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

Widdershins

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

they aren't allowed.

I feel that Stheno gave the most helpful answer he or she could but I'd better proceed with eggshell levels of caution. Being a flippant person, I don't think I'm going to last long.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gallag

Stheno wrote: »

Well to be honest what I enjoy is:
1. I contribute to an online community
2. I get to encourage people to voice opinions
3. I get to advise on moderate debate, and to counter extreme opinion which detracts from moderate posters contributing.

So yes I enjoy moderating, just tonight I posted in quite an anti immigration way that I expect people being granted refugee status to be vetted.


Yet I'll still have people claiming I'm left wing

If we weren't around to moderate imo boards would be a worse place.

You are left wing, you seem to think vetting refugees is some sort of extreme right wing opinion, also "3. I get to advise on moderate debate, and to counter extreme opinion which detracts from moderate posters contributing."
That's right there is the problem, what is extreme opinion in your opinion?

I was asked what I think should be done? More diversity in mods opinions, yous can deny it all yous want but it's beyond obvious all mods have centre left/left wing opinions, also don't require links to the obvious, cast your mind back a few months to the pictures of the first batch of "child" refugees to the UK, we could all see they were mostly well over 18 but now we cannot express that opinion as it's exterme and there is no link to prove that opinion, it's like we are all standing looking at the emperor buck naked and say "the emperor has no clothes" and someone in the crowd shouts "link", sometimes you really don't need a link, just look at the hairy balls swinging ffs.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Probably worth pointing out that people make a conscious choice to support DJT and the GOP and their policies, while people don't really have much of a choice regarding whether or not to flee - for example - from their homes in Syria when they're being bombed and murdered.

It seems reasonable enough to criticize people for the former choice, which they'll have made presumably freely and hopefully, in the full knowledge of the consequences. And complaining that the actions of such people shouldn't be criticized does seem quite like an attempt to shut down legitimate criticism.

But criticizing other people for the latter existential choice, made in the presence of live ammunition or one's children or both, can seem a little on the heartless side.

Lovely Bloke

robindch wrote: »

Probably worth pointing out that people make a conscious choice to support DJT and the GOP and their policies, while people don't really have much of a choice regarding whether or not to flee - for example - from their homes in Syria when they're being bombed and murdered.

It seems reasonable enough to criticize people for the former choice, which they'll have made presumably freely and hopefully, in the full knowledge of the consequences. And complaining that the actions of such people shouldn't be criticized does seem quite like an attempt to shut down legitimate criticism.

But criticizing other people for the latter existential choice, made in the presence of live ammunition or one's children or both, can seem a little on the heartless side.

Criticism is not abuse. Who is asking for criticism to be disallowed?

A political wing of racist terrorists

Is not a legitimite description of the GOP, and such terminology should not be allowed.

Robineen

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Indeed. Proffering the kangaroo court as the last check and balance against unfair sanctions is a bit naive. Somebody mentioned posters "rule lawyering" back along... dispute resolution is the greatest example of it on the whole site.

Going to Dispute Resolution is only cutting off your nose to spite your face. You'll rattle a few cages if you're lucky but boy will you pay for it. And the result is a foregone conclusion. Thanks to rule lawyering. Or just plain selective and biased review of the situation.

"Well you said this xxyyzzz, decision upheld, thread closed no comebacks naaaaaa"

Actually I didn't say that. At all. You knowingly misrepresented my post and then shut the thread before I could point that out. How professional and mature.

I've seen bans and cards overturn in DR. And I gotta say, whenever the thread is closed and a decision made, it is always thoroughly spelled out why that decision was reached. Your post just come across as a big whinge and I'm not even sure what it has to do with this topic.

dudara

Guys - focus on the topic at hand - the Politics forum. This is not a thread to repeatedly bring up personal grievances.

dudara.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Phoebas

dudara wrote: »

Guys - focus on the topic at hand - the Politics forum. This is not a thread to repeatedly bring up personal grievances.

dudara.

