Disappearing threads in the politics cafe?

Taltos

I've read that thread Permabear and everything you call out For Reals for you are equally as guilty. Between the two of you that thread spun off topic and the mods (the other mods) had to step in and request it stay on point. Frankly you are both lucky you stopped when you did as had it continued cards would have been forthcoming.

Now there were many choices there, just a few from the top of my head
A) Either one of you could have just accepted the others viewpoint and moved on and stopped responding (thread would have hopefully gone back on point)
Again one of you could have accepted you disagreed with the other and moved on and stopped responding (thread would have probably gone back on point)
C) Just keep escalating until one or both of you responded in a manner that prompted mod action - either the redirect (as occurred) or a card had one of you gone that far. (Threads now on point but is on the radar for the mod team to close if it becomes too much effort to manage)

I can see why it happened. You're clearly both passionate about your views, at least that is the truth I choose to accept here as the alternative is not that nice. I'm not going to get into the specifics of your disagreement, let's just say I hear you both and can see why you both have the stance you do but that doesn't mean I agree with either of you. Ideally as the mod FR should have stepped back, but I can see they were lost in the debate (we haven't perfected the botmod just yet, still on version 0.4), it happens to all of us on topics we're passionate about sometimes. Ideally next time should a similar scenario occur they'll remember or get a nudge from a co-mod or see a report that the thread is going off topic.

As to the standards, they're there already, don't derail the thread and just like in most forums at some point someone was going to come in and tell you both to take it outside or put the other on ignore. But, standards are constantly evolving just as the posters do. Just cast your mind back 1 year, think of some of the types of posts that were allowed at that time which over time caused such a problem we had to close the cafe and restart it in safe mode to try and save it. And yes it will continue to evolve as the posters need and with the help of the mod team keeping an eye on those developments with the oversight of the cmod team. The cafe mod team is one of the most active behind the scenes and that frankly is something I am very happy over, its all too easy to mod in a vacuum, that's were mods can go off the rails or lose direction, this team though are working together even though they all have very very different outlooks on life and politics.

I had a quick look at the charter there to see if it could be tightened up for the above scenario but it's already covered. It just might mean some nudging from the mod team to posters (and mods ) who continually break some of the following

• Subjects discussed here will be contentious. That is understood. While you are discussing these subjects here we require you to do so in a civil and polite manner.
• Having a strong point of view is fine but expressing it in an aggressive or rude tone is not acceptable.
• Disagree with respect for those who have a contrary view.
• Personal abuse is not acceptable here.
• Vilification of groups will not be tolerated. If you are incapable of having a discussion without resorting to defaming others then maybe this forum, or site, is not for you.
• News dumps are not welcome. While you may link to other sites, do so only with context and as a part of a discussion.
• Personal abuse is not acceptable here.
• 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? Carrying personal disagreements or spats over to other threads is frowned on.
• Do not respond to provocation. If it’s in breach of the charter or site rules then report the post.

blanch152

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Cafe is full of tribalism and some of the mods engage in it as well.

The example you give is a pertinent one, but it is not the only example of differing standards. Currently, you can post in any thread you like that FF and FG are the same party (example: see the AAA renaming thread) but if you dare mention SF's links with the IRA (as evidenced in a PSNI report) you risk a ban.

I am not sure that there is a solution without sanitising the debate. It got to the ridiculous stage that I got a card recently for saying that Varadkar would campaign on the basis of "same old reckless FF in league with criminal SF", clearly showing them as Varadkar's opinions, not mine. I can produce a link where Varadkar says "Oh come off it, where’s my party’s past or legacy of people who were murdered, bodies buried in bogs, or people still living today who were maimed, who are still carrying the scars and burns?", which is far more provocative than "criminal SF", yet the phrase is banned.

Stheno

blanch152 wrote: »

The Cafe is full of tribalism and some of the mods engage in it as well.

