

Chips Lovell

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you're openly admitting that there are things which are not allowed, but are not actually covered either by the site rules or forum charters?

That's a step in the right direction here I guess....

This has always been publicly acknowledged:

if you think these rules bind the moderators hands, think again. The moderators have discretion to react and moderate as they see fit, in the best interests of the forum they take care of. You can challenge a decision using the Dispute Resolution Process, but don’t think for a moment you can use the guidelines above to find some semantic loophole to excuse your behaviour (people who do this are known as “rules lawyers” and are seen as a small step above trolls). It’s not going to work. The spirit of the law is more important than the wording of the law on boards.ie and our guidelines can and will change if and when there’s need.

Earthhorse

RDM_83 again wrote: »

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.

It's the same for any issue brought to Feedback. It is frustrating but it has served boards well. Allowing examples just gets users knee deep in a war of contrition with infinite ammunition.

The truth is boards is over moderated and that is why threads get shut down before their time and occasionally without due cause. Moderators on boards have always leaned toward curation and action over the opposite. That's the culture here.

Another part of the culture here is over scrutiny of moderator decisions and site direction. Which is why it's harder and harder to get mods.

Some people are saying they don't feel welcome here. That's a shame but boards is no longer a baby to be molded and shaped. It is what it is and can't be all things to all people. If people can genuinely find an Irish discussion site that is less of an echo chamber than boards then all the best to them but I'm not aware of any that even come close.

FA Hayek

LoLth wrote: »

Mod actions and accountability: this has been done to death at this stage. We hold mods accountable and to a higher standard in forums that they mod. We also take their behaviour as a user into account in forums outside of those they mod into account as a mod should know not to make things more difficult for other mods. However, in discussion, mods are users just like any other outside of the forums they mod.
.

This has been mentioned before but to my naked and perhaps naive eye this does not hold water. I already gave the example of a mod, of a forum they moderate making ugly possibly defamatory claims regarding child abuse against a conservative politician. That was reported and nothing was done.

Only the past few days another mod of another forum in which they moderated made a libellous claim against a politician taking bribes. Looking back only yesterday, the claim was deleted as was my post questioning it. No idea if that mod deleted those posts of his own accord or if someone pulled him up on it. If it were me making a libellous claim I would have been infracted/warned/banned.

At least people are recognising that there is bias, yet not much has been offered in a way to counter it.

If the reporting system is invisible to us, we have no idea whats going on behind the scenes and if we cannot post actual examples to try and prove our point then its really an impossible task in making a case.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

None of this has anything to do with the fact that there are certain subjects which are moderated more harshly than others - as admitted in the previous thread - and that the site rules and forum charters have never publicly acknowledged this.

Honestly, in either this or the previous thread it was publicly admitted that potentially controversial / emotive topics of discussion are watched like hawks and that there is far less leeway allowed before shutting them down. This was a great moment - finally, an admission of something most of us complaining here have known about for years, but which has always been denied or dismissed up until now.

If the site rules or the forum charters acknowledged this, then this entire problem would disappear, for me at least. My beef is with the dishonesty of it all. Nowhere in the rules/AH or PC charter does it say "if your chosen topic of conversation might result in controversy or heated debate, expect it to be locked

But it isn't some type of gotcha moment hp. Something like an abortion thread is going to get mods keeping an eye on it far more than something more mundane. Why is that? Because a lot of people find it hard to discuss the topic anyway civilly and some will try and wind others up and others will react. That isn't some type of policy or hive mind on abortion, it's mods being aware this is an emotional topic and we'll try and keep a close eye on it so that those interested in a halfway decent and civil discussion on it can do so, without getting drowned on or fed up with it.

It really does come down to civility. 4 or 5 posters discussing away relatively amicably will get a lot of leeway on a thread, they can go way off topic and chat aimlessly and nobody will care too much. 4 or 5 posters just waiting for a chance to get a dig at each other will be treated very differently.

That's often a reason why a thread would get closed, pages and pages of decent discussion and all that's left is those 4 or 5 posters taking digs at each other trying to score points.

None of the above is new or a policy. Be relatively civil to each other and mods really don't care that much!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LoLth

FA Hayek wrote: »

This has been mentioned before but to my naked and perhaps naive eye this does not hold water. I already gave the example of a mod, of a forum they moderate making ugly possibly defamatory claims regarding child abuse against a conservative politician. That was reported and nothing was done.

