Over zealous, and inconsistent modding on the politics cafe forum.

Going Forward

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Brendan,

The challenge of having Mod's that don't participate in their own forum is that they'd then lack any kind of insight or feel for the forum.

There are basically 2 ways of becoming a mod here.

A frequent poster in the forum with a clean record is asked to step up or an existing mod gets asked if they'd like to help out somewhere else (and they'll have become a mod in the 1st place via the 1st route).

If we now tell new mods that they can no longer participate in their favourite forum , how long do you think they'll stay if they are only modding?

Broadly speaking we tend not to mod specific threads when we are actively posting and will look to get one of the other mods to review posts in that thread if we feel they are potentially worthy of action.

I get where you're coming from to a degree but "tribal knowledge" of the forum amongst the mods is a critical component for me and that requires participation.

A clean record is kinda the whole point of the thread I would have thought.

How some manage to keep a clean record and some don't, for essentially posting in the same manner in the same thread is the inconsistency in the thread title as far as I can see.

Lovely Bloke

robindch wrote: »

I dispute it because a large number, and perhaps even the vast majority, of complaints of "left-wing bias" seem to come from by vociferous posters whose positions are so far off to the right, that even centrist and mildly right-wing positions seem "left wing" by comparison.

That's not a problem with boards but instead with posters who do not know where the center is.

Of course, the opposite couldn't possibly apply to those oh-so rational people of the left, could it?

A large number, and perhaps even the vast majority, of complaints of "posters whose positions are so far off to the right" seem to come from vociferous posters whose positions are so far off to the left, that even centrist and midly left-wing positions seem "right wing" by comparison.

You, Robinch, are coming across as one of those people with your assertions that Trump voters are guilty, simply because racists and klanners hitched their wagon to Trump, by association of also being racist and fascist.

You hold that position and see absolutely no irony in your latest post.

Do you even take yourself seriously?

Going Forward

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So - It's perfectly fine to say "My opinion on this subject is XYZ and here is a link that supports that position"

It is not fine to post "Check this out" with a link to a video or to simply paste an entire article from another site.

Boards.ie is not a news aggregation site , it's a discussion site.

Two points, it's not just a discussion site anymore, it's now also a paid-for social media channel, and it comes across at certain times as being in the awkward situation of hosting proven facts counter to government statements and policies.

That has to be the cause of some uneasiness and knowing who's calling the tune.

Secondly, it seems perfectly acceptable for some to use threads as news dumps once the dumps are "pro" the paid presence.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Stheno

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.mins to be honest permabear

Quin_Dub

Going Forward wrote: »

Two points, it's not just a discussion site anymore, it's now also a paid-for social media channel, and it comes across at certain times as being in the awkward situation of hosting proven facts counter to government statements and policies.

That has to be the cause of some uneasiness and knowing who's calling the tune.

I genuinely have not got the 1st clue what you mean here??

Going Forward wrote: »

Secondly, it seems perfectly acceptable for some to use threads as news dumps once the dumps are "pro" the paid presence.

I disagree - Anyone that just posts links or massive text dumps will have the post edited.. regardless of content.

Going Forward

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I genuinely have not got the 1st clue what you mean here??

I find that very hard to believe, given your knowledge of my posting history.

Heres what I said:

Two points, it's not just a discussion site anymore, it's now also a paid-for social media channel, and it comes across at certain times as being in the awkward situation of hosting proven facts counter to government statements and policies.

That has to be the cause of some uneasiness and knowing who's calling the tune.

Any bells ringing yet?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I disagree - Anyone that just posts links or massive text dumps will have the post edited.. regardless of content.

Not where I post.

But I dont want to make an issue out of it for fear of being inconsistently carded out of the blue at some random point in the future, which is what happens.

Seems certain people are pegged for cards, and some arent.

And its because of their position and viewpoint rather than their posts, on both counts.

Little CuChulainn

Going Forward wrote: »

I find that very hard to believe, given your knowledge of my posting history.

Heres what I said:




Any bells ringing yet?



Not where I post.

But I dont want to make an issue out of it for fear of being inconsistently carded out of the blue at some random point in the future, which is what happens.

Seems certain people are pegged for cards, and some arent.

And its because of their position and viewpoint rather than their posts, on both counts.

Who are you suggesting is paying for it that would have an issue with government criticism?

Brendan Bendar

I feel it would be a shame if the Cafe was dumped.

Not in its current set up I hasten to add.