The example you give is a pertinent one, but it is not the only example of differing standards. Currently, you can post in any thread you like that FF and FG are the same party (example: see the AAA renaming thread) but if you dare mention SF's links with the IRA (as evidenced in a PSNI report) you risk a ban.

I am not sure that there is a solution without sanitising the debate. It got to the ridiculous stage that I got a card recently for saying that Varadkar would campaign on the basis of "same old reckless FF in league with criminal SF", clearly showing them as Varadkar's opinions, not mine. I can produce a link where Varadkar says "Oh come off it, where’s my party’s past or legacy of people who were murdered, bodies buried in bogs, or people still living today who were maimed, who are still carrying the scars and burns?", which is far more provocative than "criminal SF", yet the phrase is banned.

There are two problems with discussion in relation to the North, politics, and the political parties in the North:
1. Posters who deliberately post the likes of "Criminal SF"/Bigoted DUP/Murdering SF terrorists, to wind up posters on the "other side" as was discussed and agreed by posters in the last big feedback thread.
2. Posters who are incapable of discussing the situation in the North NOW without harking back to the past and referencing something that happened in the seventies/eighties/making false claims that cannot be backed up about the actions of individuals who are now in the public eye.

This then leads to absolute warfare in threads about the North, and so now there is a zero tolerance in relation to this. ZERO, on both sides.

Now as for your warning, in the middle of the IW discussion thread you posted

blanch152 wrote: »

So?

FF abstained, yet they are prepared to bring the Government down on water charges.

Things change

Varadkar is cleverer than that, he doesn't want a majority, he wants to increase the vote past 30%. Painting the abolition of water charges as same old reckless FF in league with the criminal SF and the irresponsible AAA/PBP will be his gameplan, will be interesting to watch and see can he do it.

No proof/no link as you claim in the post, so it came across as namecalling, you could just have said "SF" but chose to add in criminal.

As you are new to the forum, you may not be aware, but the charter changed recently to include no namecalling/nicknames/etc, after discussion in the last feedback thread.

blanch152

Stheno wrote: »

There are two problems with discussion in relation to the North, politics, and the political parties in the North:
1. Posters who deliberately post the likes of "Criminal SF"/Bigoted DUP/Murdering SF terrorists, to wind up posters on the "other side" as was discussed and agreed by posters in the last big feedback thread.
2. Posters who are incapable of discussing the situation in the North NOW without harking back to the past and referencing something that happened in the seventies/eighties/making false claims that cannot be backed up about the actions of individuals who are now in the public eye.

This then leads to absolute warfare in threads about the North, and so now there is a zero tolerance in relation to this. ZERO, on both sides.

Now as for your warning, in the middle of the IW discussion thread you posted



No proof/no link as you claim in the post, so it came across as namecalling, you could just have said "SF" but chose to add in criminal.

As you are new to the forum, you may not be aware, but the charter changed recently to include no namecalling/nicknames/etc, after discussion in the last feedback thread.

The irony is I deliberately didn't quote Varadkar's comments as I felt they were too incendiary and toned them down because they wouldn't be allowed.

It is certainly something to think about that you can't paraphrase what a mainstream politician like Varadkar says about SF, yet as pointed out above by Permabear, mods can post as much unsubstantiated allegations about Noonan as they like - I have seen him accused of criminality without a sanction. They are also allowed accuse him of criminal corruption on Cerebus. Yet, on the other hand, if I was to taint Adams with tax evasion by association with the good republican Slab Murphy, I would get a card.

To give another example, if Noonan (unproven) can be guilty of corruption having once met someone from Cerebus, surely Adams (unproven) can be guilty of terrorism having once met the person responsible for killing Brian Stack?

My only problem is with the double standards.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Taltos

And it's OK that we disagree.

For Reals though was not posting as a mod, he was giving his opinion as a poster, something the mods are actively encouraged to do in the forums they moderate.

