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

Stheno

Going Forward wrote: »

I thought I already explained that.

Their behaviour here has piqued my interest and I don't see how possibly hiding their past identity would serve future open debate.

I have asked if them if we've previously interacted and have received no response.

Am I to pretend we haven't if we actually have?

Wouldn't it be misleading if we had and they denied it?




Because it's very difficult to figure out what point they're making.

Honestly it's been pointed out it's against the charter to question if someone is a rereg. If you believe they are, report it and if it's actionable it will be (e.g. someone rereging to avoid a ban) If it's not, it won't.

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

Honestly it's been pointed out it's against the charter to question if someone is a rereg. If you believe they are, report it and if it's actionable it will be (e.g. someone rereging to avoid a ban) If it's not, it won't.

Please, I'm not questioning if they are a re reg, they've already came out and said they are of their own volition.

I've just asked them the most obvious next question.

That's not against the charter, is it?

Asking someone who's announced that they're a re reg what their previous persona was?

Announcing being a re reg doesnt seem to be against the charter, and sharing that news does seem to invite what I've described as "the next obvious question".

Would you agree with that?

Annasopra

Going Forward wrote: »

Please, I'm not questioning if they are a re reg, they've already came out and said they are of their own volition.

I've just asked them the most obvious next question.

That's not against the charter, is it?

Asking someone who's announced that they're a re reg what their previous persona was?

Huh? - have you read this bit in the charter? seems VERY clearly against it to me

Please do not speculate on previous accounts or re-reg's

Asking someone what their previous persona was is "speculation on previous accounts or reregs"

Stheno

Going Forward wrote: »

Please, I'm not questioning if they are a re reg, they've already came out and said they are of their own volition.

I've just asked them the most obvious next question.

That's not against the charter, is it?

Asking someone who's announced that they're a re reg what their previous persona was?

Announcing being a re reg doesnt seem to be against the charter, and sharing that news does seem to invite what I've described as "the next obvious question".

Would you agree with that?

No as far as I am concerned it's covered under the "Please do not speculate on previous accounts or re-reg's, use the report post function with any concerns."

Now if needs be if we need to remove people feeling the need to ask re-reg posters to reveal themselves we can add "do not ask people who have admitted to being a re-reg, who they previously were"

In the likes of the cafe it should be unneccessary given the amount of reported posts we get reporting any re-regs.

GIven the somewhat adversarial nature of points of view in the cafe, that might be necessary, but one would hope that users would not need to lower themselves to the point that basic manners in respecting anothers privacy should be ignored imo.

If I were to have a problem, and discuss it with the admins here, and they decided I could have a name change with no reference to my previous history, and then three months later I became a mod of the cafe again, do you think that would be wrong?

Going Forward

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Huh? - have you read this bit in the charter? seems VERY clearly against it to me

Please do not speculate on previous accounts or re-reg's

Asking someone what their previous persona was is "speculation on previous accounts or reregs"

There is no speculation on anyone's part that there was a previous account, the re reg has already confirmed there was.

Annasopra

Going Forward wrote: »

There is no speculation on anyone's part that there was a previous account, the re reg has already confirmed there was.

Oh come now. This is silly silly pedentary. Asking someone - who were you previously is speculation. End of story. You really have no grounds here. It's very very clearly against the charter.

I really dont get it - it's a politics discussion - why do you need to be discussing who other posters were at all?

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

No as far as I am concerned it's covered under the "Please do not speculate on previous accounts or re-reg's, use the report post function with any concerns."

Now if needs be if we need to remove people feeling the need to ask re-reg posters to reveal themselves we can add "do not ask people who have admitted to being a re-reg, who they previously were"

In the likes of the cafe it should be unneccessary given the amount of reported posts we get reporting any re-regs.

GIven the somewhat adversarial nature of points of view in the cafe, that might be necessary, but one would hope that users would not need to lower themselves to the point that basic manners in respecting anothers privacy should be ignored imo.

If I were to have a problem, and discuss it with the admins here, and they decided I could have a name change with no reference to my previous history, and then three months later I became a mod of the cafe again, do you think that would be wrong?

On your scenario, would you be notifying everyone that you're a re reg?

What are the "concerns" that boards has and that boards envisages others may have regarding re regs?

Annasopra

Going Forward wrote: »

On your scenario, would you be notifying everyone that you're a re reg?

What are the "concerns" that boards has and that boards envisages others may have regarding re regs?

Its the politics cafe. To discuss politics. Thats the purpose of the forum. Not to gratify nosiness. Not to discuss off topic tittle tattle. Not to be probing everyone and anyone about their identity.

Going Forward

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Oh come now. This is silly silly pedentary. Asking someone - who were you previously is speculation. End of story. You really have no grounds here. It's very very clearly against the charter.

I really dont get it - it's a politics discussion - why do you need to be discussing who other posters were at all?