I feel there is a space for a Politics type forum, less restricted than the 'Politics' forum.

Somewhere where ordinary folk could air their views and not be cut down by 'cartels' pushing an agenda aided and abetted by certain mods.

As I see it centrist posters have been driven out of the forum by a cartel of anti govt posters who use every opportunity to shoehorn anti Fine Gael rhetoric into almost every post.

Trying to redress the 'balance' by appointing mods who might be on one side or another won't work, it will only exacerbate the problem, in my opinion.

It's like a lot of things in real life, a small cartel take over the concern and drive their agenda through day in day out, and contrary opinions are stamped on forthwith.

Pity about that, the concept was good, the idea was good, but reasonable commentary was driven out.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm making no such claim, as you no doubt know

Which, as above somewhere, is basically the problem that certainly A+A is seeing with certain right-wing posters - many seem to believe that simply questioning or laughing at an idea equates to some kind of inappropriate ideological violence against the idea, and an insult towards the person putting forward the idea.

We see similar personal offence taken with religious posters who take grave offence at seeing their sacred cows subjected to questioning, discussion and if found wanting, to rambunctious laughter.

Permabear wrote: »

Their only relevance, as I noted earlier, is to how he has turned A&A into his personal right-bashing fiefdom, and that's not all that pertinent to a feedback thread on Politics Café.

While I agree that your comment is not relevant to this thread, your imputation of motive here fully demonstrates the exact problem I've just described. And it's probably useful to identify it for people who are not familiar with it outside of A+A.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm quite interested as well. I knew the "Light touch moderation" MO had been dropped but if links are now being required, I think a discussion needs to happen or it'll be, as you've stated, a case of "Coke and Pepsi".

Going Forward

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I feel it would be a shame if the Cafe was dumped.

Not in its current set up I hasten to add.

I feel there is a space for a Politics type forum, less restricted than the 'Politics' forum.

Somewhere where ordinary folk could air their views and not be cut down by 'cartels' pushing an agenda aided and abetted by certain mods.

As I see it centrist posters have been driven out of the forum by a cartel of anti govt posters who use every opportunity to shoehorn anti Fine Gael rhetoric into almost every post.

Trying to redress the 'balance' by appointing mods who might be on one side or another won't work, it will only exacerbate the problem, in my opinion.

It's like a lot of things in real life, a small cartel take over the concern and drive their agenda through day in day out, and contrary opinions are stamped on forthwith.

Pity about that, the concept was good, the idea was good, but reasonable commentary was driven out.

Surely any such imbalance should be addressed naturally, by inviting equally enthusiastic FG people, with proper counter arguments to participate, rather than attempting to artificially balance it?

Insert anything in place of FG there by the way.

Brendan Bendar

Going Forward wrote: »

Surely any such imbalance should be addressed naturally, by inviting equally enthusiastic FG people, with proper counter arguments to participate, rather than attempting to artificially balance it?

Insert anything in place of FG there by the way.

Let me insert this in here

moderate
adj
1. not extreme or excessive; within due or reasonable limits: moderate demands.
2. not violent; mild or temperate
3. of average quality or extent: moderate success.
n
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who holds moderate views, esp in politics
vb
4. to become or cause to become less extreme or violent
5. (when: intr, often foll by over) to preside over a meeting, discussion, etc
6. (Education) Brit and NZ to act as an external moderator of the overall standards and marks for (some types of educational assessment)
7. (General Physics) physics to slow down (neutrons), esp by using a moderator
8. (Computer Science) (tr) to monitor (the conversations in an online chatroom or posts on a message board) for bad language, inappropriate content, etc
[C14: from Latin moderātus observing moderation, from moderārī to restrain]
ˈmoderately adv
ˈmoderateness n
ˈmoderatism n
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

Comes from the Latin to restrain.

Think about that.

Can someone go bald- headed on a thread pushing a specific agenda and still be considered to be a moderator?

In my opinion a moderator is akin to a referee, has no skin in the game, there to apply the rules.Cant have both in my opinion.

If you want skin in the game don't referee that game, find another game for your talents.

Stheno

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Think about that.

Can someone go bald- headed on a thread pushing a specific agenda and still be considered to be a moderator?

In my opinion a moderator is akin to a referee, has no skin in the game, there to apply the rules.Cant have both in my opinion.

If you want skin in the game don't referee that game, find another game for your talents.

Brendan this has been repeatedly explained to you why this is not the case and the checks and balances that are in place.

