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

blackwhite

Wibbs wrote: »

I did. Well I suggested he had a tendency to be a thundering gobshíte and wondered how did the hard left of Irish politics get so toned down enough to be populist. I've also clearly stated that I think modern feminism is a crock, stuffed with half truths and some outright lies. That I consider abortion to not only be a "women's issue". That I have doubts about how transexuality is handled, particularly among minors. That I have major doubts about open borders(both the "left" and "capitalists don't like that) and that the EU handling of the "refugees" is daft at the core on so many levels. In short I'd be the polar opposite of much of the so called "left bias" on Boards.ie. Still here. I'd not be the only one either.

The issue is how you express that though.

From what I've seen of your posts you always tend towards more restrained, civilised, language in your criticisms. Bar one or two very rare exceptions, I haven't seen anyone, on any side of debates, be targeted for action when they stick to that.
Where it becomes noticable in the Cafe is that, if there's one of a couple of mods on thread expressing a given viewpoint, anyone who expresses a similar viewpoint is given a lot more leeway with what's deemed "civil" than people who disagree with them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brendan Bendar

I feel that the amount of traction this thread has got is indicative of the level of disatisfation with the running of Pol Cafe.

Now it's nothing major a lot of people give their own time to mod it and do it well.

However the wisdom of having a modding strategy with such entrenched views and prolific posts in a forum which is modded by the person involved to me is questionable at least.Doesn't inspire confidence.

That is not because I differ in my view,or have any issue with the mod, but because I would really expect Boards.ie to see that this scenario is not conducive to wht I would deem as 'fair play and good sport' for the site in general and the forum in particular.

I emphasise that I have no personal axe to grind here, looking at the big picture.

Wibbs

blackwhite wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Keep reporting such posts BW. Really. As I said before I have noted down the years that the more "right on" posters are far more likely to report posts, or at least that has been my experience.

gallag wrote: »

Yes, take Davs post, only now dav is away will people "condemn" it, it's not the first time Davs post has been brought up, I did myself and all mods/admits etc then thought it reasonable, it's a joke.

To be fair G, he did lock the thread in question with that post, so direct response wasn't in play. Though I do recall the sentiments expressed in that post being questioned elsewhere and at the time too.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

TBH I thought that a bit daft myself, but not in the way of support for the combover king, more about the direction he took it. I don't think the 63 million were affiliating with white supremacists and neo-Nazis, but it is clear - and many facts will support this - that white supremacists and neo-Nazis affiliated themselves with the 63 million. I'd take issue with the accusation of the former and it would be very much a grey area if I got that as a reported post, but facts bear out the latter and if it had been couched in such terms no way would it be actionable IMH.

Quin_Dub

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.

Brendan Bendar

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.

That's fair enough Quin, thanks for that.

I wouldn't totally agree though

As this is Feedback I'm only putting in my tuppece worth,it would be wrong not to contribute exactly as I feel, I hope you understand.

Alf Stewart.

Don't see the problem with a mod from a forum participating in a thread in said forum myself.

If there's a clear bias being displayed, feedback or DRP is your man.

Otherwise, the mod is posting their opinion on a thread, in a forum they're a moderator on, if they are putting up an incoherent, or completely false argument, take their post, dissect the parts you disagree with, and post what points you disagree with and why.

As already pointed to you, mods become mods in their particular forums, usually because they've been active, prolific posters in certain forums.

Expecting them not to post any longer, just because they're mods isn't exactly a good plan.

Imagine you're a prolific poster in a forum that represents a keen hobby you have, woodworking for example.

You get a pm asking if you would like to mod the forum.

You say yes, yet you know you'd not be expected to be a contributing poster there any longer?

Or do admins draft in people who don't contribute to forums, to mod them? How'd that work out if you know zilch about that chosen forum?

Wouldn't work, thankfully.

Robineen

Wibbs wrote: »

To be fair he is demonstrably an "absolute fcuking tool" and links that illustrate his toolism won't be hard to come by.

Yeah, I don't consider the above description to be rude or aggressive. It's not having a go at any forum member, it's an opinion someone holds on Trump. We'd be straying down a dangerous path by decreeing that only certain wordings of criticism are allowed.

Lovely Bloke

Robineen wrote: »

We'd be straying down a dangerous path by decreeing that only certain wordings of criticism are allowed.

Disagree, and this is actually the current state of play on the Soccer Forum.

You wouldn't be allowed to call any player, manager, pundit or any other poster an "absolute fúcking tool".

That would probably bring, at the very least, a Yellow.

Robineen

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

Disagree, and this is actually the current state of play on the Soccer Forum.

You wouldn't be allowed to call any player, manager, pundit or any other poster an "absolute fúcking tool".

That would probably bring, at the very least, a Yellow.