It's not silly pedantry, it's the natural response to someone rocking up announcing that they're a re reg.

Is this the first time it's happened????

I've explained twice already and don't intend repeating myself ad nauseum.

I've just been told it can be added to the charter to make it against the charter, so it certainly doesn't appear to be against the charter as things stand.

Going Forward

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its the politics cafe. To discuss politics. Thats the purpose of the forum. Not to gratify nosiness. Not to discuss off topic tittle tattle. Not to be probing everyone and anyone about their identity.

We were talking about the charter, and the "concerns" about re regs.

What are the "concerns", for the second time asking?

You wouldn't be deflecting?

Annasopra

Going Forward wrote: »

It's not silly pedantry, it's the natural response to someone rocking up announcing that they're a re reg.

Is this the first time it's happened????

I've explained twice already and don't intend repeating myself ad nauseum.

I've just been told it can be added to the charter to make it against the charter, so it certainly doesn't appear to be against the charter as things stand.

I really can't believe this discussion.

Its the politics cafe. To discuss politics. Thats the purpose of the forum. Not to gratify nosiness. Not to discuss off topic tittle tattle. Not to be probing everyone and anyone about their identity.

Annasopra

Going Forward wrote: »

We were talking about the charter, and the "concerns" about re regs.

What are the "concerns", for the second time asking?

You wouldn't be deflecting?

I'm not deflecting anything. I go as a boards member to the politics cafe to read discussions on politics. Not to read speculation on other peoples identities. Its clearly against the charter and it should be. Its off topic nonsense.

Annasopra

I'm leaving this discussion now as quite frankly it has taken an absurd turn where there is a suggestion that off topic nonsense about who other posters were or are should be allowed.

Mods my feedback on this.

Please immediately update your charter and spell it out to knock this absurd nonsense on the head.

Zaph

OK folks, if the discussion is just going to be about re-regs rather than forum modding we're probably done here. I'll leave the thread open for a while longer to give it a chance to get back on track, but if it doesn't I'll consider the initial discussion finished and lock it up. Thanks.

Going Forward

Zaph wrote: »

OK folks, if the discussion is just going to be about re-regs rather than forum modding we're probably done here. I'll leave the thread open for a while longer to give it a chance to get back on track, but if it doesn't I'll consider the initial discussion finished and lock it up. Thanks.

That's fine, but the thread is about moderation, it's now full of moderators yet no one can articulate what the "concerns" in the charter about reregs are that boards or posters may be concerned about.


I'll leave it at that.

Thanks.

Annasopra

Going Forward wrote: »

That's fine, but the thread is about moderation, it's now full of moderators yet no one can articulate what the "concerns" in the charter about reregs are that boards or posters may be concerned about.


I'll leave it at that.

Thanks.

I'm an ordinary poster in the politics cafe and my status as a moderator elsewhere is completely irrelevant. Any discussions I have had here should not be viewed as "mod joey said...." - please don't drag me into some conspiracy about mods.

Going Forward

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I'm an ordinary poster in the politics cafe and my status as a moderator elsewhere is completely irrelevant. Any discussions I have had here should not be viewed as "mod joey said...." - please don't drag me into some conspiracy about mods.

Sorry, no one dragged you into this, you joined in of your own accord.

I've seen this before though, a moderator joining in for sport (or indeed ignoring someone getting a kicking) and then holding their hands up saying go easy on me, I'm not a moderator here, but some totally separate area.

You see, I'm actually the "ordinary poster" here, but there's moderators coming out of the woodwork here now, circling the wagon, all asking, but none answering the most basic questions.

Annasopra

Made my point and won't be responding anymore on Mod conspiracy theories.

Little CuChulainn

Going Forward wrote: »

That's fine, but the thread is about moderation, it's now full of moderators yet no one can articulate what the "concerns" in the charter about reregs are that boards or posters may be concerned about.


I'll leave it at that.

Thanks.

I'd imagine the main concerns about rereg accounts are that they are either avoiding a ban, concealing their previous record or sock puppeting by using multiple accounts in the one thread. If a user is concerned that a poster is engaged in that behaviour then they report them and the admins check it out. That's the extent of involvement the user has. They'll probably never know if they are right or not because it is none of their business.

When it comes to posts you look at its content, not its creator. What relevance is it that the poster use to post under a different name? It shouldn't affect your reply. You either report them, ignore them or respond to the content of their post. People take posts and posters too seriously. I've done it myself. That's the real issue in the Politics Cafe. The charter and rules can only treat the symptoms of that and it is a difficult balancing act.

I'd be interested to see what would happen if all usernames were changed to the same thing for a day. How many posters would be able to continue posting not knowing anything about the person who made the post they are responding to and only responding to the content?

Going Forward

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Made my point and won't be responding anymore on Mod conspiracy theories.