I looked at that and while I agree that it was distasteful it was not necessarily defamatory as it was explained later to be an analogy. in all honesty, I would have edited it out had I come across it at the time. Did you bring the lack of action to the attention of a Cmod? Thing is, that was one comment that was part of a discussion and that is the problem with allowing examples, a single example is taken as proof of a pandemic. If the poster in question, who happens to be a mod, continued to post with the same level of disregard I would have an issue but they dont. So should I then point to other posts of theirs that show no issue and hold them up as proof of evidence to the contrary?

Only the past few days another mod of another forum in which they moderated made a libellous claim against a politician taking bribes. Looking back only yesterday, the claim was deleted as was my post questioning it.

check your browser because neither post were deleted or edited in any way at any time between being posted and now (I can see the moderator logs). Did you report it?

No idea if that mod deleted those posts of his own accord or if someone pulled him up on it. If it were me making a libellous claim I would have been infracted/warned/banned.

Is this fact or conjecture? depends on context. depends on if it is reported. depends on quite a bit including if the poster makes a habit of that behavior. Its also significantly based on whether it can be defended as opinion or statement. In any case, nothing has been deleted or even edited.

At least people are recognising that there is bias, yet not much has been offered in a way to counter it.

well, it is feedback. offer a suggestion. I proposed that posts be reported so that, over time, we can build a pattern and determine if the degree of bias is an issue or not and what forums it affects so that we can address it. Are you suggesting that we just take action on the opinion of posters in feedback without verification?

If the reporting system is invisible to us, we have no idea whats going on behind the scenes

already been discussed in feedback quite recently, it is one of the topics being discussed by the admins. (I wont lie, an open reporting system is unlikely but that is not to say that a move toward a higher degree openness is opposed)

and if we cannot post actual examples to try and prove our point then its really an impossible task in making a case.

and again, already explained why this is the case.

LoLth

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

good points and I agree, a thread title "feminists are idiots" is more likely to be locked. Not necessarily without reason. I have myself felt the urge to lock a thread based on its title in the past but, in the end, I edited the title because, while I disagreed with the content the post was actually very good and presented a strong argument (this was in literature a long long time ago). Now, if *any* thread that criticised or disagreed with feminism were locked on sight while all anti-trump threads were left open and all pro-trump threads were closed the bias would be more obvious and the argument would be stronger. As it is, is the thread deleted because of the title or the content? are both watched equally closely? do both generate the same degree of reported posts? Its worth looking into (it would take some time). If you are willing, could you send me a list of say 10 threads that you have seen closed - preferably early in discussion or before discussion got started? from a cross section of forums if at all possible and I'll include them in the admin discussion.

As you say though, it is inevitable so all we can really do is be aware of it and make sure mods are aware and try not to allow their own bias get in the way of impartial modding. This does not mean that no more "all feminists are idiots" threads will be closed but it should hopefully mean that no more are closed for purely ideological disagreement.

LoLth

1 post deleted for being entirely about a specific mod action and not related to ideological bias at all.

andekwarhola

Wibbs wrote: »

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

Agree with Wibbs. I myself have posted similar critiques/lampoons on/of The Right On Left, Multiculturalism, Travelers and (extreme) Feminism without censure. Nor do I believe in this rosy Benetton advert model of unbridled economic immigration. I suppose by default I'd fall into a roughly centre-left/liberal political space but I do try to analyze issues honestly and without ideological baggage and I've rarely felt censured, to be honest.

That said, it is a bit amusing to see the current church burning thread on AH (although i'm not singling out a particular user, nor (as an atheist) am I particularly bothered by the thread). Basically musing on why Irish people haven't ever bothered to get their own back on the catholic church by burning down their churches. I'm wondering how long a similar thread about those disgruntled with mosques or women's centres might last. :pac:

For all that, I think any perceived slant here is more down to the invariable political/social demographic(s) (at least on the bigger forums) of an Irish user base than an actual editorial position.

I'm not sure what you're ever going to be able to do about that.

IvyTheTerrible

andekwarhola wrote: »

Agree with Wibbs. I myself have posted similar critiques/lampoons on/of The Right On Left, Multiculturalism, Travelers and (extreme) Feminism without censure. Nor do I believe in this rosy Benetton advert model of unbridled economic immigration. I suppose by default I'd fall into a roughly centre-left/liberal political space but I do try to analyze issues honestly and without ideological baggage and I've rarely felt censured, to be honest.

