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

Wheeliebin30

How is the enda black eye thread still open?

I think I know why.

Seems like a thread that belongs in after hours.

The Backwards Man

I think the last couple of pages highlight all that's wrong with the cafe, obsessive agenda-driven posters wearing down the will of anyone open to debating a topic. There's been Nobel prizes given out to folks who have solved milder conflicts than the mods have to face in there.

Alf Stewart.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

How is the enda black eye thread still open?

I think I know why.

Seems like a thread that belongs in after hours.

Charter wrote:

This forum is for discussion of Politics in a less formal manner than in the Politics Forum.

Is Enda involved in politics?

Satriale

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Is Enda involved in politics?

You should have shoehorned it into the Conlon Attack thread, Alf, until we can rule him out as a suspect. He had the means motive and oportunity.

Beasty

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

So I posted a simple request on the thread and looked for advice from other moderators.

To just back this up - Little CuChulainn started a thread in the mods forum asking about this precise point. To date there has been no definitive advice from other mods, Admins or office staff, so it seems to me entirely reasonable the thread remains closed pending further review.

Just to add I was listening to reports of the underlying "incident" on the radio on the drive home and they were being very careful to simply report the statement made under privilege and avoid any speculation

Taltos

Reopened.
This is our last warning all.
So far in the last day or so we've had Going Forward decrying mod participation on this thread with the claim of mods circling the wagons and celebrating when the mod who was successfully challenging GF opted out of the thread.

And now we've My Name is URL and others including Going Forward again accusing a NEW mod of being biased due to their employment which they revealed well in advance of being modded.

Right here and now let me be clear this type of deflection and personal attack will stop.
Anyone continuing to try to abort this thread or others in Feedback in this manner are just showing their true colours and will be banned from this forum for a minimum of a week.

I'm reopening this thread now I've removed those posts and others that quoted them, but as some of you know I'm not known for my patience or tolerance so please, if you don't have fair feedback to offer without using the usual smokescreen when challenged then just don't post.

gallag

This is all a bit of a mess now, isn't it?

STB.

Taltos wrote: »

Reopened.
This is our last warning all.
So far in the last day or so we've had Going Forward decrying mod participation on this thread with the claim of mods circling the wagons and celebrating when the mod who was successfully challenging GF opted out of the thread.

And now we've My Name is URL and others including Going Forward again accusing a NEW mod of being biased due to their employment which they revealed well in advance of being modded.

Right here and now let me be clear this type of deflection and personal attack will stop.
Anyone continuing to try to abort this thread or others in Feedback in this manner are just showing their true colours and will be banned from this forum for a minimum of a week.

I'm reopening this thread now I've removed those posts and others that quoted them, but as some of you know I'm not known for my patience or tolerance so please, if you don't have fair feedback to offer without using the usual smokescreen when challenged then just don't post.

Can I ask you to explain why you removed my post ?

The last time I checked this was the feedback forum.

Taltos

Sure, its because it was discussing the mods RL role. Agreed you covered a lot more than that and if you wish I can recover your post by removing those sections.

Going Forward

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

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.

Careful now.

Going Forward

Taltos wrote: »

Sure, its because it was discussing the mods RL role. Agreed you covered a lot more than that and if you wish I can recover your post by removing those sections.

You're only removing certain posts, why is that?

This is one of the earliest posts, and it's left up:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=102483445#post102483445

It's completely connected to the posts you've just deleted.

_Kaiser_

Taltos wrote: »

Sure, its because it was discussing the mods RL role. Agreed you covered a lot more than that and if you wish I can recover your post by removing those sections.

But if that mod's RL role is influencing their objectivity and thus the direction of the thread, then is it not better to let someone else handle those responsibilities?

I'm not specifically talking about the thread/mod in question either.. there are several fora throughout this site where mods are clearly leaning in one way or another, and this can be seen in their decisions.

In my opinion that's a negative - it hinders objective discussion and adds to the perceptional issues this site has gathered in recent years. I'd agree with the referee analogy. It's fine to be genuinely interested/involved in a topic, but if you have a Mod role, you shouldn't let that colour your responses in that capacity.

Going Forward

Taltos wrote: »

Reopened.
This is our last warning all.
So far in the last day or so we've had Going Forward decrying mod participation on this thread with the claim of mods circling the wagons and celebrating when the mod who was successfully challenging GF opted out of the thread.

And now we've My Name is URL and others including Going Forward again accusing a NEW mod of being biased due to their employment which they revealed well in advance of being modded.

Right here and now let me be clear this type of deflection and personal attack will stop.
Anyone continuing to try to abort this thread or others in Feedback in this manner are just showing their true colours and will be banned from this forum for a minimum of a week.

I'm reopening this thread now I've removed those posts and others that quoted them, but as some of you know I'm not known for my patience or tolerance so please, if you don't have fair feedback to offer without using the usual smokescreen when challenged then just don't post.

I did not accuse LCC of being biased.

I asked whether they believed a conflict of interest had been identified.

Please correct the record.

STB.

Taltos wrote: »

Sure, its because it was discussing the mods RL role. Agreed you covered a lot more than that and if you wish I can recover your post by removing those sections.

No its grand, I dont want to put you to any bother and it possibly would not make sense given the number of related posts including those of the mod that have been deleted.

I have no issue here with the mod other than concerns about the appropriateness of modding that particular thread given the subject matter.

Look I'll take it to PM if you do not want the issue discussed here.

Taltos

Both fair points and already covered really well earlier. But with the risk of restating what's already been said and probably with a lot less flair and clarity.

Mods have an opinion. Its part of why we chose them. Yes, we're all human and biased one way or another. That's life.
Asking a mod NOT to mod a thread where they have "skin in the game" is clearly the ideal solution, note though I said ask. Due to how folk play here there are not always co-mods online at the same time and so that means that sometimes a mod is forced to make a call - do nothing and just wait for a co-mod, which quite often works and is normally recommended; or - take the mod action.