Well then I have to say I don't agree with that soccer forum rule. Sometimes swearing is a damn fine way to get one's views across.

Lovely Bloke

Well, you wouldn't get away with calling someone an "absolute tool" either, to be fair. It's not the swearing that's an issue.

Special Circumstances

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

Well, you wouldn't get away with calling someone an "absolute tool" either, to be fair. It's not the swearing that's an issue.

Don't worry we all got that.
Except for robineen.

Brendan Bendar

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Don't see the problem with a mod from a forum participating in a thread in said forum myself.

If there's a clear bias being displayed, feedback or DRP is your man.

Otherwise, the mod is posting their opinion on a thread, in a forum they're a moderator on, if they are putting up an incoherent, or completely false argument, take their post, dissect the parts you disagree with, and post what points you disagree with and why.

As already pointed to you, mods become mods in their particular forums, usually because they've been active, prolific posters in certain forums.

Expecting them not to post any longer, just because they're mods isn't exactly a good plan.

Imagine you're a prolific poster in a forum that represents a keen hobby you have, woodworking for example.

You get a pm asking if you would like to mod the forum.

You say yes, yet you know you'd not be expected to be a contributing poster there any longer?

Or do admins draft in people who don't contribute to forums, to mod them? How'd that work out if you know zilch about that chosen forum?

Wouldn't work, thankfully.

I had hoped not to have to contribute here again but have to respond here in response to putting words in my mouth

I never said a Mod should not participate in a thread they moderate,never.

What I said was that,in my opinion, a mod with very trenchant views on one 'side' should not be extremely prolific in posting in the Forum they moderate.

Now I would ask that you read that passage and understand it please.

My reason being that in a 'confrontational type' forum for a mod to be very much aligned on one side and heavily involved in posting that alignment is not good for the forum.

That's only my opinion, nothing personal, and it reduces the confidence of contributors who put forward opposing viewpoints, in getting a fair crack of the whip

I would hope that clears that up.

I got my feedback from the mods, I disagree with some of it, but there you go, it's not a world shaking issue, but I would like to be properly understood and not falsely represented.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Stheno

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

That's fair enough Quin, thanks for that.

I wouldn't totally agree though

As this is Feedback I'm only putting in my tuppece worth,it would be wrong not to contribute exactly as I feel, I hope you understand.

What wouldn't you agree with?

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

Disagree, and this is actually the current state of play on the Soccer Forum.

You wouldn't be allowed to call any player, manager, pundit or any other poster an "absolute fúcking tool".

That would probably bring, at the very least, a Yellow.

Robineen wrote: »

Well then I have to say I don't agree with that soccer forum rule. Sometimes swearing is a damn fine way to get one's views across.

I think there could be merit in considering a "no name calling" rule tbh.
It's often done in an inflammatory way, and rather than merely calling it uncivil having it explicitly called out might be good.

Brendan Bendar

Stheno wrote: »

What wouldn't you agree with?




.

"

What I said was that,in my opinion, a mod with very trenchant views on one 'side' should not be extremely prolific in posting in the Forum they moderate.



My reason being that in a 'confrontational type' forum for a mod to be very much aligned on one side and heavily involved in posting that alignment is not good for the forum.

That's only my opinion, nothing personal, and it reduces the confidence of contributors who put forward opposing viewpoints, in getting a fair crack of the whip

I would hope that clears that up."

Sorry Stheno for just pasting that but I have said it so many times I'm getting sick of it!

Sorry

Alf Stewart.

What I said was that,in my opinion, a mod with very trenchant views on one 'side' should not be extremely prolific in posting in the Forum they moderate.

I have read and understood it, but I'm asking why anyone would ever agree to being a mod anywhere on the site if they felt they could no longer be a prolific poster in a thread, just because it's in a forum they moderated?

Brendan Bendar

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

I have read and understood it, but I'm asking why anyone would ever agree to being a mod anywhere on the site if they felt they could no longer be a prolific poster in a thread, just because it's in a forum they moderated?

Bit like management Alf, you can no longer be 'one of the boys' in my opinion.

'The Lonelyness of Command 'as it were.

To expect to be able to carry on posting the same 'agenda', apologies for that word but I can't think of a better one right now as a poster and then as a Mod in the forum you moderate in to me is incongruous .

But that's only me, I accept the ruling of Boards.ie and its reps.

But I wouldn't see it as good policy.

