Politics Cafe: Restrictive definition of 'on-topic', and associated mod warnings

gandalf

But the whole execution is half hearted. Some political threads are left in AH and some aren't. There is absolutely no consistency at all to it. What constitutes a thread staying in AH and one being moved to the PC?

I also disagree with the PC forum being a success, it is a complete and utter mess. It is confusing the situation and of course it is taking traffic from the actual politics forum given its getting directly linked traffic from AH :rolleyes:. Boards is effectively promoting PC at the expense of the Politics forum.

_Kaiser_

gandalf wrote: »

But the whole execution is half hearted. Some political threads are left in AH and some aren't. There is absolutely no consistency at all to it. What constitutes a thread staying in AH and one being moved to the PC?

I also disagree with the PC forum being a success, it is a complete and utter mess. It is confusing the situation and of course it is taking traffic from the actual politics forum given its getting directly linked traffic from AH :rolleyes:. Boards is effectively promoting PC at the expense of the Politics forum.

So your issue is indeed that the threads/discourse you deem less "worthy" are taking away attention from the original politics forum... but by your own logic, it wouldn't fit there anyway... which is why there IS a Cafe

AH I agree (as someone gave a great example of previously) is full of threads that arguably could be moved to other areas of the site - but the reality is that AH is the most popular forum here so I guess the mods are trying to balance that against when to move a thread somewhere else.. not an easy task, especially as many threads/issues span several areas - housing policy for example is part Accommodation and Property, part Politics, even part Commuting and Transport.

I think the Cafe is better suited as an offshoot of AH rather than politics and that's how it should be used. Again, Politics is still there and if there is the demand for that more "serious" nature of posting then I'm sure that threads popping up on the front page of the site would draw traffic.. but if that's not happening then maybe the issue is more with Politics than AH/the Cafe to be honest...

I think there's a place for all 3 myself and the Cafe is such a headache not only because of the aforementioned moderation/muppetry but because by its very nature it's a divisive topic and in a more free-flowing AH-style environment, problems will inevitably occur.

But the solution isn't just to shut up shop but rather to agree and define clearly the rules (again within the spirit of the intent of the forum) and the penalties for breaking them, and then ensure you have enough mods (from all political backgrounds) to enforce them and indeed keep each other "honest" (for want of a better term).

Do that and I think many of today's issues would disappear.

Alf Stewart.

The only way I would support any notion of permanently closing the cafe, would be if political threads were allowed to remain in AH, because if you're to start shunting every thread that touches , even slightly on a political basis, over to the main politics thread, given that a card can be dished out there for the most trivial or things, expect an exodus from the site.

As Kaiser said, politics has caught the masses attention over the last ten years or so, with people being made redundant, the slow down, and the bailouts of the banks due to the crash, hence the popularity of the cafe.

I do think some rule needs to be examined (yet again) there should have been some clear set out and stuck to lines of not modding threads your actively posting in.

For example, go toe to toe with someone in a thread (in my case, questioning how €3600 represented value for money for a return flight to Washington) who was trying to normalize the cost, including throwing up first class flights, despite (afaik) first class not being available on that particular route, and others making comparisons to other TDs, something they gave me an in thread warning the day before not to do.

The next day, they're deleting my posts, claiming their libellous/or defaming (despite being reported on widely) then Infracting and banning me.

I'm not arguing the infraction and ban may i add, i broke a rule, i got penalised.

Im calling out the unfair advantage a mod has when indulging in debate.

Making up rules as you go along, only to go into another thread less than 24 hrs later, and do what you told others not to do, then delete posts discussing affairs that have widely been reported on, and been the subject of tribunals looks sus imo.

Denis O'Brien made payments to Lowry, and was given invaluable information that helped him secure a large state contract, ie a mobile license. = post deleted because possible libellous and defamatory. (Are we now rewriting the Moriarty tribunal?)

Gerry Adams is a murderer (in the same thread) = posts not deleted, user not actioned.

There's little to no consistency.

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

KERSPLAT!

Mods are usually picked because they are prolific posters in a forum, removing their ability to post leaves no incentive to mod and is frankly an absurd suggestion.