That said, it is a bit amusing to see the current church burning thread on AH (although i'm not singling out a particular user, nor (as an atheist) am I particularly bothered by the thread). Basically musing on why Irish people haven't ever bothered to get their own back on the catholic church by burning down their churches. I'm wondering how long a similar thread about those disgruntled with mosques or women's centres might last. :pac:

For all that, I think any perceived slant here is more down to the invariable political/social demographic(s) (at least on the bigger forums) of an Irish user base than an actual editorial position.

I'm not sure what you're ever going to be able to do about that.

That church thread is an interesting for you to pick, the overwhelming majority of posters are saying they don't like the church but burning them is silly. So I don't think a comparison between that and a thread about muslim mosques (which is much much more likely to have people foaming at the mouth) is really useful.

andekwarhola

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

That church thread is an interesting for you to pick, the overwhelming majority of posters are saying they don't like the church but burning them is silly. So I don't think a comparison between that and a thread about muslim mosques (which is much much more likely to have people foaming at the mouth) is really useful.

The very fact that the thread is still there is the instructive part (albeit it's still early). I was only using it as an example of what I was alluding to above, mind you. I'm certainly not offended by it or calling for its removal.

LoLth

1 post deleted for being off topic (it was about a conversation on another site altogether)

seamus

andekwarhola wrote: »

The very fact that the thread is still there is the instructive part (albeit it's still early). I was only using it as an example of what I was alluding to above, mind you. I'm certainly not offended by it or calling for its removal.

I see what you're saying, but I completely disagree with your assertion that if the thread was about mosques or magadelene laundries it would be locked.

Read the thread, it's a simple question. You could easily slot the word "mosque" in there and ask the same question.

The difference is that the thread would likely see a horde of, "we should be burning muslims on crosses in public squares" type idiots, who would unwittingly conspire to turn the thread to crap and get it locked.

But your assertion that the thread would be automatically locked if it was about mosques and not churches, is completely baseless.

And that's likely one of the things which creates this perception of bias rather than any real bias; some topics are magnet for extremist opinions and therefore turn to rubbish faster and require heavier moderation.

Outlaw Pete

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Absolutely, and while I don't feel it's as bad as before, it's still very much evident. In fact just recently I stopped posting in one of the abortion threads as it was infuriating seeing the way in which some pro choice users were speaking to, and about, users with prolife views. There's not a chance that crap would be tolerated if it went in the other direction.

Stheno wrote: »

..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.

Not sure that anyone is really arguing against that though tbf, Stheno. I appreciate different forums have different tones and AH type replies are not going to be acceptable in Personal Issues for example, what's fair comment on one forum can be clear mupperty on another, no bother with that, but I do still think that there are certain rules which could be applied sitewide and in a more consistent and fair fashion. The 'attack the post and not the poster' rule is one of those for sure.

I get of course that Boards is regularly condemned for over-modeartion and that it's often been suggested that it's something which has contributed to users leaving, but personally speaking, I believe that inconsistent moderation, with regards to the application of the rules, has always been a much bigger issue than any over moderation ever was. Whether the toleration dial on 'attacking posters and not than their posts' is set at '2' or '11' is not nearly as important as merely making sure that the rule is enforced fairly and all users are subject to it, be they established users, newbies or moderators and not (as has often appeared to be the case) just those whose opinion is not in line with the generally held thread consensus.

LoLth

4 posts deleted (including one of my own) for veering into specific mod actions instead of general boards.

andekwarhola

seamus wrote: »

I see what you're saying, but I completely disagree with your assertion that if the thread was about mosques or magadelene laundries it would be locked.

Read the thread, it's a simple question. You could easily slot the word "mosque" in there and ask the same question.

The difference is that the thread would likely see a horde of, "we should be burning muslims on crosses in public squares" type idiots, who would unwittingly conspire to turn the thread to crap and get it locked.

But your assertion that the thread would be automatically locked if it was about mosques and not churches, is completely baseless.

And that's likely one of the things which creates this perception of bias rather than any real bias; some topics are magnet for extremist opinions and therefore turn to rubbish faster and require heavier moderation.