For Reals

If you could see the amount of posters claiming we are too one way or the other you'd see there's no winning.
There's no infracting or carding somebody based on disagreeing. There are claims of bias, (sometimes in posts) and we try to avoid carding in threads we are posting heavily. Sometimes it's difficult. But avoiding posting at all in any thread would lose Mods.
Mods are simply posters who spend time trying to ensure the charter is followed and flags are looked into. That's it. If they do something you don't like, you can come here or go to DRP.
If you are being carded it is because you are doing something wrong, not because of your politics. Personally I don't see the joy in debating or discussing an issue if you simply ban anyone not thanking your post. The same reason, although anonymous, most of us stick to genuine views rather than just come on and troll or flip flop for the craic. You can't tell a Mod in a soccer forum he can't support a team or penalty call; why would he/she bother logging in?
IMO, it's nonsense to expect people to not standby genuine views they hold just to make posting feel easier to any non-Mod they might disagree with on an issue. I say 'feel' because being a Mod doesn't win you a debate, if anything it merely puts a target on your back. Thankfully we've our big fat salaries to...oh wait..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

For Reals

The point is some complain we're all one way, others complain we're all another way. That's not a comment on how folks moderate and does not weigh me personally. It is what it is. It's not used as an indicator of good balance or mod practice, it's a response to any poster perceiving Mod bias based on political view.
If someone disagrees with you on an issue and can back up that view, whether they are a Mod or not doesn't come into it unless you feel it does.

Your whole take is based on a faulty premise.

There's a charter, don't break it, you don't get carded.

I enjoy threads were folks discuss without having hard one party support, thankfully most float from left to right based on the issue.

Robineen

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

Well, you wouldn't get away with calling someone an "absolute tool" either, to be fair. It's not the swearing that's an issue.

Well, in real life discussion with another person about a third party, you probably would. What is the reason for not allowing it? Slander?

Havockk

<snip>

Is the thread not in relation to the Politics forum?

Zaph

Havockk wrote: »

Is the thread not in relation to the Politics forum?

Actually the title is a bit misleading as the OP is referring to a post in the Politics Cafe. I'll update the thread title now.

Stheno

Robineen wrote: »

Well, in real life discussion with another person about a third party, you probably would. What is the reason for not allowing it? Slander?

Few things.

Firstly it leads to online warfare, so if you take an NI thread, you get Unionists calling SF people murdering bastards and SF people calling Unionists murdering bigots

Or you get left wing people calling the likes of Trump a fascist and right wing people calling the left wing posters SJWs

All it does is marginalise debate, which being online is different from face to face discussion

And it alienates those in the middle who might have a view but don't want to engage with those on the more extreme sides of the opinion.

Lovely Bloke

what you need is a kind of non-exhaustive list

Stheno

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

what you need is a kind of non-exhaustive list

Well tbh and this is just me (and yes the cafe mods are discussing this) I'd have the following:

1. No nicknames for politicians, like Barry for Obama/Zap for Zappone, Gurry for Gerry Adams, the leprechaun for Michael D, call them by their correct name.
2. No referring to people as being bigots/nazis such as has been done in different forums in relation to Unionists/Steve Bannon
3. No general slurs such as slactivists.

I'd put that in as a guideline, with a proviso that the list is not exhaustive and that those are examples, I think they'd cover a fair bit. For example I told a few posters today to get back on topic as they were discussing the attractivness of politicians and how unattractive their accent was.

What do you think?

Lovely Bloke

I'm not sure I see a problem with a shortening of a name (Zap, is that offensive?), nor if a person is well known in endearing terms as something other than their actual name (isn't Obama known as Barry to his friends?)

For example, the Soccer Forum allows the name "SAF" for the Ex-Manchester United manager (Sir) Alex Ferguson, under your rules above that wouldn't be allowed on the PC.

That said, it's a much easier life for mods to just allow actual names only, and makes the most sense, otherwise you are into a proper grey area where you are trying to move away from them.

Absolutely disallow terms like SJW, loony-left etc.

Stheno

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

I'm not sure I see a problem with a shortening of a name (Zap, is that offensive?), nor if a person is well known in endearing terms as something other than their actual name (isn't Obama known as Barry to his friends?)

For example, the Soccer Forum allows the name "SAF" for the Ex-Manchester United manager (Sir) Alex Ferguson, under your rules above that wouldn't be allowed on the PC.

That said, it's a much easier life for mods to just allow actual names only, and makes the most sense, otherwise you are into a proper grey area where you are trying to move away from them.

Absolutely disallow terms like SJW, loony-left etc.

I've no idea if Obama is known as Barry to his friends, and tbh when the terms Zap and Barry arose recently I know for me personally it took me a while to figure out who was being talked about. I'd much prefer people use peoples real names, and if it's agreed that acroyms are acceptable that's fine, we could potenailly have a feedback thread in the cafe about that if the other mods agreed.

It is far easier for mods to just allow real names.

What do you think of baning terms like slactovist/fascist etc?

I should add, I'm asking this from a personal point of view, but it is fed back to the other mods.Personally I think it makes posts less inflammatory and encourages more debate, rather than descending into abuse.