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

hullaballoo

Oh, the WWN article. Oh. Haha.

ancapailldorcha

rgossip30 wrote: »

A thread without mods as an experiment has it ever been done .

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2011/10/26/i-had-it-all-then-i-blew-itsacked-boards-ie-moderator-tells-all/

A little reminder if one has not seen before .

Wow. Such satire.

Pelvis Parsley

Dry your eyes, lads.

rgossip30

I hate having to produce proof of the obvious repeatably to those who join the thread clueless .

ancapailldorcha

rgossip30 wrote: »

I hate having to produce proof of the obvious repeatably to those who join the thread clueless .

I hate seeing the same myths being trotted out ad nauseam without any evidence whatsoever.

rgossip30

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I hate seeing the same myths being trotted out ad nauseam without any evidence whatsoever.

What evidence do you require in this instance ?

Seth Brundle

rgossip30 wrote: »

What evidence is required ?

"Adams is a murderer"

ancapailldorcha

rgossip30 wrote: »

What evidence is required ?

Data. Research. Something that actually backs up the assertion rather than some tabloid article.

rgossip30

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Data. Research. Something that actually backs up the assertion rather than some tabloid article.

When that evidence is not accepted by another poster for the sake of being a nuisance is another matter !
You mention tabloid articles as being suspect which newspapers are acceptable ?

ancapailldorcha

rgossip30 wrote: »

When that evidence is not accepted by the poster for the sake of being a nuisance is another matter !

Then report the post.

rgossip30

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Then report the post.

When the report is ignored.

ancapailldorcha

rgossip30 wrote: »

When the report is ignored.

That's a cop out to be honest. If you can't defend your claims then they deserve to be dismissed.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

rgossip30 wrote: »

You mention tabloid articles as being suspect which newspapers are acceptable ?

I've asked the same question before.

The Guardian? Breitbart? The Redacted Indo? a SWP Pamphlet? The Daily Mail?

Why are the moderators snobbish regarding "tabloids"? Are tabloid readers not good enough for the Cafe? Do we only allow discourse round certain "accepted" publications to suit the narrative?

I saw mention that a hard paper publication would be preferable to an online-only source, like a blog or The Intercept.

If the mods are going to start disparaging certain sources on a whim then it becomes impossible to have any confidence in what the mod team could at any moment deem to be unacceptable.

"you can't seriously be referring to THAT as a source"

ancapailldorcha

You'll have to ask the Café mods. I'm not one of them.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You'll have to ask the Café mods. I'm not one of them.

Apologies, I thought the Cafe came under the general Politics forum and a mod of the latter was automatically a mod of the former.

Is that not the case?

ancapailldorcha

Byron Chilly Haze wrote: »

Apologies, I thought the Cafe came under the general Politics forum and a mod of the latter was automatically a mod of the former.

Is that not the case?

No. Two different fora each with their own charter and mods.

To give an answer, there's a difference between "That's only a Daily Mail article" and "I read your article but it doesn't link to any data substantiating the claim. Therefore, it's only an opinion piece."

Seth Brundle

rgossip30 wrote: »

When the report is ignored.

In fairness, just because you don't see an obvious mod action does not mean that the reported post was ignored.
Quite often, there's very little fuss made publicly over the mod actions. Why would there be?
On other occasions, mods may deliberate and decide that no action is warranted.
What visible mod action do you think should be taken in those occasions to acknowledge the reported post?

Byron Chilly Haze wrote: »

If the mods are going to start disparaging certain sources on a whim then it becomes impossible to have any confidence in what the mod team could at any moment deem to be unacceptable.

I'm not sure if you're referring to a particular occasion but I presume they weren't acting in a mod capacity. For whatever reason, if it was as a mod, then maybe we need to be clearer in terms of what is or is not an acceptable type of source.

However, to reflect my own view here, I wouldn't have as much faith in a story in the Sun when compared to say the Irish Times or the BBC. Why? Because I'm familiar with the content within the two. Similarly, I wouldn't rank the Indo as high quality. Very few Irish newspapers could be deemed as having any high quality journalistic content but I think the reality is that some are more reliable than others.
However, a blog or Facebook article used as a reference wouldn't be held up when compared to printed media, simply because it is likely to be opinion based rather than factual. Quite often, blogs and FB articles are written by anonymous authors whereas printed media tend to have a verifiable address.

There is though a hierarchy in terms of quality. When I did my thesis a few years back, I was told what were and weren't acceptable forms of source. A scientific journal for example will contain facts. Any opinions will be declared as such. An article in the IT or the Sun will be a view taken by the journalist and/or the editor. A facebook post will usually be crap.

Nonetheless, if someone was to reference a source, I don't think I would disparage them. If I did, it definitely would not be in a mod capacity. Do I have a problem with people using certain sources? Not really. I dislike the use of biased sources though e.g. using An Phoblacht to cite how SF are right on XYZ matter or referencing the Daily Mail to show how immigration policies are wrong. I might question their use within the discussion but not to the point that I would put on my mod hat simply to overrule the use of the source.
I do think it's important that many claims made can be substantiated with verifiable links.

I honestly believe that my views above would also apply to other mods.

On the flip side, I've had my sources questioned in the past by someone (not a mod). In the end, I didn't bother reacting to it. I could easily have found a more reputable source for my point but didn't.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

A related question is what is the cut-off point, age wise, for any article to be referenced as a source to back up claims being made?

We've had someone say they were carded for using a 5 year old source, but a mod using a 13 year old article as a source for their claims.

rgossip30

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You'll have to ask the Café mods. I'm not one of them.

A cop out .