Excellent, and I've just received a PM confirming that the rereg and I have previously interacted in the IW threads (which would account for them throwing the brickbats straight out of the hatch about those threads that I mentioned earlier) prior to them re registering.

At least now we all know where we stand in relation to past history, levelling the playing field somewhat.

So you see, sometimes it's worth permitting someone to ask an obvious question.

Going Forward

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I'd imagine the main concerns about rereg accounts are that they are either avoiding a ban, concealing their previous record or sock puppeting by using multiple accounts in the one thread. If a user is concerned that a poster is engaged in that behaviour then they report them and the admins check it out. That's the extent of involvement the user has. They'll probably never know if they are right or not because it is none of their business.

When it comes to posts you look at its content, not its creator. What relevance is it that the poster use to post under a different name? It shouldn't affect your reply. You either report them, ignore them or respond to the content of their post. People take posts and posters too seriously. I've done it myself. That's the real issue in the Politics Cafe. The charter and rules can only treat the symptoms of that and it is a difficult balancing act.

I'd be interested to see what would happen if all usernames were changed to the same thing for a day. How many posters would be able to continue posting not knowing anything about the person who made the post they are responding to and only responding to the content?

Some fair points re bans etc there, but isn't there a danger that we're liable to be asked to play charades about who's who unless someone is willing to stick their hand up and ask "what is exactly is going on here?" once in a while?

If someone is trying making a clean slate that's fine.

Who's who is important enough on a message board because I presume you don't want anyone posting as someone they arent anymore than you want someone sock puppeting.

There's no point in saying otherwise but for all of us we'd have names that when we see them coming up you'd know you're going to enjoy their posts for any number of reasons, others you'll see them and you won't bother reading.

Lovely Bloke

mod makes ridiculous claim on thread where no claims can be made without back up, a specific rule for that particular thread.

can't wait to see the response to that one.

Lovely Bloke

as expected, he's squirmed out of it.

Is the rule:

Make a claim, provide link

or:

Make a ludicrous claim, and when called on it, provide a link with no quotes from reliable sources?

Little CuChulainn

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

mod makes ridiculous claim on thread where no claims can be made without back up, a specific rule for that particular thread.

can't wait to see the response to that one.

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

as expected, he's squirmed out of it.

Is the rule:

Make a claim, provide link

or:

Make a ludicrous claim, and when called on it, provide a link with no quotes from reliable sources?

I posted an opinion and didn't think it needed to be backed up as it's been discussed multiple times on Boards before and has been in the Irish media. When asked for some proof to back it up I provided multiple sources as I have been doing throughout the thread.

Lovely Bloke

No you didn't.

You stated a fact, with no back up in the post - you made a claim.

Here, do you think a normal poster would get this kind of second and third chance if a mod decided their post broke the "no source" rule?

We can get into semantics, but at the end of the day you are modding yourself here, and that's not kosher really.

A claim that Ireland has "plenty" of no go areas, and the only sources you provide are some spurious 2004 Independent piece, and some undated "drugsinfoireland" or something (what even is that publication, is it considered reliable), from back when Bertie was Taoiseach.

Pull the other one LCC.

Little CuChulainn

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

No you didn't.

You stated a fact, with no back up in the post - you made a claim.

Here, do you think a normal poster would get this kind of second and third chance if a mod decided their post broke the "no source" rule?

We can get into semantics, but at the end of the day you are modding yourself here, and that's not kosher really.

A claim that Ireland has "plenty" of no go areas, and the only sources you provide are some spurious 2004 Independent piece, and some undated "drugsinfoireland" or something (what even is that publication, is it considered reliable), from back when Bertie was Taoiseach.

Pull the other one LCC.

It's not semantics. "No-go area" is a descriptive term. It cannot be backed up with statistics. There's no official definition of it. It's like saying Ireland has multiple beauty spots and then expecting someone to back it up with beauty statistics.

Lovely Bloke

so you make spurious, un-back-uppable claims on a thread where the mod rule states that you can't post claims without back up.

Lovely Bloke

also

Here, do you think a normal poster would get this kind of second and third chance if a mod decided their post broke the "no source" rule?

Little CuChulainn

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

so you make spurious, un-back-uppable claims on a thread where the mod rule states that you can't post claims without back up.

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

also

Here, do you think a normal poster would get this kind of second and third chance if a mod decided their post broke the "no source" rule?

I provided multiple sources in a follow up post. You just don't like them.

jackofalltrades

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

also

Here, do you think a normal poster would get this kind of second and third chance if a mod decided their post broke the "no source" rule?

It's gone well beyond a joke at this stage.
The "No making claims without a reputable source" rule has been abused by both the Mods who are heavily involved in the thread.
It obvious that the rules are being applied dependent on your views on the subject matter.
But that's not surprising in a thread where the main purpose of the Mods is to argue for the status quo.
I'm sure the thread will be closed for another "review" soon.
Can't have the "wrong" side winning the debate. :rolleyes: