Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Latest Talk To forum - Irish Water

2»

Comments

  • #52
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Zaph wrote: »
    Just out of curiosity, what would constitute "full disclosure"?
    Just the special interests people work/volunteer for (e.g. think-tanks, business lobby groups), take money from, or whatever else connects them, that are relevant to a forum they're involved in - the same kind of conflicts of interest that a e.g. a journalist or judge ought to be disclosing.
    Zaph wrote: »
    I beg to differ on this as I would see mandatory disclosure by mods as being hugely controversial. There are 600+ mods on the site and I would imagine that a significant number would tell us where to go if we insisted on them publicly announcing their political affiliations, sexuality, religion, position on abortion, etc. As we always say, a mod is just another poster outside of their own forum, and tbh in the vast majority of forums none of those things matter anyway.
    Well, those are personal mod opinions that you cite, that's not 'conflict of interest' territory - it would be a CoI if any of the situations I mention above were true.

    I think actual conflicts of interest among mods/admins, are probably pretty rare, so I don't think it would be objectionable to most - so long as it's clearly understood what does and doesn't count as a CoI (so that people don't oppose the idea, on a misunderstanding of what it covers).

    I agree though that on most forums it wouldn't matter - it's worth noting for those that it does matter on though; given the influence mods have though, they definitely aren't just another poster, they have the ability to subtly guide the narrative of entire forums (even if just unconsciously, through personal bias).


  • #53
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    K-9 wrote: »
    I don't have a clue what that's about tbh, but I'd have thought us mods post regularly enough as ordinary users, so political leanings would be obvious enough. It isn't as if we are faceless robots on the site!

    I must be modding 4 years or so and I don't recall it ever being an issue in the mods forum. It would stick out to other mods and admins.
    I think people are mistaking what a conflict of interest is - it's not just a personal opinion:
    A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests (financial, emotional, or otherwise), one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

    It's exactly the problem with Conflicts of Interest, is that they can manifest in ways that don't stick out.


  • #54
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47,336 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Just the special interests people work/volunteer for (e.g. think-tanks, business lobby groups), take money from, or whatever else connects them, that are relevant to a forum they're involved in - the same kind of conflicts of interest that a e.g. a journalist or judge ought to be disclosing.

    Fair enough. But let's say I'm a mod of some Film, for example, but I work for a bank and consequently post regularly in the Banking/Insurance/Pensions forum due to my professional interest in the subject. Now it's fair to say that bankers aren't the most popular people in the country and I might not want to reveal where I work. Why should I, by virtue of having the word "moderator" under my username and even though it's unrelated to this forum, have to divulge that information when other posters in the forum don't?
    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Well, those are personal mod opinions that you cite, that's not 'conflict of interest' territory - it would be a CoI if any of the situations I mention above were true.

    Fair enough, but in response to K-9 you defines a conflict of interest as:
    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests (financial, emotional, or otherwise), one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

    For the vast majority of people their position on social issues are emotional, not financial or being directly involved in an organisation. So, for instance, what would be the threshold beyond which my support for the recent same-sex referendum goes beyond support and becomes a conflict of interest?
    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    I think actual conflicts of interest among mods/admins, are probably pretty rare, so I don't think it would be objectionable to most - so long as it's clearly understood what does and doesn't count as a CoI (so that people don't oppose the idea, on a misunderstanding of what it covers).

    I agree that if we're talking strictly in terms of financial interests or someone being on a committee or something, then there probably wouldn't be a huge number. However we do then get to the issue of compelling mods to reveal those interests. As I said, there are over 600 mods, almost all using a pseudonym, so while we know some the vast majority would be personally unknown to the Boards office. How do we know that a) they have a conflict of interest; b) that they're telling the truth if they say they don't; and c) compel them to divulge the conflict if they'd rather not?
    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    I agree though that on most forums it wouldn't matter - it's worth noting for those that it does matter on though; given the influence mods have though, they definitely aren't just another poster, they have the ability to subtly guide the narrative of entire forums (even if just unconsciously, through personal bias).

    Just for clarity, what I meant about mods just being posters was when they are posting in forums other than those they mod. I agree that it is unlikely they'd be viewed as regular posters in their own forums, however that doesn't preclude them from holding, and posting their own opinions, although in such cases they should probably avoid modding any threads they're active participants in.