Mods are allowed to do that, we even discussed it on a recent feedback thread. As to his opinions on Noonan that's OK, they're his opinions but I'm not getting dragged off topic here arguing for or against if Noonan was impacted by austerity, its all a matter of scale after all. But that thread was not the place for either of you to drag it off topic like that. And yes in my mind you are both as guilty as each other in dragging that thread off topic, mod vs former mod (as called out earlier), you both should know better. The nature of the cafe is that threads are allowed to go a little off topic as in the chat in the bar once they get back on topic, but between you both there that was not going to happen without another mod stepping in, which frankly shouldn't have to happen.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

blanch152

Taltos wrote: »

And it's OK that we disagree.

For Reals though was not posting as a mod, he was giving his opinion as a poster, something the mods are actively encouraged to do in the forums they moderate.

Mods are allowed to do that, we even discussed it on a recent feedback thread. As to his opinions on Noonan that's OK, they're his opinions but I'm not getting dragged off topic here arguing for or against if Noonan was impacted by austerity, its all a matter of scale after all. But that thread was not the place for either of you to drag it off topic like that. And yes in my mind you are both as guilty as each other in dragging that thread off topic, mod vs former mod (as called out earlier), you both should know better. The nature of the cafe is that threads are allowed to go a little off topic as in the chat in the bar once they get back on topic, but between you both there that was not going to happen without another mod stepping in, which frankly shouldn't have to happen.

It is not a matter of scale as to whether Noonan was impacted by austerity, it is a matter of fact, but the falsehood is allowed as it is propagated by a mod.

By contrast, a matter of opinion that SF are still controlled by the IRA (even though it is an opinion shared by Micheal Martin and the PSNI) is not allowed.

Lovely Bloke

Taltos wrote: »

And it's OK that we disagree.

For Reals though was not posting as a mod, he was giving his opinion as a poster, something the mods are actively encouraged to do in the forums they moderate.

Mods are allowed to do that, we even discussed it on a recent feedback thread. As to his opinions on Noonan that's OK, they're his opinions but I'm not getting dragged off topic here arguing for or against if Noonan was impacted by austerity, its all a matter of scale after all. But that thread was not the place for either of you to drag it off topic like that. And yes in my mind you are both as guilty as each other in dragging that thread off topic, mod vs former mod (as called out earlier), you both should know better. The nature of the cafe is that threads are allowed to go a little off topic as in the chat in the bar once they get back on topic, but between you both there that was not going to happen without another mod stepping in, which frankly shouldn't have to happen.

Wagon circling of the highest degree.

If any other poster was soapboxing to the degree that particular poster does there'd be sanctions.

But nope. It's the mod, so nobody from the upper echelons can be seen to criticise.

In fact, let's excuse the behaviour.

One rule for some, different rule for the plebs.

It's very transparent that this is where the line is in relation to the Caf, and frankly it's disturbing. It's ruining the forum.

Wheeliebin30

Stheno wrote: »

There are two problems with discussion in relation to the North, politics, and the political parties in the North:
1. Posters who deliberately post the likes of "Criminal SF"/Bigoted DUP/Murdering SF terrorists, to wind up posters on the "other side" as was discussed and agreed by posters in the last big feedback thread.
2. Posters who are incapable of discussing the situation in the North NOW without harking back to the past and referencing something that happened in the seventies/eighties/making false claims that cannot be backed up about the actions of individuals who are now in the public eye.

This then leads to absolute warfare in threads about the North, and so now there is a zero tolerance in relation to this. ZERO, on both sides.

Now as for your warning, in the middle of the IW discussion thread you posted



No proof/no link as you claim in the post, so it came across as namecalling, you could just have said "SF" but chose to add in criminal.

As you are new to the forum, you may not be aware, but the charter changed recently to include no namecalling/nicknames/etc, after discussion in the last feedback thread.

I have seen certain posters refer to enda kenny and fg having links to Michael Collins and the old IRA.

I have never seen these posters get carded for making these comparisons.

One poster always refers to Maria cahill and her links and then enda and Joan putting her up in the seanad.

