Moderating in Politics

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kintarō Hattori

The moderator made it clear:

Anyone who makes an argument that Ireland cannot be the first safe haven for an asylum seeker clearly hasn't bothered looking up their facts despite the issue being clarified 1 zillion times on this forum before will be infracted.

She didn't stick to the gameplan.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Frisbee

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes with a thread of that volatile nature, imo of course

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Xavi6

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So what do you expect then? To have running lists kept by mods so you can see what can and cannot be posted? Would you like this info PM'd to you as it happens? Maybe it can be accompanied by a little 'Have a nice day' message at the end just to make you feel warm inside?

If you missed something that was in the thread or another similar thread it's not the mods fault. Thousands of users can't be spoon fed every bit of information.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why do you have an issue with the infraction? You made a cheap sly dig at a mods decision.

GuanYin

I'll try keep this short.

Point 1: I'm making this clear. You have been infracted for questioning moderation in the politics forum thread. Had you made your complaint here, you would have received no censure. I don't care how people perceive this, creating a feedback thread doesn't get you amnesty from breaking a forum rules in case the mod looks "petty" if it did we could all go break rules by safely creating feedback threads. The post has been deleted, but mods can still view it.

Point 2: If you're going to try and make a rational debate about immigration or asylum in the Politics forum, we expect you to have some clue on the matter your speaking. Of course we don't expect people to know the law inside out, but when something has been explained several hundred times before in tens of similar threads, we become more impatient. If you're going to come into a thread 600 posts in and post something potentially inflammatory without at least skimming through the thread, on your head be it.

Point 3: Regarding your counter argument, the legitimacy of which aside, HollyB still asked a question which ignored something previously explained 1 zillion times and was warned about.

If I can understand it and I don't even live in your country, so should she.

Bob the Builder

Umm, I think I'm with GY on this one I'm afraid.

Indeed it is a gray area, or so appears to be, but it veers clearly towards GY, given the content of the thread and what both of you have said.

Overheal

Its a big huge thread, and I cant blame the mods for trying to curb down repitition. An infraction, also, is just a warning, not a ban - no need to get terribly hot and bothered by one.

The only thing I would suggest is locking the thread, and reposting a Part II that summarizes the discussion so far, without so much eye-strain.

Hagar

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

The moderator made it clear:

GuamYin wrote:

2. Anyone who makes an argument that Ireland cannot be the first safe haven for an asylum seeker clearly hasn't bothered looking up their facts despite the issue being clarified 1 zillion times on this forum before will be infracted.

She didn't stick to the gameplan.

Is that statement regarding safe haven accurate?
AFAIK it can only be accurate if you flee from danger directly into Ireland with no stops in a safe country on the way. A refugee ceases being a refugee upon leaving first save haven and then becomes either an immigrant or an asylum seeker. Anyone entering Ireland from another EU State should legally have sought asylum in the other EU State. That puts 99% of these so called refugees/asylum seekers firmly in the "immigrant" category.
Given our geographical location and relatively limited air links with African countries I don't believe that direction given by the mod to be reasonable.

/Edit/

Reading the links to various international agreements and conventions and unravelling what they mean in plain language is not a job for the faint hearted.

Any chance we could have a definitive ruling on the term refugee and their legal status in Ireland following passage through a previous save haven state, possibly another EU state, by Hullaballú or one of our other resident legal eagles? Thanks.


/Edit/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hagar

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Obviously since I'm a mod and have agreed with your stance on the matter that statement is untrue and making unfounded claims like that can undermine your credibility.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fratton Fred

I got infracted by GuanYin for posting off topic. i thought it a bit harsh, but what the heck, it was probably fair. I think it would be fair to say that as a new mod in Politics, GuanYin is kind of being a new broom and whipping a few of us back into shape. (Which to be fair, is needed in politics).

I think we are missing the real issue here though, is the OP inferring that GuanYin a "She"?