In AH mods do their best to not mod a thread they are actively posting in. While it is not set in stone and there are exceptions, this should generally be followed by mods of all forums, in my opinion, and seems to be the crux of a few issues in PC from what I'm reading.

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

KERSPLAT!

Chorus_suck wrote: »

Ok then, what do you suggest?

Or are you happy with PC as it is?

I don't post in PC to be honest but my second paragraph would be my initial suggestion. A guide, not a rule, that mods don't moderate threads they are actively posting in.

There seems to be a few other issues but that would be a start and not difficult to implement

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

Beasty

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Modding a quiet forum with hardly anything to moderate is quite easy for non-posters - that's the case for a couple of the forums I have taken responsibility for.

However a fast moving forum with extensive debate is very different. So, for example, I may well have CMod responsibility for the Soccer forum. However I don't post there much, but am very reliant on discussions amongst the mods that are active there to inform me what is going on if and when needed

Likewise with something like politics you need to understand context both of posters and within a thread itself. It may well be that you get something from seeing the reported posts, but equally you have a much better understanding if you are showing a genuine interest in the underlying topic and not just dropping by in reaction to something that's been reported. Indeed you risk losing any consistency and fairness if you are not seeing how an issue has evolved into something that may need further action.

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

Skylinehead

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In a place like AH or the Cafe? Absolutely. They're massive time sinks that require a fair bit of work, they're nothing like modding a small forum that gets maybe 2 or 3 reported posts a week. I can't think of anybody sane that would want to mod AH but had no interest in contributing to it.

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

KERSPLAT!

Chorus_suck wrote: »

Too little too late imho. It's absurd to think that would work ... its effectively maintaining the status quo and addressing exactly none of the issues outlined upthread.

It's also absurd, and surprising tbh, to suggest that mods won't mod a forum if they are not allowed to post there. This happens a lot on boards and you, as a cat mod, should know that. Are you really suggesting mods won't mod a forum if they are not allowed to post there????

My suggestion is worth trying on a trial basis. If it doesn't work so be it. Yours, tbh, sounds like an effort to maintain the status quo and ignore all the concerns and problems stated.

I assume that's a rhetorical question because that's exactly what I said. I modded the Call of Duty forum because I posted there, I gave that up when I stopped posting there. You may have mods not posting in a forum they mod but it is highly likely they did at one point in time.

It was raised multiple times between this thread and the last, concerns regarding mods posting and modding at the same time. This is bad practice in my opinion hence the suggestion that this changes in PC, this addresses one of the concerns and as I said, is something that can be implemented almost immediately.

I can't ever see a mod being banned from posting in a forum they mod.

Mr E

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Absolutely 100% not going to happen. Stop bringing it up, please.

KERSPLAT!

Chorus_suck wrote: »

Too little too late imho. It's absurd to think that would work ... its effectively maintaining the status quo and addressing exactly none of the issues outlined upthread.

It's also absurd, and surprising tbh, to suggest that mods won't mod a forum if they are not allowed to post there. This happens a lot on boards and you, as a cat mod, should know that. Are you really suggesting mods won't mod a forum if they are not allowed to post there????

My suggestion is worth trying on a trial basis. If it doesn't work so be it. Yours, tbh, sounds like an effort to maintain the status quo and ignore all the concerns and problems stated.

I assume that's a rhetorical question because that's exactly what I said. I modded the Call of Duty forum because I posted there, I gave that up when I stopped posting there. You may have mods not posting in a forum they mod but it is highly likely they did at one point in time.

It was raised multiple times between this thread and the last, concerns regarding mods posting and modding at the same time. This is bad practice in my opinion hence the suggestion that this changes in PC, this addresses one of the concerns and as I said, is something that can be implemented almost immediately.

I can't ever see a mod being banned from posting in a forum they mod.

Beasty

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You do understand we are volunteers? We are here to get involved in healthy debate, perhaps learn a few things and contribute to the wider community and its sub-communities.

osarusan

Hi, you're a valuable and reasonable poster in the XYZ forum, and you spend a good bit of time there, so we'd like to make you a mod of the forum. It's voluntary, and all done in your own time. You get to deal with all the shyte that comes with moderation, and...here's the kicker, this should seal the deal...you can't post there any more.