Once again never any warnings.

So to say it's zero tolerated on both sides is a lie.

Wheeliebin30

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

Wagon circling of the highest degree.

If any other poster was soapboxing to the degree that particular poster does there'd be sanctions.

But nope. It's the mod, so nobody from the upper echelons can be seen to criticise.

In fact, let's excuse the behaviour.

One rule for some, different rule for the plebs.

It's very transparent that this is where the line is in relation to the Caf, and frankly it's disturbing. It's ruining the forum.

Have to agree here and I have been banned twice for giving my opinion about this. This certain mod gets away with so much other posters don't.

Was always question marks from the start about this and it has proved true.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Little CuChulainn

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The issue between you and For Reals was not the absence of proof from either of you, it was your disagreement of what it meant to suffer austerity. You believed that a pay cut constituted suffering austerity whereas For Reals believed that a simply pay cut was not sufficient to be considered suffering austerity if you were still paid a lot. Differing opinions don't necessarily mean one is right and one is wrong.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tokyo

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Threads like this one are important, as it gives us a direction to move in, in terms of making the forum a better place for everyone. Unfortunately Lovely Bloke, it's responses like this that undermine any discussion of potential issues. Despite what you might think, we have been looking hard at whether there is an issue, and if there is, how to maintain a forum that allows for an equal balance of view on all sides, without every thread descending into trench warfare. Comments like that above serve no function other than to provoke a response or rally the masses, and are certainly not constructive in a feedback thread.

I do need to clarify that I don't see any examples of mods abusing their position, as certain posters have claimed. As a rule of thumb, moderators don't action posters in threads they are actively part of - instead they report it (as any user can also do) to make the remainder of the mod team aware of a potential situation. While that's not always possible in fast moving threads, that's the reality for 99% of actioned posts across Boards, and I don't see anything in the Café that even remotely suggests that a moderator infracted another poster in order to strengthen their argument. I'd like that to be clear.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I believe Permabear's point is worth discussing, and I have to be honest and say that I agree with parts of it. Reading through the more contentious threads, I am seeing entrenched viewpoints and a certain amount of baiting from various parties in all camps. Such is the nature of debate sometimes, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that, if it doesn't dominate the core nature of the thread - to debate and discuss a point. In a forum like the Politics Cafe, you're always going to have strong and sometimes polarising opinions, mods and posters alike, and there's no getting away from that.

We have always held the position that moderators are perfectly entitled to post as regular members (it's why they were chosen to be moderators), but with that comes an expectation of a higher standard than might be applied to the masses. So in that we are in agreement. However, I don't agree that moderators are solely responsible for setting that bar - that duty falls on all participants in the forum, moderators and posters alike - as it should. And 225 reported posts in the Café in the last month alone lends much support to the fact that theres a much larger factor in play when it comes to the standards of posting in the Café. Provocation is taking place in all camps, and I'd like to see that nipped in the bud.

Modding the Café can be quite a thankless job at times, and mods are going to draw flak no matter what they do. But for my part, I've discussed this with the CMod team, who has in turn spoken to the moderator team in the Café, to remind us all that like it or not, we as moderators set the bar for what is an acceptable style of posting and what is not through the content of our own posts. On that end, moderators in the Café will strive to consider how they post, and to try and take a step back and see if a point of view holds water or not. We'll also strive to keep the playing field level for everyone posting in the Café. I would hope that with turnabout being fair play, that posters in this thread might consider the same, and play their own part in setting the standard for the forum.

Lovely Bloke

mike_ie, instead of pretending I posted something I didn't, how about you address the issues in my post.

Are you stating that no moderator in that forum is soapboxing?

If you are then your claims are absolutely incredulous, and tantamount to more wagon circling.

Feedback you don't want to hear or accept is still Feedback.

Look pal, I'm well used to being attacked round these parts in some kind of effort to discredit my Feedback, you're not the first to try it, and likely won't be the last.

