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

The Hill Billy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

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.

Brendan - That is not how this site operates. It has already been explained to you in this thread, but you are already aware of this. So, let's move on & not go down this rabbit hole.

tHB

Going Forward

dudara wrote: »

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).

But the problem when a Mod is posting in a thread is the same for any member of a shared opinion, you don't tend to see a member of a particular "side" intervening against their own.

It's human nature I think, giving a bit of extra leeway to those who support one's own position.

The bias obvious by the inaction is later excused by "not seeing it", "can't be here all the time", "take it to DRM".

That wears thin after a while.

blanch152

FF Facilitating a FG minority Government is a long long way from the close ties between SF and the IRA, yet one reference is allowed and constantly referenced by a mod and the other isn't.

It is one of the more obvious examples of bias in the Cafe.

It is also ironic that this thread hasn't gone the way the OP expected.

Brendan Bendar

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Brendan - That is not how this site operates. It has already been explained to you in this thread, but you are already aware of this. So, let's move on & not go down this rabbit hole.

tHB

Hill at least three ' heavy hitters' have come after me on this before you.

I have already replied to Zaph agreed apologised, eaten humble pie

So I'll do the same to you.

I know the corporate stance now, I accept it, I'm moving on, the rabbit hole is cemented up, apologies all round

I'm only giving feedback but won't be going down that track again,done finito.

Got my response which I accept.

Alf Stewart.

blanch152 wrote: »

FF Facilitating a FG minority Government is a long long way from the close ties between SF and the IRA, yet one reference is allowed and constantly referenced by a mod and the other isn't.

The constant need to try and make a SF/IRA reference is baffling tbh.

It is one of the more obvious examples of bias in the Cafe.

It is also ironic that this thread hasn't gone the way the OP expected.

How do you think that this thread has not gone the way I expected it?

I posted a feedback thread that I felt moderation on the cafe needed a bit of consistency, clear lines needed to be defined as to what was and wasn't acceptable, what may and may not lead to sanctions.

It was never a left/right divide, or a personal dig at any of the moderators in the cafe, as i stated from the outset.

It was, as was titled, and as was being discussed as intended (quite amicably i may add), no matter how hard some folks tried to wedge in a us/them angle.

So far i can see an overhaul of the number of mods added to the forum, and a set of clear defined rules and guidelines are currently being drafted that will give some kind of clarity as to what might lead to a knucke wrap, etc.

On the whole i think the thread has gone exactly the way I expected, and intended it to go.

I feel its been quite constructive, and has.cleared both the air, and some confusion, and I doubt I'm alone in feeling that.

This 'one up' attitude is a familiar one tbh.

The Hill Billy

Apologies, Brendan - I missed Zaph's earlier post.

tHB

Brendan Bendar

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Apologies, Brendan - I missed Zaph's earlier post.

tHB

No worries HB.

Tks.

Stheno

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

The constant need to try and make a SF/IRA reference is baffling tbh.


How do you think that this thread has not gone the way I expected it?

I posted a feedback thread that I felt moderation on the cafe needed a bit of consistency, clear lines needed to be defined as to what was and wasn't acceptable, what may and may not lead to sanctions.

It was never a left/right divide, or a personal dig at any of the moderators in the cafe, as i stated from the outset.

It was, as was titled, and as was being discussed as intended quite amicably i may add, no matter how hard some folks tried to wedge in a us/them angle.

So far i can see an overhaul of the number of mods added to the forum, and a set of clear defined rules and guidelines are currently being drafted that will give some kind of clarity as to what might lead to a knucke wrap, etc.

On the whole i think the thread has gone exactly the way I expected, and intended it to go.

The 'one up' attitude is familiar to me.

I think it's been a useful thread (and I was the trigger for it starting), we are currently drafting the wording for the "no namecalling/nicknames" addition to the charter, which wouldn't have come about but for this thread.

It was good to get the input from posters about that rule too, so hopefully when it's introduced, people will feel that it's something they are somewhat invested in, as opposed to a random rule introduced by the mods.

blanch152

Can't quote yet as not enough posts.

In response to Alf, the FF/FG and SF/IRA example is exactly that - an example to make a point.

I could have picked something else, but in my opinion, it is the most blatant example of the double standards in the Cafe. Other examples wouldn't have been as clear-cut.

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

I think it's been a useful thread (and I was the trigger for it starting), we are currently drafting the wording for the "no namecalling/nicknames" addition to the charter, which wouldn't have come about but for this thread.

It was good to get the input from posters about that rule too, so hopefully when it's introduced, people will feel that it's something they are somewhat invested in, as opposed to a random rule introduced by the mods.

Can I suggest that the use of initials remains ok, as in GF, etc?

I presume shortening a users name down to their capitalised initials is ok?

Stheno

Going Forward wrote: »

Can I suggest that the use of initials remains ok, as in GF, etc?

I presume shortening a users name down to their capitalised initials is ok?