In choosing mods we trust them to do their best to make the right call on a case by case basis.

Where mods are seen to be clearly and demonstrably biased their co-mods and cat mods are not slow about telling us or them, nor are the posters we trust to keep us on an even keel.

Hope that helps and yes I know its not as clear as the earlier post, apologies for that.

jmayo

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I think the last couple of pages highlight all that's wrong with the cafe, obsessive agenda-driven posters wearing down the will of anyone open to debating a topic. There's been Nobel prizes given out to folks who have solved milder conflicts than the mods have to face in there.

Just try and remember both sides of arguments can be obsessive and agenda driven, not just the one with a different opinion to you and moderators.

If anything we now have mods being some of the most agenda driven posters on threads, in particular threads relating to immigration.

I found an interesting definition of what a discussion moderator is ...

A discussion moderator or debate moderator is a person whose role is to act as a neutral participant in a debate or discussion, holds participants to time limits and trying to keep them from straying off the topic of the questions being raised in the debate.

Also posters are on threads debating with mods and suddenly they get a Mod Edit or Mod Notification posted into their posts with no indication as to whether it is one of the mods on thread or some other mod.

It looks like it is one of the mods on thread who are slapping down opposition using moderator privilege, even if that is not what is happening.

Little CuChulainn

Just to clarify. I didn't card anyone, I didn't ban anyone, I simply asked that people not speculate on the veracity of the claims or the thread might have to be closed. Even when I was questioned I didn't action anyone, I explained further. My job or my personal opinion on the content was not in my mind or motivation, my four years in law school was, specifically my classes on Dáil privilege and defamation.

Dyr

Taltos wrote: »

accusing a NEW mod of being biased due to their employment which they revealed well in advance of being modded.

In fairness it wasn't like that disclosure was by design, Everyone knew said mod was a federale long before they were ever let mod a politics forum.


It's embarassing carry on all the same. Wagons circled, everyone can see them being circled but it is decreed that no one can say so.

Ironic given the situation that's being discussed.

testaccount123

This thread is a shambles

Satriale

Whatever about about the whys and hows, can i ask when is the Garda Commissioner thread going to be opened again?
It's a potentially huge story.

Can ye not just delete the last page and let the show get on the road?

dudara

Satriale wrote: »

Whatever about about the whys and hows, can i ask when is the Garda Commissioner thread going to be opened again?
It's a potentially huge story.

Can ye not just delete the last page and let the show get on the road?

We're checking it out, not sure of ETA yet

Alf Stewart.

Satriale wrote: »

You should have shoehorned it into the Conlon Attack thread, Alf, until we can rule him out as a suspect. He had the means motive and oportunity.

Man with two pints in his hands:D?

Special Circumstances

Going Forward wrote: »

I did not accuse LCC of being biased.

I asked whether they believed a conflict of interest had been identified.

Please correct the record.

Inconsistent? Mods? Never!

I'm sure I've been infracted for being "uncivil" for making far more accurate accusations. But I guess I'm not a demigod of boards.ie.

blanch152

Going Forward wrote: »

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.

No, you didn't, because I didn't send you a PM.

PeadarCo

Really feel sorry for the mods in cafe. Can't win no matter what you do. To be anyway sort of a regular poster you have to feel fairly strongly about a topic given the tribal nature of the forum(thats not necessarily a criticism given that politics is inherently tribal in many respects). Mods are volunteers and I can't see too many people wanting to mod a forum they don't post it. Especially when you have to deal with some very divisive threads.

Given the nature of the forum no matter who you are your going to be accused of bias if you don't support a posters side. At the end of the day its just an internet forum where unless there's a legal case against boards nearly all the threads will no impact on the wider world.

Cut the guys some slack otherwise you won't be able to get moderators for cafe and that alone could force cafes closure given boards site wide use of mods.

Going Forward

blanch152 wrote: »

No, you didn't, because I didn't send you a PM.

I didn't say that you sent it.

Alf Stewart.

blanch152 wrote: »

No, you didn't, because I didn't send you a PM.

He didn't say you sent it to him

Beasty

PeadarCo wrote: »

Really feel sorry for the mods in cafe. Can't win no matter what you do. To be anyway sort of a regular poster you have to feel fairly strongly about a topic given the tribal nature of the forum(thats not necessarily a criticism given that politics is inherently tribal in many respects). Mods are volunteers and I can't see too many people wanting to mod a forum they don't post it. Especially when you have to deal with some very divisive threads.

Given the nature of the forum no matter who you are your going to be accused of bias if you don't support a posters side. At the end of the day its just an internet forum where unless there's a legal case against boards nearly all the threads will no impact on the wider world.

Cut the guys some slack otherwise you won't be able to get moderators for cafe and that alone could force cafes closure given boards site wide use of mods.

Well the other forum that has suffered heavily from tribalism is Soccer. That was to some extent sorted by introducing an access system. Would posters want something like that in PC?


/Runs & hides

blanch152

Going Forward wrote: »

I didn't say that you sent it.

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

He didn't say you sent it to him

Then he was only speculating on my identity by PM and repeating that speculation on thread. I have admitted I am a re-reg, as have others, that doesn't mean I consented to having my previous name outed.

Alf Stewart.

blanch152 wrote: »

Then he was only speculating on my identity by PM and repeating that speculation on thread. I have admitted I am a re-reg, as have others, that doesn't mean I consented to having my previous name outed.

It's an internet pseudonym. I don't think you have to give consent for someone (poster, mod or admin) to state your previous username.

Now, had they disclosed your real name, i think you may be on to something.