I mean, what's not to like!

Snake Plisken

So as I asked on the other thread, if a mod has strong views on a particular subject being discussed then there is a conflict of interest for that mod they should excuse themselves and inform the Cmod about the reasons why they cannot mod and then they can participate in the thread and mod another thread they have a nuetral view on for example a thread on FG or Enda.
But if a mod does not come clean and declare they have strong opinions on one side of the arguement and based on the amount of cards and bans that are handed out and the amount of posters complaining then the Cmods should investigate and remove the mods from moderating that thread.
That would be my common sense approach to modding the Political Cafe.

dudara

@Chorus_suck - a request please to not raise this again in this thread. You have already done so, and your feedback has been received loud and clear. The same request goes to all posters, please do not repeatedly post the same suggestion. We're trying to cast the net as wide as possible here.

A thank you once again for all your comments. This is an extremely constructive Feedback thread to date.

dudara

KERSPLAT!

Snake Plisken wrote: »

So as I asked on the other thread, if a mod has strong views on a particular subject being discussed then there is a conflict of interest for that mod they should excuse themselves and inform the Cmod about the reasons why they cannot mod and then they can participate in the thread and mod another thread they have a nuetral view on for example a thread on FG or Enda.
But if a mod does not come clean and declare they have strong opinions on one side of the arguement and based on the amount of cards and bans that are handed out and the amount of posters complaining then the Cmods should investigate and remove the mods from moderating that thread.
That would be my common sense approach to modding the Political Cafe.

It shouldn't need cmod intervention. A mod taking part in a thread shouldn't mod it, whether they have strong views or not. It's best for posters and the mods themselves.

Snake Plisken

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

It shouldn't need cmod intervention. A mod taking part in a thread shouldn't mod it, whether they have strong views or not. It's best for posters and the mods themselves.

Ok that's fine but if it's one of those controversial threads and I as a mod decide you know what I am going to mod the thread but I am going to be more biased towards one viewpoint and more strict on the alternative side of the arguement, then we have an issue where I believe based on feedback from posters the Cmod should step in and look at the suitability of that person to mod a particular thread. That's all I'm saying.

_Kaiser_

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

It shouldn't need cmod intervention. A mod taking part in a thread shouldn't mod it, whether they have strong views or not. It's best for posters and the mods themselves.

I'd agree completely with this but it needs to be a site-wide rule rather than a best practice guideline to be effective.

But it's also the Mod selection process that needs reviewing. As I said in the other thread, I for example see a huge conflict of issue with appointing a serving AGS member to moderate a forum with frequent threads on scandals within the force, negative posts about the Minister for Justice, Taoiseach or the Government (their ultimate employer and "boss").
This is why I suggested expanding the mod team and picking mods from outside the normal group to not only lessen the workload but also bring a genuinely fresh perspective to the role.

KERSPLAT!

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Ok that's fine but if it's one of those controversial threads and I as a mod decide you know what I am going to mod the thread but I am going to be more biased towards one viewpoint and more strict on the alternative side of the arguement, then we have an issue where I believe based on feedback from posters the Cmod should step in and look at the suitability of that person to mod a particular thread. That's all I'm saying.

I understand and I agree, though I would hope the mod in question would be pulled up by comods before it becomes a bigger issue.

Some posters seem to think everything is rosy in the background and all mods agree and have the same views, this isn't the case. Mods often have to trash things out and that's the way it should be. There's no point having a team of mods who don't question each other. Communication is key.

_Kaiser_

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I understand and I agree, though I would hope the mod in question would be pulled up by comods before it becomes a bigger issue.

Some posters seem to think everything is rosy in the background and all mods agree and have the same views, this isn't the case. Mods often have to trash things out and that's the way it should be. There's no point having a team of mods who don't question each other. Communication is key.

I think you've actually hit on perhaps another reason for the perceptional issues regarding moderation - transparency.

I'm not saying that every decision needs to be laid out, but certainly where threads are closed/deleted I think more detail would help AND it should only be a last resort. There are plenty of ways to sanction misbehaving users and threads CAN be (and are) cleaned up when they derail too far.
It may take a bit more effort and time (again addressed by appointing more mods), but I think that's preferable to just closing the discussion entirely where the constructive posters lose out and get frustrated as well as a result.