Could the thread title be updated to reflect that this is about the Politics Cafe and not the Politics forum? - these are very different forums.

dudara

Phoebas wrote: »

Could the thread title be updated to reflect that this is about the Politics Cafe and not the Politics forum? - these are very different forums.

Sorry - my bad. Post above fixed to reflect that.

130Kph

I do perceive inconsistency also in the ongoing culture change from café 1.0 to 2.0. Culture change is accepted as very difficult in any organisation, so I can’t understand why the mods who were most involved in this strategy can’t put up their hands and say “yeah, ok we got a few judgment calls wrong”.

I welcome the change where all the truly rubbish posters were perma/forum banned, closed their accounts or no longer post in the cafe. However, as regards the better quality, non-messer members –including those I vehemently oppose btw- there have been way too many of them who have been driven out or no longer post due to this great posting-style-purge of 2016/17.

I believe too many of these quality posters 'police actions' were done on a technicality (see below).

Anyway, a small constructive suggestion:-

As regards this rule
"Repetitive or Flip Flop debating is not allowed. Nobody wants to wade through pages of the same posts being repeated ad nauseam. If your point was not heeded on the second posting why would it be on the tenth?"

If this repetition rule was genuinely enforced, almost no thread on any forum would be longer than 30 posts :eek:

I can see however how this rule might be a useful cover mechanism to get rid of entertaining posters who don’t post derogatory comments etc but are having too much fun or ‘fun’ eviscerating their opponents poor arguments (at least in one of the combative / problem subset of threads).

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So far as I'm aware, Clinton's supporters don't include groups including white supremacists, white nationalists and neo Nazis of various hues. And I'm sure that if Clinton and the Democrats did receive open support from these kind of groups, that it would have been rejected.

However, DJT and the GOP did court such support sometimes via dog-whistle, sometimes openly. They did receive this support and they did little enough to reject it. In this specific case, it seems that describing these hate groups, their supporters and their fellow travellers as "racists", "fascists" etc - how exactly can that be insulting if it's generally accurate? Are these posters who find these descriptions offensive looking for a "safe space" where the truth can be suspended so that they can preserve their self-image as do-gooders? There are certainly plenty of sites other than boards.ie which do provide such safe spaces to people with these kind of right-wing views.

In any case, when a description is generally accurate and when the reason it's used is not adequately refuted, then it seems that moderators are quite within their rights not to intervene.

robindch

130Kph wrote: »

As regards this rule
"Repetitive or Flip Flop debating is not allowed. Nobody wants to wade through pages of the same posts being repeated ad nauseam. If your point was not heeded on the second posting why would it be on the tenth?"

If this repetition rule was genuinely enforced, almost no thread on any forum would be longer than 30 posts :eek:

Over in A+A, the Forum Charter prohibits soap-boxing - most posters understand this rule quickly enough and from the moderator perspective, it has has been useful in dealing with a number of posters who've been unable to discuss things in a peaceable, forward-looking, non-repetitive fashion.

Brendan Bendar

What would be the Boards attitude to a Mod on a forum being heavily involved in the posting on the forum with a very distinctive view point?

Does the Mods role involve oversight and refereeing, or does Boards .ie management see any problem with Mods being heavily involved in posting in the fora they moderate with a very specific point of view.

Would Boards .ie see that as a good thing or something that maybe as a Mod should be 'toned down'.

Just wondering.

Satriale

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

What would be the Boards attitude to a Mod on a forum being heavily involved in the posting on the forum with a very distinctive view point?

Does the Mods role involve oversight and refereeing, or does Boards .ie management see any problem with Mods being heavily involved in posting in the fora they moderate with a very specific point of view.

Would Boards .ie see that as a good thing or something that maybe as a Mod should be 'toned down'.

Just wondering.

IIRC mods posting is encouraged, as it should be.

It's good to know they are human, and can talk just as much sh1t as the rest of us.

Widdershins

Satriale wrote: »

IIRC mods posting is encouraged, as it should be.

It's good to know they are human, and can talk just as much sh1t as the rest of us.