Not really sure I buy it that the ultimate acceptability of a thread is judged by the quality or 'governability' of the reactions


There's also the self fulfilling prophecy of reasoned responses in the thread possibly being influenced by it being discussed here

As I said though, I only made the comparison as a relatively minor observation as part of a larger point (that I think any 'slant', as it were, is more - benignly - down to inevitable Irish board demographics rather than official agenda) and my reaction to such threads is more cringing amusement than offence or a desire to see them censored so I've no desire to mount a huge offensive against them.

mod note: The specific thread in question was mentioned in an earlier post which was allowed stand because the post and thread moved on quite smoothly. However, circling back to it to highlight a specific example is not progressing the discussion and will just result in cross-thread/forum rivalry being dragged in to the mix.

DeadHand

"Liberal" bias Is not a perception on these boards: it's a fact.

I wouldn't call it a "liberal" bias however. Liberalism is (or at least was traditionally) about dissent, tolerance and respect for opposing argument. What is in evidence on this site is related more closely to modern Leftism which concerns itself with the elimination of dissent, enforcement of the new dogmas and the degradation of those who will not conform.

This was in evidence long before (the sorely missed) Dav let the mask fly off by telling us all right wing opinion is dangerous (which is odd as it isn't the right wing who are currently massacring Europeans on a regular basis or raping them at a wildly disprotionate rate) and continues to this day.

mod: you can make a point but specifics have been rules as out of bounds how many times now. Have you read this thread at all so far?

FA Hayek

Am i going mad or was a response of mine deleted?

LoLth

FA Hayek wrote: »

Am i going mad or was a response of mine deleted?

its happened. you've lost it. (no post belonging to you has been deleted in this thread)

RDM_83 again

Maybe I have been a little cynical about the usefulness of these threads, if they raise awareness of certain behaviours it's a good thing. For example the intervention on the Milo thread is welcome as these derailment tactics are commonly used to shut down certain topics.
This being said, it's pretty vital that this does get called out officially as users are now very aware of these strategies because they have been used so commonly

Lovely Bloke

I've brought this up before and I don't know if I explained it properly or people just don't get it or agree.

Of course, when the Community Manager is making statements denigrating "Right opinion" as "dangerous" then you are going to get a bias to that point of view at all points of the heirarchy underlying the site.

Why?

It's easy, the mod selection process is the reason.

If the current mods of a forum like Politics decide a new mod is needed and they look at a pair of posters they think might be up for it, and have a look at their post history and one of them has posted something "anti" immigration in the past, and the other one has posted something "pro" immigration in the past there is going to be a bias in play if it gets to the CM to decide which one to give the modship to.

Same for CMod and Admin appointments, and eventually you get a site that is populated with more mods leaning one way than the other. It can happen the other way round too, don't get me wrong.

and yes, I know not all mod appointments get that far up the chain, but CMod and Admin appointments do, so when the Admins appointed by the CM/Other Admins are leaning a certian way, they are more likely - all other things being equal - to go for the one who leans the same way they do.

It happens here, and it happens on other sites too. It's what makes Stormfront Stormfronty, they don't appoint mods who think #blacklivesmatter because that's not what that particular forum wants to be.

Boards.ie wants to appeal to the most Irish people it can, and the fact is that most Irish people lean to the left on "social" issues like Gay Marriage, Abortion/Women's Rights I think will be proved in time, and even the legalisation of Cannabis will happen here in the next 15-20 years.

Ireland IS a left leaning society, and as pointed out by the eminent Wibbs, even more so in the demographic that is still the majority on this site.

So if Boards wants to appeal to as many people in Ireland as it can, it's doing the right thing. They get it right most of the time too.

That's my opinion and I could in no way be construed as some kind of Boards.ie Apologist, nor a leftist SJW.

LoLth

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

I've brought this up before and I don't know if I explained it properly or people just don't get it or agree.

Of course, when the Community Manager is making statements denigrating "Right opinion" as "dangerous" then you are going to get a bias to that point of view at all points of the heirarchy underlying the site.

Why?

It's easy, the mod selection process is the reason.

If the current mods of a forum like Politics decide a new mod is needed and they look at a pair of posters they think might be up for it, and have a look at their post history and one of them has posted something "anti" immigration in the past, and the other one has posted something "pro" immigration in the past there is going to be a bias in play if it gets to the CM to decide which one to give the modship to.

Same for CMod and Admin appointments, and eventually you get a site that is populated with more mods leaning one way than the other. It can happen the other way round too, don't get me wrong.

and yes, I know not all mod appointments get that far up the chain, but CMod and Admin appointments do, so when the Admins appointed by the CM/Other Admins are leaning a certian way, they are more likely - all other things being equal - to go for the one who leans the same way they do.