We have a female soccer mod?

this could stop the world from spinning:eek:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

_blank_

Fratton Fred wrote: »

We have a female soccer mod?

this could stop the world from spinning:eek:

Do try and keep up.

oscarBravo

HollyB wasn't infracted for asking a question. She was infracted for stating as a fact that Ms Izevbekhai should have applied for asylum in the first "safe" country she set foot in. There is no such requirement.

There have been many heated threads in the Politics forum driven by people whose only agenda is keeping Ireland free of those nasty foreigners, and who have repeatedly and deliberately obfuscated the distinctions between immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. They have also sought to perpetrate the above-mentioned myth about the requirement to seek asylum in the first port of call, because it allows them to paint all asylum seekers in Ireland as being de facto chancers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're not listening. We don't infract for stating things that are factually incorrect, we infract for not following explicit moderator instructions. The assertion that asylum seekers must apply for asylum in the first country they set foot in has been repeatedly used in the past as vindication for xenophobic sentiment. It's not true, and those who have used it as ammunition for their cause have ignored the fact that it's been repeatedly debunked. So we've issued an explicit instruction that this particular misconception may not continue to be propagated as a substitute for reasoned argument.

Maybe HollyB didn't know that such an explicit prohibition existed; she does now.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not getting into a semantic quibble with you. The context of her post made it clear that the distinction is moot.

Yes, she certainly does. Do you think that Mr Eoin McCullough, senior counsel for the State, should be made aware of the same "explicit prohibition"?

I have no doubt that, should the learned gentleman choose to participate in a debate on boards.ie, he would do so within the rules as set down.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

tallaght01

Do other people reall read through massive threads, and past threads, in their entirety before posting??

I often just wander round if I'm bored and join a discussion. Wouldn't be reading no 600 posts or whatever beforehand.

I guess the issue is context. If a poster genuinely doesn't know, then so what? Let it go, and have a quiet word by PM, IMO.

~Rebel~

Holly wasn't banned or anything, infraction is just a warning, so seems a bit of a storm in a teacup...

Boo thread, Yay GY!



On a more serious note, would it be possible to have a boards-wide structure where any warnings given during a thread (e.g Next person to mention such-and-such is infracted) could be placed in the very first post, so users could scan the first post of a big contentious thread and see whats off limits, rather then having to look through the whole thing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If a moderator is involved in the debate then sometimes they don't act as a moderator because they may not be seen as neutral. i.e. If I disagree with a post of yours and then ban you for it, it doesn't look very impartial, even if the ban was fair.

gandalf

This is an example of the reasons I was glad to stand down from moderating politics.

nesf

Moderator makes warning on thread. Poster violates warning. Poster gets infraction.

It's pretty straightforward. It's harsh, since the poster might not have seen the warning, but the warning was given. If it was a ban, it would be going too far I think but an infraction (which is just a formal warning!) is ok in this situation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Dude. Seriously. You're carping.

OK, maybe I overstated it with the "explicit instruction", but a warning was issued.

HollyB got an infraction. She doesn't seem as upset about it as you are. pinder just got banned, because - subsequent to the warning and HollyB's infraction - he deliberately confused immigration into an asylum thread. That's the type of crap we've had to deal with over and over again in immigration threads, many of which devolve into stormfrontesque xenophobia-fests. We've also had to deal with the myth that the Dublin convention requires that people apply for asylum any damn place they like as long as it isn't Ireland - over and over and over again.

It's just an infraction. It's not even your infraction. Let it go.

GuanYin

HollyB made 15 posts within that thread and had been posting in it for quite some time. Frankly, I don't believe she missed all three instances of warnings that were given.

Regarding the rules of the forum or discussion thread, these are guidelines and a moderator may envoke discretionary rules as the situation and need arises.

I'm somewhat dubious about you claiming that the forum rules should all be contained within those threads consdering you had either not read them or decided to explicitly ignore them when you broke them and then complained about the infraction you got for breaking them here.

You can play semantics, I have explained the issue, OB has further explained the issue and nesf has clarified the issue. The infraction stands and now it is nicely in the public eye, we expect not to have to deal with people making the mistake again.