It doesn't inspire confidence in their impartiality if they've demonstrated strong feelings in opposition to your own, and you're subject to their discretion as a moderator, though.

KERSPLAT!

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

What would be the Boards attitude to a Mod on a forum being heavily involved in the posting on the forum with a very distinctive view point?

Does the Mods role involve oversight and refereeing, or does Boards .ie management see any problem with Mods being heavily involved in posting in the fora they moderate with a very specific point of view.

Would Boards .ie see that as a good thing or something that maybe as a Mod should be 'toned down'.

Just wondering.

This is my opinion, not that of boards.ie. I'm a poster before I'm a mod or cmod. I am and should be held to a higher standard in the forums I mod but outside of that, I'm a normal poster.

Inside my forums I should respect my comods enough to not act the bollox and if I do I should expect a slap for it. If I'm taking part in a debate in one of my forums it's best I leave modding of that thread to other mods so not to show favour to either side.

Mods with opinions shouldn't have to tone them down. Just stay within the charter the same as anyone else.

ancapailldorcha

Basically what K said but I'd add that a mod who doesn't post in their forum will just get bored and disaffected and might as well not be a mod at all.

Brendan Bendar

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

This is my opinion, not that of boards.ie. I'm a poster before I'm a mod or cmod. I am and should be held to a higher standard in the forums I mod but outside of that, I'm a normal poster.

Inside my forums I should respect my comods enough to not act the bollox and if I do I should expect a slap for it. If I'm taking part in a debate in one of my forums it's best I leave modding of that thread to other mods so not to show favour to either side.

Mods with opinions shouldn't have to tone them down. Just stay within the charter the same as anyone else.

Thanks for that Kersplat, however I feel that having a Mod in charge of a forum with a very specific viewpoint and very prolific in promulgating that view, kind of gives a lack of confidence to those who would like to offer an alternate view.

I realise that a Mod posting on other forums is just a 'poster' I just might query the wisdom of letting Mods who have very entrenched views have full freedom to post on their own fora.?

Maybe it's something that they might have to give up, or perhaps, restrict on accepting a Mod role?

What do you think?

ancapailldorcha

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Thanks for that Kersplat, however I feel that having a Mod in charge of a forum with a very specific viewpoint and very prolific in promulgating that view, kind of gives a lack of confidence to those who would like to offer an alternate view.

I realise that a Mod posting on other forums is just a 'poster' I just might query the wisdom of letting Mods who have very entrenched views have full freedom to post on their own fora.?

Maybe it's something that they might have to give up, or perhaps, restrict on accepting a Mod role?

What do you think?

If I was told I couldn't post in Politics, an area I find very interesting then I'd hang it up. It's only worth the carry on that comes with it if you get to enjoy it as well.

KERSPLAT!

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Thanks for that Kersplat, however I feel that having a Mod in charge of a forum with a very specific viewpoint and very prolific in promulgating that view, kind of gives a lack of confidence to those who would like to offer an alternate view.

I realise that a Mod posting on other forums is just a 'poster' I just might query the wisdom of letting Mods who have very entrenched views have full freedom to post on their own fora.?

Maybe it's something that they might have to give up, or perhaps, restrict on accepting a Mod role?

What do you think?

Mods become a mod of a forum usually because they are a prolific poster there. If then asked to stop or limit posting... I don't think many mods would hang around. I loved having the craic in AH and if I was told when I was asked to mod there if I would post less in order to be a mod, it'd be a definite no.

Again, my opinion but one I feel a vast majority of mods would have the same feelings on

Satriale

Widdershins wrote: »

It doesn't inspire confidence in their impartiality if they've demonstrated strong feelings in opposition to your own, and you're subject to their discretion as a moderator, though.

A lack of impartiality doesnt automatically follow from strong opinions, and if anything, I believe it can sometimes bias them the opposite way to compensate.