  • #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    cmere lads I think my UPC is too expensive I think ye should reconsider having a forum for them too while we're at it.


  • #56
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47,336 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    Deleted User wrote: »
    cmere lads I think my UPC is too expensive I think ye should reconsider having a forum for them too while we're at it.

    Well you could always see what deals they're doing on the Sky or Eircom forums. :pac:


  • #57
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Zaph wrote: »
    F
    there are over 600 mods, almost all using a pseudonym, so while we know some the vast majority would be personally unknown to the Boards office. How do we know that a) they have a conflict of interest; b) that they're telling the truth if they say they don't; and c) compel them to divulge the conflict if they'd rather not?


    If there was 600 mods on the politics forums you might have had a point chief :)


  • #58
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47,336 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    Bambi wrote: »
    If there was 600 mods on the politics forums you might have had a point chief :)

    There's more to Boards than just the Politics forum. :)


  • #59
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Zaph wrote: »
    Fair enough. But let's say I'm a mod of some Film, for example, but I work for a bank and consequently post regularly in the Banking/Insurance/Pensions forum due to my professional interest in the subject. Now it's fair to say that bankers aren't the most popular people in the country and I might not want to reveal where I work. Why should I, by virtue of having the word "moderator" under my username and even though it's unrelated to this forum, have to divulge that information when other posters in the forum don't?
    Well, if I understand you correctly, in that situation you'd be the moderator of the Film forum, and not Banking/Insurance/Pensions - so if that was the case, you wouldn't have a conflict of interest on the B/I/P forum, so that'd be grand.

    Admins/mods would only potentially have a conflict of interest, over forums they directly moderate.
    Zaph wrote: »
    Fair enough, but in response to K-9 you defines a conflict of interest as:

    For the vast majority of people their position on social issues are emotional, not financial or being directly involved in an organisation. So, for instance, what would be the threshold beyond which my support for the recent same-sex referendum goes beyond support and becomes a conflict of interest?
    You're right that the 'emotional' bit is unclear - unfortunately, that wiki article doesn't explain the 'emotional' part of a Conflict of Interest at all, but I found this decent guide:
    http://cooperativegrocer.coop/articles/2009-01-20/handling-emotional-conflict-interest

    So, an emotional conflict of interest in that case, would cover having direct personal relationships that can be a CoI (e.g. in the case of banking forum, being the partner of major bank executive, who has been jailed for fraud - if ever we see the day :p), it wouldn't cover having a strong emotionally-invested opinion on a subject.
    Zaph wrote: »
    I agree that if we're talking strictly in terms of financial interests or someone being on a committee or something, then there probably wouldn't be a huge number. However we do then get to the issue of compelling mods to reveal those interests. As I said, there are over 600 mods, almost all using a pseudonym, so while we know some the vast majority would be personally unknown to the Boards office. How do we know that a) they have a conflict of interest; b) that they're telling the truth if they say they don't; and c) compel them to divulge the conflict if they'd rather not?
    That's all true, good points, and I'd say that while it's easy to write a rule saying that conflicts of interest should be disclosed, it's not practical to force/compel people to do that - people who do not wish to disclose a conflict of interest, but who want to stay mod, would have to either step down or lie.

    Then, if at any stage in the future, a mod slips up and is found out as having lied, they would be removed (mainly for lying, rather than having a CoI).
    Note though: A conflict of interest wouldn't automatically make a mod unsuitable (that'd be up to admins to decide - it would make them unsuitable in many cases, and wouldn't in many others), it would just be something that is publicly disclosed.

    I think an 'honour'-based system of self-disclosure like that, would be good and low-maintenance enough :) not perfect (lies could slip through), but it'd be something anyway.
    Zaph wrote: »
    Just for clarity, what I meant about mods just being posters was when they are posting in forums other than those they mod. I agree that it is unlikely they'd be viewed as regular posters in their own forums, however that doesn't preclude them from holding, and posting their own opinions, although in such cases they should probably avoid modding any threads they're active participants in.
    Ah okey :) Ya I would definitely consider mods on forums they aren't involved with modding, as 'just another poster' as well.


Advertisement