Yes, I'd have no problem with that, given that half the mods have names in triplicate I already do that. I've already started calling our newest recruit LCC It's like I pretty much never address Brendan Bendar as anything other than Brendan or Alf Stewart as anything other than Alf

That's pretty easy to decipher tbh.

As I said we are discussing how to amend the charter so it's not all black and white as of yet

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

Yes, I'd have no problem with that, given that half the mods have names in triplicate I already do that. I've already started calling our newest recruit LCC It's like I pretty much never address Brendan Bendar as anything other than Brendan or Alf Stewart as anything other than Alf

That's pretty easy to decipher tbh.

As I said we are discussing how to amend the charter so it's not all black and white as of yet

I would have thought so, but I was subtly checked on it a while ago, not by a mod, I hasten to add.

Stheno

Going Forward wrote: »

I would have thought so, but I was subtly checked on it a while ago, not by a mod, I hasten to add.

No worries.

As I said, we are coming up with the wording at the moment, to try and avoid being both too general, and too specific, it's more so to stop people being insulting in how they reference public figures, and how they describe opinions different to theirs, than the sort of post you see such as "GF, I don't agree with you" type of thing.

What I would like to see an end to and it is an issue in the cafe, is people calling users by slangy versions of their user names which just inflames people tbh, e.g. if I replied to posts by you going "going backwards, you mean this?"

Alf Stewart.

blanch152 wrote: »

Can't quote yet as not enough posts.

In response to Alf, the FF/FG and SF/IRA example is exactly that - an example to make a point.

I could have picked something else, but in my opinion, it is the most blatant example of the double standards in the Cafe. Other examples wouldn't have been as clear-cut.

The term or phrase "FF/FG" in today's political climate is quite clear and relevant, one is propping the other up in govt, a partnership as such. If one withdraws support, the govt can exist.

Why anyone would be reprimanded or sanctioned for using it (or why you feel it's a double standard) is bizarre (and i say this as someone who doesn't use either phrase)

Stheno

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

The term or phrase "FF/FG" in today's political climate is quite clear and relevant, one is propping the other up in govt, a partnership as such. If one withdraws support, the govt can exist.

Why anyone would be reprimanded or sanctioned for using it (or why you feel it's a double standard) is bizarre (and i say this as someone who doesn't use either phrase)

I don't agree with using the phrase but I can see how given they are effectively in partnership, that it's used.

The SF/IRA terminology is old at this stage, imo, how long ago is it that we had the GF agreement?

Sf have been a legitimate party in government in the north for the past decade.

In recent threads in the cafe, we have moderated to remove references to the past of the IRA etc and imo it lead to far more open debate on the current state of politics in NI than allowing references to the past would have.

Alf Stewart.

Stheno wrote: »

I don't agree with using the phrase but I can see how given they are effectively in partnership, that it's used.

The SF/IRA terminology is old at this stage, imo, how long ago is it that we had the GF agreement?

Sf have been a legitimate party in government in the north for the past decade.

In recent threads in the cafe, we have moderated to remove references to the past of the IRA etc and imo it lead to far more open debate on the current state of politics in NI than allowing references to the past would have.

It's a strange thing to be upset by if you ask me.

I seen no such outrage over the five years of the last govt when "FG/Lab" was used on the site probably everyday, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone claiming to be upset by it.

FG/FF?

Don't see why that would offend anyone.

Stheno

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

It's a strange thing to be upset by if you ask me.

I seen no such outrage over the five years of the last govt when "FG/Lab" was used on the site probably everyday, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone claiming to be upset by it.

FG/FF?

Don't see why that would offend anyone.

Would you agree that SF/IRA though is offensive?

tomwaterford

Stheno wrote: »

In recent threads in the cafe, we have moderated to remove references to the past of the IRA etc and imo it lead to far more open debate on the current state of politics in NI than allowing references to the past would have.

Brilliant idea

Satriale

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

It's a strange thing to be upset by if you ask me.

I seen no such outrage over the five years of the last govt when "FG/Lab" was used on the site probably everyday, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone claiming to be upset by it.

FG/FF?

Don't see why that would offend anyone.

Because it's a bit close to the bone I guess. They see it comin', they hatin'...




Please don't sterilise it too much, I can't see any point posting in PC if I'm going to have to be worried every little bagatelle I post will offend some sensitive soul.

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

I don't agree with using the phrase but I can see how given they are effectively in partnership, that it's used.

The SF/IRA terminology is old at this stage, imo, how long ago is it that we had the GF agreement?

Sf have been a legitimate party in government in the north for the past decade.

In recent threads in the cafe, we have moderated to remove references to the past of the IRA etc and imo it lead to far more open debate on the current state of politics in NI than allowing references to the past would have.

Isnt it used moreso by people to quite deliberately show that they see virtually no difference between the two combined entities, be it FF/FG or SF/IRA?

Is it not legitimate for posters to display their thoughts that way/or is it considered as baiting?

Stheno

Satriale wrote: »

Because it's a bit close to the bone I guess. They see it comin', they hatin'...




Please don't sterilise it too much, I can't see any point posting in PC if I'm going to have to be worried every little bagatelle I post will offend some sensitive soul.

I dont think we would tbh and in terms of recent sf threads posters from all sides appeared to apprecoate a middle ground

Stheno

Going Forward wrote: »

Isnt it used moreso by people to quite deliberately show that they see virtually no difference between the two combined entities, be it FF/FG or SF/IRA?

Is it not legitimate for posters to display their thoughts that way/or is it considered as baiting?

On the sf ira thing that tends to lead to chaos tbh.

Now im a fairly rabid sf hater but the refusal to move on doesn't help

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

On the sf ira thing that tends to lead to chaos tbh.

Now im a fairly rabid sf hater but the refusal to move on doesn't help

It may well lead to chaos, but it doesn't really answer the question as to whether it's a legitimate stock means of describing one's impression.

Surely rabid FF supporters would dislike the deliberate FF/FG moniker but, like, tough?

Can't be pandering too much to the perpetually politically offended IMO.

And if one combination isn't permitted you'd almost have to prohibit any combination.

tomwaterford

Going Forward wrote: »

It may well lead to chaos, but it doesn't really answer the question as to whether it's a legitimate stock means of describing one's impression.

Surely rabid FF supporters would dislike the deliberate FF/FG moniker but, like, tough?

Can't be pandering too much to the perpetually politically offended IMO.

And if one combination isn't permitted you'd almost have to prohibit any combination.

FF and fine gael are in parthnership at the min???
Much like FG/labour in last coalition government


The ira no longer exists as a political/paramilitary entity with near on 20 years??
Its over 10 years since they stood themselves down to support the psni??

Going Forward

tomwaterford wrote: »

FF and fine gael are in parthnership at the min???
Much like FG/labour in last coalition government


The ira no longer exists as a political/paramilitary entity with near on 20 years??
Its over 10 years since they stood themselves down to support the psni??

Even if FF and FG weren't in a current "partnership"
they're still likely to be called FF/FG by those who are unconvinced that there's much difference between the two.

If one of them was to no longer exist the combination name would still be used because they did exist and there is a legacy there.

Is there a partnership between ex IRA members and SF?

tomwaterford

Going Forward wrote: »

Even if FF and FG weren't in a current "partnership"
they're still likely to be called FF/FG by those who are unconvinced that there's much difference?

a hypotetical scearnio is pointless here imo for feedback purposes??

gallag

Like the answer to scepticism in Europe seems to be more Europe it seem the mods have deduced from this thread the more modding is what's needed! More mods, more rules, Now abbreviations and nick names will earn cards like Diego Costa in a bad mood. Just one question, in your mod meetings did yous even once consider yous are over modding? Perhaps less is more?

blackwhite

Going Forward wrote: »

Even if FF and FG weren't in a current "partnership"
they're still likely to be called FF/FG by those who are unconvinced that there's much difference between the two.

If one of them was to no longer exist the combination name would still be used because they did exist and there is a legacy there.

Is there a partnership between ex IRA members and SF?

Plenty have been doing that since the 2011 election - the current arrangement is simply the latest justification used for it.

TBH - I don't see any issue with it being used, in terms of the baiting and trolling that goes on in the Cafe it's small fry.


More of an issue is how persistent baiting and trolling to target specific posters is allowed. It seemed for a long time that personal attacks towards one specific "pro-Govt" or "anti-SF" posters were being actively encouraged by one or two mods - up to the point of that poster closing their account. Once they close their account we get a thread that devolved into a few posters gloating about having managed to drive him away.

That's the overall toxic atmosphere that a few seem to be trying to cultivate in the Cafe - more interested in trench warfare and one-upsmanship, instead of encouraging honest debate.

Brendan Bendar

gallag wrote: »

Like the answer to scepticism in Europe seems to be more Europe it seem the mods have deduced from this thread the more modding is what's needed! More mods, more rules, Now abbreviations and nick names will earn cards like Diego Costa in a bad mood. Just one question, in your mod meetings did yous even once consider yous are over modding? Perhaps less is more?

Very fair and sensible question, in my opinion.

Going Forward

blackwhite wrote: »

More of an issue is how persistent baiting and trolling to target specific posters is allowed. It seemed for a long time that personal attacks towards one specific "pro-Govt" or "anti-SF" posters were being actively encouraged by one or two mods - up to the point of that poster closing their account. Once they close their account we get a thread that devolved into a few posters gloating about having managed to drive him away.

That's the overall toxic atmosphere that a few seem to be trying to cultivate in the Cafe - more interested in trench warfare and one-upsmanship, instead of encouraging honest debate.

I didn't witness that, but I did witness the same poster being giving ample room by mods to engage in endless silly games elsewhere.

Whether that was cutting some slack for getting hardship somewhere else who knows?