Byron Chilly Haze wrote: »

I've asked the same question before.

The Guardian? Breitbart? The Redacted Indo? a SWP Pamphlet? The Daily Mail?

Why are the moderators snobbish regarding "tabloids"? Are tabloid readers not good enough for the Cafe? Do we only allow discourse round certain "accepted" publications to suit the narrative?

I saw mention that a hard paper publication would be preferable to an online-only source, like a blog or The Intercept.

If the mods are going to start disparaging certain sources on a whim then it becomes impossible to have any confidence in what the mod team could at any moment deem to be unacceptable.

"you can't seriously be referring to THAT as a source"

To ridicule the tabloids and content is a good method to support your argument but it falls apart . The facts are usually correct .

Seth Brundle

Byron Chilly Haze wrote: »

A related question is what is the cut-off point, age wise, for any article to be referenced as a source to back up claims being made?

We've had someone say they were carded for using a 5 year old source, but a mod using a 13 year old article as a source for their claims.

I don't believe there is anything defined like that and IMO it would depend on the context.

As for a mod using an old reference, I may be wmistaken but I thought that was in error and acknowledged at the time.

Tokyo

Byron Chilly Haze wrote: »

A related question is what is the cut-off point, age wise, for any article to be referenced as a source to back up claims being made?

I don't think it would ever be fair to define a cut-off, per se, because relevance would be key here. As a general rule of thumb though, I imagine that most people would want the most recent relevant source of information cited.

Alf Stewart.

The rudderless inconsistencies continue in the caf, I'm after reading through the Enda thread where the following actions/non actions took place.

Poster called other poster troll. No sanction.
Poster corrects anothers spelling. Yellowed.
Poster corrects posters spelling. No sanction.

Does no one see that the inconsistencies, and rigid upkeep /disregard for the "rules" being dependant on who posts what make other posters walk on egg shells?

The forums losing mods week on week now too.

TherapyBoy

Alf, report these occurrences. Every reported post is noted & any discrepancies in moderation would be documented.

gandalf

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

The rudderless inconsistencies continue in the caf, I'm after reading through the Enda thread where the following actions/non actions took place.

Poster called other poster troll. No sanction.
Poster corrects anothers spelling. Yellowed.
Poster corrects posters spelling. No sanction.

Does no one see that the inconsistencies, and rigid upkeep /disregard for the "rules" being dependant on who posts what make other posters walk on egg shells?

The forums losing mods week on week now too.

To be fair to the mods they can't read every post I know I used to be a mod on Politics. Typically they need to be reported.

If you reported them and the result was the same then you would have a point. Did you report the unsanctioned ones?

TherapyBoy

I had a look, he hadn't reported any of them. Help us out a bit Alf.

Alf Stewart.

TherapyBoy wrote: »

I had a look, he hadn't reported any of them. Help us out a bit Alf.

gandalf wrote: »

To be fair to the mods they can't read every post I know I used to be a mod on Politics. Typically they need to be reported.

If you reported them and the result was the same then you would have a point. Did you report the unsanctioned ones?

I'm sitting out a two week well holiday from the cafe, so am unable to report the posts, not that I necessarily would regardless.

However. Either calling someone a troll is actionable or it isn't.

Similarly, grammar nazism is actionable, or it isn't.

Haven't looked in on the thread since, but from memory, the poster who got called the troll was the same poster who got carded for the spelling offence.

Yet the guy who accused them of being a troll got none.

Later, another poster who corrected the same guys spelling never got carded either.

Now before I'm jumped on, I'm not calling on either of the other posters to be carded, I'm pointing out the blatant inconsistencies on what = card to what = no card.

You can see how it comes across as inconsistent and confusing.

dudara

Alf - to be very fair to the PC Mods, they're really trying to address that. I'm sure you've been reading the thread discussing a new charter and making the rules clearer.

Alf Stewart.

TherapyBoy wrote: »

I had a look, he hadn't reported any of them. Help us out a bit Alf.

Sorry, I'm after rereading what you posted there, what do you mean "you had a look there", I'm not familiar with you as a poster, never mind a mod.

However, to be clear, as you're not a mod of politic cafe, or any politics forums, are you telling me that you can view who reported posts within threads or forums that you do not moderate in, and is this the case for wll moderators, across all of forums in boards?

I was under the impression that reported posts could be seen by forum mods, cmods and admin only.

TherapyBoy

Sorry Alf, didn't realise you were banned from the forum but the point still remains - just because one post is actioned & another similar post isn't doesn't mean there's an inconsistency in the moderation of the thread, just a possibility that certain posts have been seen by the appropriate mod & certain others haven't. One way to be sure all problem posts are seen (& recorded) is to report them.

Not aiming this solely at yourself Alf.

Edit: All mods can see reported posts from all forums whether they are mod of the forum or not. I've never actually been in the Politics Cafe.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Sorry, I'm after rereading what you posted there, what do you mean "you had a look there", I'm not familiar with you as a poster, never mind a mod.

However, to be clear, as you're not a mod of politic cafe, or any politics forums, are you telling me that you can view who reported posts within threads or forums that you do not moderate in, and is this the case for wll moderators, across all of forums in boards?

I was under the impression that reported posts could be seen by forum mods, cmods and admin only.

No, there's actually a "Reported Posts" forum, when you report a post a thread is automatically generated there "Post Reported By USERXXXX in FORUMYYYYYY"

It's a subforum of the moderator forum, and the threads are open and can be commented upon. A mod might stick a note in the thread "actioned" or "had a look, don't think there's any action warranted.

All subsequent reports of the same post are appended to the thread also, afair.