E.g. I've been posting a lot in one thread, and feel a poster there needs action so I've reported the post and asked the other mods to review it.

If you think moderators are carrying out biased modding then the best people to take that up with are the cmods/admins.

Zaph

Brendan Bendar, it has already been explained to you that moderators are not, and will never be restricted from posting in a forum they moderate. If you don't like that then I'm afraid that this isn't the site for you, but please stop pushing that line of reasoning, it's not going to wash.

dudara

Looking at Definition 8 of moderator, the role is to monitor online conversations for bad language etc.

To answer your question, yes a mod can make decisions in a thread in which they're active. Generally, most mods will refer decisions to their fellow mods so as to avoid perceived bias (like we're seeing here). But they can, and should, step in if quick action is needed. DRP will decide if the decision was incorrect, if necessary.

IMO you're belabouring your point. I hope that I'm correct in saying that most mods here have the trust of most posters to be impartial when needed. (Can't please all of the people all of the time).

Brendan Bendar

Stheno wrote: »

Brendan this has been repeatedly explained to you why this is not the case and the checks and balances that are in place.

E.g. I've been posting a lot in one thread, and feel a poster there needs action so I've reported the post and asked the other mods to review it.

If you think moderators are carrying out biased modding then the best people to take that up with are the cmods/admins.

I often wonder why a large percentage of the moderate posters have left the Politics Cafe?

Do you ever wonder about that?

Stheno

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I often wonder why a large percentage of the moderate posters have left the Politics Cafe?

Do you ever wonder about that?

Brendan, I think you might find that one persons moderate poster is another persons extremist to be honest.

Brendan Bendar

Zaph wrote: »

Brendan Bendar, it has already been explained to you that moderators are not, and will never be restricted from posting in a forum they moderate. If you don't like that then I'm afraid that this isn't the site for you, but please stop pushing that line of reasoning, it's not going to wash.

Ok Zaph, that's fine, just giving feedback as to what I,the consumer thinks.

If that's not the corporate line ,well fair enough.

Sorry if I laboured the point, but if felt the Feedback from a committed contributor would be of some value.

apologies

Brian?

Moderating the Café is a nightmare. I'm less involved than most of the other mods due to time constraints, but the way things escalate can be frightening.

Multiple threads have descended into chaos in minutes. Sometimes all we can do is lock the threads for a bit of breathing space. Light touch moderation didn't work, the forum was full of personal abuse, hate speech and occasionally incitement of violence.

I think a lot of posters could do well to remember that we're unpaid volunteers, we do make mistakes, we're not intentionally biased and we're honestly just trying to keep the peace.

Honestly, we are just trying to do our best.

The Hill Billy

Snake Plisken - Post deleted. You are well aware of the rules. Do no post in this thread again until your Politics Café ban is up.

tHB

Stheno

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm quite interested as well. I knew the "Light touch moderation" MO had been dropped but if links are now being required, I think a discussion needs to happen or it'll be, as you've stated, a case of "Coke and Pepsi".

Acd

Links are only required in the immigration thread at the moment

Alf Stewart.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I often wonder why a large percentage of the moderate posters have left the Politics Cafe?

Do you ever wonder about that?

Do you ever wonder why FG are repeatedly dropping in opinion poll's, or why they took a complete and utter ravaging seat loss in the last election?

Perhaps the support base on boards is drying up, as it appears to be in the polls too, opinion ones or otherwise?

There's a lack of FG defence, because theres just an anti FG (or govt) cohort on boards.

Sorry, don't think so.

Brendan Bendar

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Do you ever wonder why FG are repeatedly dropping in opinion poll's, or why they took a complete and utter ravaging seat loss in the last election?

Perhaps the support base on boards is drying up, as it appears to be in the polls too, opinion ones or otherwise?

There's a lack of FG defence, because theres just an anti FG (or govt) cohort on boards.

Sorry, don't think so.

This has 'what' to do with the thread subject?

Alf Stewart.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

This has 'what' to do with the thread subject?

It is a direct response to the last couple of posts you made on this very thread

Somewhere where ordinary folk could air their views and not be cut down by 'cartels' pushing an agenda aided and abetted by certain mods.

As I see it centrist posters have been driven out of the forum by a cartel of anti govt posters who use every opportunity to shoehorn anti Fine Gael rhetoric into almost every post.