Lovely Bloke

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The issue between you and For Reals was not the absence of proof from either of you, it was your disagreement of what it meant to suffer austerity. You believed that a pay cut constituted suffering austerity whereas For Reals believed that a simply pay cut was not sufficient to be considered suffering austerity if you were still paid a lot. Differing opinions don't necessarily mean one is right and one is wrong.

Absolutely nothing in this post reflects the actuality of what went on in that thread over the last few days, nothing.

Another wagon in the circle.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lovely Bloke

I stopped reading his post when his opening gambit was to try to discredit my feedback with a personal attack.

For Reals

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The initial post was regarding Austerity and very much on topic. My answering your questions led to any possible derailment.
We disagree. I stand by my opinion. Several times I conceded by taking a pay cut he took part in the Austerity program. In retrospect I should have stopped at once. I don't believe he suffered under austerity. I showed an article referencing the profits he made during his tenure as Minister of Finance. This wasn't good enough for you.
We have a different view on this. Nothing personal.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

For Reals

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There was a conversation regarding Austerity being over etc. I took part.
If you feel my answering your questions dragged the thread off topic, so be it. I far from enjoyed it. I'll leave it there.

padd b1975

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Was always question marks from the start about this and it has proved true.

This.

Threads announcing the appointment of a new mod usually follow a similar pattern.
Good wishes, a little good-natured mickey taking and a general consensus that the appointment was a sound one is the norm.

The thread announcing FR as a mod was unbelievable from the start in it's reservations towards the appointment and really should have put the powers that be on red alert status.

Remember as a regular poster his MO consisted of obtuse hostile soapboxing and putting those in disagreement on ignore-hardly the CV of a potential mod IMHO.

His continued modding of The Café will only drive quality and respected posters to other websites. This isn't the Boards.ie of four or five years ago when the avoidable departure of interesting posters barely raised a ripple. Traffic and posts are way down and still dropping, you can see that as well as I can.

I appreciate that mods are human and cannot be right all the time, unfortunately this mods name is popping up much too often when problems with the forum are being discussed.

It's more than a coincidence.

Alf Stewart.

padd b1975 wrote: »

This.

Threads announcing the appointment of a new mod usually follow a similar pattern.
Good wishes, a little good-natured mickey taking and a general consensus that the appointment was a sound one is the norm.

The thread announcing FR as a mod was unbelievable from the start in it's reservations towards the appointment and really should have put the powers that be on red alert status.

Remember as a regular poster his MO consisted of obtuse hostile soapboxing and putting those in disagreement on ignore-hardly the CV of a potential mod IMHO.

His continued modding of The Café will only drive quality and respected posters to other websites. This isn't the Boards.ie of four or five years ago when the avoidable departure of interesting posters barely raised a ripple. Traffic and posts are way down and still dropping, you can see that as well as I can.

I appreciate that mods are human and cannot be right all the time, unfortunately this mods name is popping up much too often when problems with the forum are being discussed.

It's more than a coincidence.

The main thing I found "unbelievable" was the wagon circle that went on from a certain cohort of posters, who incidentally usually are prevalent in threads were they appear to have a polar opposite view to the mod in question.

The cafe is more or less divided by a left/right divide.

The recent additions to the mod team would have polar opposite views on mine on most subjects, and indeed I have been involved in some hard and heavy disputes with both over the years. I don't recall seeing any hostility towards either on their welcome thread from posters who I would deem "left".'

In saying that, neither should be viewed on transgressions of the past. I had faith (have faith)'in both of them to moderate the forums in a completely impartial and fair manner, and to be fair, both are proving that they have.

I don't think I ever, in 10+ years of posting witnessed such naked hostility to a poster being appointed as a mod. That says more about them, than the moderator in.question.

JRant

padd b1975 wrote: »

This.

Threads announcing the appointment of a new mod usually follow a similar pattern.
Good wishes, a little good-natured mickey taking and a general consensus that the appointment was a sound one is the norm.