KERSPLAT!

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I think you've actually hit on perhaps another reason for the perceptional issues regarding moderation - transparency.

I'm not saying that every decision needs to be laid out, but certainly where threads are closed/deleted I think more detail would help AND it should only be a last resort. There are plenty of ways to sanction misbehaving users and threads CAN be (and are) cleaned up when they derail too far.
It may take a bit more effort and time (again addressed by appointing more mods), but I think that's preferable to just closing the discussion entirely where the constructive posters lose out and get frustrated as well as a result.

Well another thing I try to go by is, if you can't give a detailed reason for a card, ban, thread closure, etc., you shouldn't be applying it.

Now sometimes we're in a rush and a thread needs to be shut down or poster banned but for the most part a detailed explanation for any action should be given. I'm not talking about pages and pages but a brief line or two detailing the reason for the action should be standard. You should rarely see "Thread closed" or receive a card with no detail, IMO.

edit: I will add that I've done this a few times but we live and learn.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Beasty

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

As I said in the other thread, I for example see a huge conflict of issue with appointing a serving AGS member to moderate a forum with frequent threads on scandals within the force, negative posts about the Minister for Justice, Taoiseach or the Government (their ultimate employer and "boss").

We are all allowed our anonymity on Boards. Admins, when appointing anyone to be a mod, have no "intelligence" beyond what they post on the site. Hence although some posters may be very open about what they do in real life, it's simply not possible to require posters and/or mods to reveal personal information that could be used to help "vet" them. Equally there may be all sorts of conflicts there that no-one other than the poster in question ever knows, or will know about. Ultimately we are "judged" on this site by what we post and not who we are.

Alf Stewart.

The suggestion that mods from the cafe shouldn't post in the cafe isn't a credible, or tbh, a fair (on the mods) suggestion.

I think some posters are confusing forum with thread.

The only reason mods get ask to mod a forum, is because they have proven overtime to be a constructive poster in a forum to begin with.

In not privy to the mods private forums etc, but if there's a charter as such that outlines general mod etiquette, I think a line needs to be added to it along the lines that if you've entrenched views on a thread subject, post away to your hearts content, voicing your opinion should be encouraged. However, to ensure it doesn't look like an uneven playing field, avoid dishing out cards and bans completely in that thread, ie you post as if you're a regular poster.

It doesn't look well if you're debating a poster in a thread one day, and Infracting them in the same thread the next.

_Kaiser_

Beasty wrote: »

We are all allowed our anonymity on Boards. Admins, when appointing anyone to be a mod, have no "intelligence" beyond what they post on the site. Hence although some posters may be very open about what they do in real life, it's simply not possible to require posters and/or mods to reveal personal information that could be used to help "vet" them. Equally there may be all sorts of conflicts there that no-one other than the poster in question ever knows, or will know about. Ultimately we are "judged" on this site by what we post and not who we are.

True, but in the case in question, they'd "come out" as an AGS member long before they became a Mod. I'm assuming that as part of the selection process, the team would be reviewing previous posts and comments, so how it was then decided that appointing them a mod over topics directly related to their employer wouldn't be a conflict, or at least potentially uncomfortable, is surprising.

I'm using this more as an example of my point really, but it is also unfortunate that they are also one of the mods being referred to in these threads.

_Kaiser_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I can agree with your point to an extent, but as I said previously the whole reason for the Cafe in the first instance was that the main Politics forum was too restrictive for many was it not?

I genuinely don't see anything wrong with the concept of the Cafe, merely some issues around the execution that can be addressed pretty much immediately if the Mod team get together and agree on some ground rules that are then clearly defined, and with enough headcount on the team to make sure they're adhered to in an impartial manner.

Again I really don't see why it has to be "one or the other/us vs them" in respect of the Cafe vs Politics. There's a place for both on this site and those wanting a more in depth/serious discussion can always use the latter if they prefer.

I would say the "problem" posters make up maybe half a dozen people if even that. That's by no means scientific but I'm sure a review of the reports and actions over say the last 6 months would highlight the worst offenders. The option then would be to either give them a final warning or remove their ability to post outright from here on.