If I read between the lines, you're upset because people are criticising the govt (or more aptly, FG) and feel people who had been supportive of them (the govt) have left discussions, while the numbers of posters who are critical/outspoken against them has increased. (You even insinuate a mod is aiding and abetting the criticism ffs)

This is (imo mind) entirely representative of society/public perception in reality anyway, if we are to look at election rresults or opinion polls.

TLDR.
Maybe FGs online support base is dwindling at the same rate as their electoral one.

blanch152

I am one of those who left fed up with the way the Cafe is run and moderated. Won't be back until things change.

Brendan is wrong to suggest that mods should not be allowed post, however, the point a mod made earlier in the thread that mods should be held to higher standards hasn't been applied and maybe should be.

To give one example, there is a mod in the Cafe that constantly refers to FF/FG as if they are one party, even though there are huge historical differences and they have never been in coalition together. The only reason he uses it is to get a rise out of other posters, some of whom react, and are carded.

At the same time, if an ordinary poster refers to SF/IRA, the post is reported and sometimes they have been carded/warned. This is despite the long historical association between the two and the evidence that the connection exists till this day - reference the report last year and the back-room cabal appointment of Michelle O'Neill.




BTW - Alf, your example of FG doesn't hold water. SF have been losing votes since the Euro elections (now down to 14% in the recent opinion poll, probably translating to 10% in an election as they regularly do better in opinion polls) yet the Sinn Fein Online Supporters continue to stay strong.

Brendan Bendar

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

It is a direct response to the last couple of posts you made on this very thread



If I read between the lines, you're upset because people are criticising the govt (or more aptly, FG) and feel people who had been supportive of them (the govt) have left discussions, while the numbers of posters who are critical/outspoken against them has increased. (You even insinuate a mod is aiding and abetting the criticism ffs)



This is (imo mind) entirely representative of society/public perception in reality anyway, if we are to look at election rresults or opinion polls.

I'm not a bit upset, I'm responding on a Feedback thread with.. erm ..feedback.

I'm giving my honest response to the thread which I hope will be respected and I think you will find that the content of my posts, by and large, are true reflection of what is going on .

Might I remind you that election results gave FG most seats which you seem to overlook,but that has nothing to do with this thread.

Alf Stewart.

From FFs website.

Confidence and Supply Arrangement to facilitate a Fine Gael led Minority Government.

Fianna Fáil has agreed to facilitate a Fine Gael led Minority Government under the terms of the Framework attached to this document.

Welcome back Blanch152, I refuse to speculate who your old account was, but I will note that over countless posts, this is the first one that introduced a "SF/IRA" reference.

Brendan Bendar

blanch152 wrote: »

I am one of those who left fed up with the way the Cafe is run and moderated. Won't be back until things change.

Brendan is wrong to suggest that mods should not be allowed post, however, the point a mod made earlier in the thread that mods should be held to higher standards hasn't been applied and maybe should be.

To give one example, there is a mod in the Cafe that constantly refers to FF/FG as if they are one party, even though there are huge historical differences and they have never been in coalition together. The only reason he uses it is to get a rise out of other posters, some of whom react, and are carded.

At the same time, if an ordinary poster refers to SF/IRA, the post is reported and sometimes they have been carded/warned. This is despite the long historical association between the two and the evidence that the connection exists till this day - reference the report last year and the back-room cabal appointment of Michelle O'Neill.




BTW - Alf, your example of FG doesn't hold water. SF have been losing votes since the Euro elections (now down to 14% in the recent opinion poll, probably translating to 10% in an election as they regularly do better in opinion polls) yet the Sinn Fein Online Supporters continue to stay strong.

For the 99,000th time, I never said mods shouldn't be allowed to post on threads they moderate.
I thought I cleared that up about 8 pages ago.

Alf Stewart.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I'm not a bit upset, I'm responding on a Feedback thread with.. erm ..feedback.

I'm giving my honest response to the thread which I hope will be respected and I think you will find that the content of my posts, by and large, are true reflection of what is going on .

Might I remind you that election results gave FG most seats which you seem to overlook,but that has nothing to do with this thread.

Then why reference an "anti govt agenda", and imply people are jumping ship or no longer posting due to one being pushed?

In any thread, anti anything rhetoric can usually be easily countered by putting up a coherent defence.

I see various threads in the cafe that have very serious "anti agendas" that i just don't take part in because i have little to no opinion on them either way.

Look at the witch hunt on the threads that centre on "Jeff Rudd", the Apollo house threads for example.

Mere echo chambers. Little defence, all scorn.

Some things ain't worth defending, some things are indefensible.

It's as simple as that.