The thread announcing FR as a mod was unbelievable from the start in it's reservations towards the appointment and really should have put the powers that be on red alert status.

Remember as a regular poster his MO consisted of obtuse hostile soapboxing and putting those in disagreement on ignore-hardly the CV of a potential mod IMHO.

His continued modding of The Café will only drive quality and respected posters to other websites. This isn't the Boards.ie of four or five years ago when the avoidable departure of interesting posters barely raised a ripple. Traffic and posts are way down and still dropping, you can see that as well as I can.

I appreciate that mods are human and cannot be right all the time, unfortunately this mods name is popping up much too often when problems with the forum are being discussed.

It's more than a coincidence.

Yeah, I'm going to call this post for what it is "nonsense".

The response to FR being made a mod was quite frankly petty and childish. FR usually sticks to their guns when discussing topics but so what lots of people do the same.

The reason numbers are down IMO is due to the over cautious approach to threads. One of the biggest scandals to hit this country in years couldn't even be discussed here. That is lession number 1 in how to drive users away. Yet you think it's down to FR!!!

If anything the other newest member of the mod team is far more argumentative and combative than FR, yet not a dickie bird about him.

Widdershins

JRant wrote: »

Yeah, I'm going to call this post for what it is "nonsense".

The response to FR being made a mod was quite frankly petty and childish. FR usually sticks to their guns when discussing topics but so what lots of people do the same.

The reason numbers are down IMO is due to the over cautious approach to threads. One of the biggest scandals to hit this country in years couldn't even be discussed here. That is lession number 1 in how to drive users away. Yet you think it's down to FR!!!

If anything the other newest member of the mod team is far more argumentative and combative than FR, yet not a dickie bird about him.

I agree about the over cautious attitude. Just because there were past issues when certain topics were discussed doesn't necessitate overreaction or over sensitivity. Very disruptive and confusing, especially when enough threads are locked to result in conversations carrying over into other threads because people were in the middle of one when it was locked.

Alf Stewart.

JRant wrote: »

If anything the other newest member of the mod team is far more argumentative and combative than FR, yet not a dickie bird about him.

This. I've went toe to toe with this poster (pre - mod) over countless threads, up to and including Clare Daly/HHC/Irish Water, and yeah, they can argue the bit out, and disagree with practically every principle and stance I hold, but I didn't allow any of our precious run ins skew my views on him being asked to moderate.

So far as i can tell, the usual suspects seem to have a problem with on.main thing

"Oh no, he speaks out against Fine Gael"

I repeat, i never seen such a hostile welcome thread in all my years posting, and the folk who took part in the witch hunt should take a long hard look at themselves.

padd b1975

JRant wrote: »

Yeah, I'm going to call this post for what it is "nonsense".

The response to FR being made a mod was quite frankly petty and childish. FR usually sticks to their guns when discussing topics but so what lots of people do the same.

The reason numbers are down IMO is due to the over cautious approach to threads. One of the biggest scandals to hit this country in years couldn't even be discussed here. That is lession number 1 in how to drive users away. Yet you think it's down to FR!!!

If anything the other newest member of the mod team is far more argumentative and combative than FR, yet not a dickie bird about him.

I'm a member here since 2009 so plenty of those type of threads have caught my eye, that response to a mod appointment was unprecedented and sadly has proved to be accurate in it's uneasiness.

Of course FR isn't responsible for the drop in traffic alone, to suggest that is a little strawman ..
It's down to a number of reasons-site reliability problems, the rise of other forms of social media etc etc.

What's happening in the café at the moment is that genuine posters are getting increasingly antagonised with the behaviour of this mod and that will only result in one thing-people will stop caring what happens.

Action is needed now while they still do.

Zaph

OK folks, this has taken a far too personal turn at this stage. Singling out individual mods as possible reasons for a decline in the forum is grossly unfair and is way off the original topic at this stage so I'm closing this one.