It happens here, and it happens on other sites too. It's what makes Stormfront Stormfronty, they don't appoint mods who think #blacklivesmatter because that's not what that particular forum wants to be.

Boards.ie wants to appeal to the most Irish people it can, and the fact is that most Irish people lean to the left on "social" issues like Gay Marriage, Abortion/Women's Rights I think will be proved in time, and even the legalisation of Cannabis will happen here in the next 15-20 years.

Ireland IS a left leaning society, and as pointed out by the eminent Wibbs, even more so in the demographic that is still the majority on this site.

So if Boards wants to appeal to as many people in Ireland as it can, it's doing the right thing. They get it right most of the time too.

That's my opinion and I could in no way be construed as some kind of Boards.ie Apologist, nor a leftist SJW.

unless a mod is modding a "sensitive" forum, their personal belief or opinion is not taken into account. Only their ability to accept discussion and disagreement.

For sensitive topics we try to ensure that the mods appointed isn't going to be incompatible. ie: Atheist mod of Christianity shouldn't be a problem as long as they mod according to the rules and are fair. Anti-christian / anti- organised religion mod who actively posts against religious beliefs would not be a good fit as they may have a bias against firm members of a Faith and their personal beliefs. (snip a specific example)

All mod/cmod and admin appointments are reviewed and approved by the higher tiers (mods are recruited and approved by future co-mods / cmods of the category and admins, cmods are recruited by cmods and approved by admins, admins are approved by admins and rubber stamped by the community manager usually). While its true that this can potentially lead to a bias because teams need to be a good "fit" , poster behaviour and ability are the top considerations for new mods, mod performance and decision making is key for Cmod, resolution and stable opinion/decisionmaking skills are primary requirements for admin. I dont think political leaning or personal opinion has ever been raised as an issue - except where noted for forums where such considerations are important to ensure the mod can moderate consistently.

hatrickpatrick

I personally wouldn't suggest that any specific or individual moderators are the issue, the issue is the culture, or unspoken rules, they have to follow. Again, nothing in the site's TOS states "thou shalt not discuss anything for too long" or "thou shalt not have heated debates", but on certain large forums there seems to be an unspoken move in this direction.

I'm not sure this conversation can really go anywhere to be honest. If Boards wants to be a community which keeps discussion on a ridiculously tight leash and shuts it down at the first hint of trouble from a minority of users instead of dealing specifically with those users and leaving the rest of us to continue the discussion, then so be it. It doesn't make sense to me and it's vastly different to the type of moderation I've encountered on pretty much every other large forum I've been a member of, but there you go.
As I say, on most forums, thread locking is quite rare - if a thread itself breaks the rules it gets deleted early on before it has time to grow, if specific posts within it break the rules the users in question get infracted or banned, but Boards' policy of nuking entire discussions on a regular basis for one reason or another is quite unusual as forums go. The question of perceived liberal bias is a subsequent issue which affects which threads appear to be shut down in this manner, but after debating this here for a few days I'm realising that it's the thread-management routine itself which I find so irritating. If a thread had some decent conversation but was subsequently derailed, I personally find locking the entire thread rather than banning individual users from posting in it to be a massive over-reaction - as is locking threads before they've started, not because they break any rules but because "potential for drama here, let's not take the risk".

DeadHand

Christ.

There ye all go with reams and reams of circular arguments that as many people as could be counted on one hand will actually read.

I nailed the truth about the clear bias on the boards with four lines.

LoLth

DeadHand wrote: »

Christ.

There ye all go with reams and reams of circular arguments that as many people as could be counted on one hand will actually read.

I nailed the truth about the clear bias on the boards with four lines.

and your prize is in the post. well done you. ye big winner ye.

LoLth

and with that I'm going to lose this thread as it appears to have run its course and I'd prefer it not become Deadhand's idea of feedback or indeed, discussion.

What now? Now its time for the admins to do their job and take the feedback and turn it into something that can be incorporated into site policy. We will also work with the Cmods to see what way forum rules can be influenced and with mods to make them aware of any changes required.

I realise it was difficult to participate without being allowed to delve into the anatomy of specific example but I do appreciate that posters for the most part, refrained from the inevitable side conversations that would ensue.