Anyway, if anyone feels they have been unfairly treated because of differing views, they can drp it and it will be fairly obvious to one and all. Personally i dont care about being treated unfairly on a forum, life is unfair. I do care that it's in public and everyone else can see it for what it is, IMHO that keeps people straighter than anything else.

Widdershins

Satriale wrote: »

A lack of impartiality doesnt automatically follow from strong opinions, and if anything, I believe it can sometimes bias them the opposite way to compensate.

Anyway, if anyone feels they have been unfairly treated because of differing views, they can drp it and it will be fairly obvious to one and all. Personally i dont care about being treated unfairly on a forum, life is unfair. I do care that it's in public and everyone else can see it for what it is, IMHO that keeps people straighter than anything else.

I do. We all know life is unfair. The likes of Boards are time fillers. Most people probably wouldn't bother with them if they're stressful or unfair.

Stheno

Satriale wrote: »

A lack of impartiality doesnt automatically follow from strong opinions, and if anything, I believe it can sometimes bias them the opposite way to compensate.

Generally I've found across multiple forums that if a mod has a strong opinion, then they will check with other mods if action is appropriate prior to taking it.

Sometimes that can lead to threads being closed while a mod checks, or a delay in a post being actioned.

Zaph

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Thanks for that Kersplat, however I feel that having a Mod in charge of a forum with a very specific viewpoint and very prolific in promulgating that view, kind of gives a lack of confidence to those who would like to offer an alternate view.

I realise that a Mod posting on other forums is just a 'poster' I just might query the wisdom of letting Mods who have very entrenched views have full freedom to post on their own fora.?

Maybe it's something that they might have to give up, or perhaps, restrict on accepting a Mod role?

What do you think?

That's not something we would ever ask of our mods. As has already been mentioned, mods are selected for the very reason that they have an interest in their particular forums. That interest wouldn't last long if we were to tell them that should they accept the role they'd have to stop posting there. However we do recommend that if a mod is an active participant in a discussion they refrain from moderating that particular thread and leave it to their co-mods.

jameorahiely

Zaph wrote: »

That's not something we would ever ask of our mods. As has already been mentioned, mods are selected for the very reason that they have an interest in their particular forums. That interest wouldn't last long if we were to tell them that should they accept the role they'd have to stop posting there. However we do recommend that if a mod is an active participant in a discussion they refrain from moderating that particular thread and leave it to their co-mods.

Some of them don't do that though, they post and mod in the same thread.

What do we posters do about incidents like that?

Brendan Bendar

Zaph wrote: »

That's not something we would ever ask of our mods. As has already been mentioned, mods are selected for the very reason that they have an interest in their particular forums. That interest wouldn't last long if we were to tell them that should they accept the role they'd have to stop posting there. However we do recommend that if a mod is an active participant in a discussion they refrain from moderating that particular thread and leave it to their co-mods.

Excellent Zaph, that's what I wanted to get at.

Thanks.

Zaph

jameorahiely wrote: »

Some of them don't do that though, the post and mod in the same thread.

What do we posters fo about incidents like that?

Please bring it to the attention of one of the other forum mods or the CMods. They can review any moderating decisions made by the mod to see if they are appropriate. That said, sometimes it is patently obvious that action should be taken, in the case of personal abuse for instance, and there wouldn't be an issue with the mod infracting or banning a poster on that basis.

Zaph

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Excellent Zaph, that's what I wanted to get at.

Thanks.

You highlighted only the part of my sentence that I suspect you wanted to hear. Just to be clear, I said that we recommend that mods refrain from moderating threads they're participating in, but they are not expressly forbidden to do so. As I said in my last post, there are instances where it is appropriate for them to take mod action.

jameorahiely

Zaph wrote: »

Please bring it to the attention of one of the other forum mods or the CMods. They can review any moderating decisions made by the mod to see if they are appropriate. That said, sometimes it is patently obvious that action should be taken, in the case of personal abuse for instance, and there wouldn't be an issue with the mod infracting or banning a poster on that basis.

What you're telling me is the exact opposite of what I've seen happen.

I'll contact the cmods, I'm not allowed to discuss it here