So in a way, thank you for helping educated the ignorant masses

Hobbes

nesf wrote: »

If a moderator is involved in the debate then sometimes they don't act as a moderator because they may not be seen as neutral. i.e. If I disagree with a post of yours and then ban you for it, it doesn't look very impartial, even if the ban was fair.

This happens sometimes in Islam forum and the normal process we take is the moderator who is not in the conversation moderates the thread. So if someone is over the line the mod may flag it for the other mods to review.

Bottom line is though if a mod tells you to do/stop doing something then you should do it. Quoting guidelines won't save you.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

gandalf wrote: »

This is an example of the reasons I was glad to stand down from moderating politics.

I thought it was because you left your free push chair at the bus stop because the government would get you a new one.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DeVore

Arguing about moderation in a thread about something else is bold. You deserved your infraction.

Basically I dont think twice about infractions, they are a way of keeping track of the persistent muppets accross the site as they will accumulate infractions from multiple mods. Otherwise, the infraction will dissappear in a while.

c[_] <--- insert storm.


DeV.

Kintarō Hattori

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You like to post while uninformed of the debate that preceeded your comment(s)? :eek:

Fratton Fred

If a moderator gives a warning or instruction, is there some way it can be highlighted so that people skimming through a thread can see it easily?

You quite often get people back seat modding and mods who are involved in heated debates on a forum they do not moderate, so it is not always easy to register that a mod for that forum has given a specific instruction.

If it could ne highlighted in some way then all posters would see it easier and take note.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

~Rebel~

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If a moderator gives a warning or instruction, is there some way it can be highlighted so that people skimming through a thread can see it easily?

You quite often get people back seat modding and mods who are involved in heated debates on a forum they do not moderate, so it is not always easy to register that a mod for that forum has given a specific instruction.

If it could ne highlighted in some way then all posters would see it easier and take note.

aye, like what i was saying on the previous page, if mods had scope to edit the OP, simply adding onto the base of the post, maybe in a different colour or something...would be pretty handy for both users and mods and ideally stop a lot of the repitition that goes on.

GuanYin

~Rebel~ wrote: »

aye, like what i was saying on the previous page, if mods had scope to edit the OP, simply adding onto the base of the post, maybe in a different colour or something...would be pretty handy for both users and mods and ideally stop a lot of the repitition that goes on.

You don't really expect someone to go back and read the OP on a 600 post thread do you????? :eek:

metrovelvet

DeVore wrote: »

Arguing about moderation in a thread about something else is bold. You deserved your infraction.




DeV.

Well then, moderators shouldnt start arguments about warnings, etc in the middle of a thread, instigating the whole off topic route, as Guan Yin does. Also shouldnt break and change the rules as it goes along. It shouldnt be a moderator of politics to begin with.

~Rebel~

GuanYin wrote: »

You don't really expect someone to go back and read the OP on a 600 post thread do you????? :eek:

if that became the structure on all threads across Boards, where Notes and warnings made throughout the thread were repeated in the OP, it would save everyone a lot of time, and allow people to jump into the middle of a debate without worrying about treading on toes.

GuanYin

~Rebel~ wrote: »

if that became the structure on all threads across Boards, where Notes and warnings made throughout the thread were repeated in the OP, it would save everyone a lot of time, and allow people to jump into the middle of a debate without worrying about treading on toes.

It isn't a bad idea but I'm not sure how to approach it on a forum-wide level.
You do realize, that even if we did this, my post above would be the response that banned posters would use as defence:

"I just saw this one post I wanted to reply to, you don't expect me to read back to the first post do you??"

Regarding the issue at hand, I gave warnings three times in the thread, 38, 91 and the final one in the 300's.

DeV is right though, this was a slap on the wrist, had I deemed the poster malicious I would have removed her access.

javaboy

Instead of the warnings being placed in the OP, maybe a special version of thread tags for moderater warnings could be added. It could work the same as normal tags but the icon could be bigger and red and only be editable by mods.

That and special in-thread "moderator mode" posts would clear up a lot of this confusion.