Modding of Politics (P.Izevbekhai) thread

AlekSmart

Oh look. People from both sides of the argument continuing the argument.

I suggest taking the desolé re the locked thread to Feedback (or the Help Desk).

As for those of you who decided they just wanted to continue the same argument with the same arguments of a year ago (and for some of you, worse still, with inaccurate and ill-informed arguments from a year ago), I'm very disappointed in you.

Thus posted Sceptre as he locked the thread on the 2nd "Pamela Izevbekhai-Should she be allowed stay" thread.

I must confess to being quite surprised at the decision to lock the original thread after a long and largely well handled exchange of views pro and anti Izevbekhai.

Most posters in the original thread had engaged in a very robust and educational exchange of opinions and I feel that cuts to the very core of what the Internet,never mind Boards.ie,is all about.

To describe my emotion as one of desole`is somewhat flippant and avoids the issue of why the thread(s) were closed.
To suggest that there was little except "Arguement"is doing Boards.ie`s ethos a disservice as even at this stage we were teasing out new and different perceptions in relation to Nigeria and the entire African continent whilst referencing these to the Izevbekhai case.

As other posters have intimated,this action smacks a bit of caving in to external pressure rather than facilitating discussion ?

Sully

Swings and Roundabouts tbh. I cant see how the topic could be discussed any further, it seems to have exhausted all avenues. sceptre is a decent bloke, level headed with his modding as well. Surprised he gave so much room in the second thread but at least he gave it a chance and it flopped.

Why the big interest in the subject anyway?

sceptre

Hey Alek

Note for observers - the original thread is here, the thread about the locking of the original thread is here

I don't have a problem with anyone discussing the locking of the original thread or the locking of the thread discussing the locking so I'm happy to leave it here in Feedback with the hope and desire that it discusses the locking and doesn't become a replacement thread on the original topic (that's not what Feedback is for - the admins will bite at anyone who disregards that, as they/we should).

That's the formalities out of the way:)

AlekSmart wrote: »

To describe my emotion as one of desole`is somewhat flippant and avoids the issue of why the thread(s) were closed.

It wasn't intended to be flippant so please don't read it that way.

However, it was intended to avoid the issue of the thread being closed for two reasons:

1. The rationale behind the original thread being closed was explained by oscarBravo when that thread was closed by him.
2. Standard practice is to discuss forums and their workings on the Feedback forum (this one) and complaints about moderation on the Help Desk forum. Obviously I don't have a problem with this being discussed on Feedback rather than Help Desk. What you'll find is that everyone gets to have a go on Feedback rather than getting responses solely from the moderators as you'll get on Help Desk. That's the nature of the forum, it comes with its own advantages and disadvantages. But such threads discussing the closing of another thread belong on Help Desk or Feedback, not on the Politics forum. That's stated in the Politics forum rules for good reason, as well as being standard boards practice. I'd have addressed it in the Politics board thread but the actions of people from both sides of the argument, in just starting the argument up again meant that it really belongs here rather than on the Politics forum.

As other posters have intimated,this action smacks a bit of caving in to external pressure rather than facilitating discussion ?

Not at all. What I particularly appreciate about my fellow Politics mods is that I reckon with respect to external pressure, they (and certainly I) can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with (note: with respect to external pressure)[1]. We don't cave to external pressure under any circumstances, not now and not ever.

With respect to forum posters, obviously we can be reasoned and negotiated with:) That's part of the reason we're always happy to talk to people about moderation decisions by PM or on the Feedback or Help Desk forums if people want to do it in public rather than in private. As moderators, we hold the forum in trust for the members and posters.

The thing about the original thread, which I didn't lock but I fully support the locking of it, is that it was started in March 2008 and locked last week (June 2009). That thread currently has 2945 posts. I've read all of them over the 14-15 months the thread has been available for posting. There are some quite good and informative posts in there (as you'd hope for from a thread with a 14-month run) but there's also an extremely high level of repetition in there. And at the moment the case is essentially done and dusted until new developments happen (as they well might) and recent posters are essentially going around in circles like a carousel. There's nothing new going in the thread and we've had a 14-month discussion on it and almost 3000 posts on the topic.

It doesn't mean a new thread can't be started if new developments occur but until that happens, all posters are doing is chasing each other's tails. You can see that from the last few pages of the thread (and by "last few pages", I definitely mean over 10 pages). Apart from the fun of the tail-chasing that some posters are obviously having, there's no real reason to keep it open.


[1]Yes, the most appropriate line I could think of had a better version in a line from Batman Begins for me to rip off instead

Papad

The original thread had almost 94,000 views. There was apparent interest in the subject matter. The thread could have been moderated to keep it on topic and relevant.

It does appear that boards caved in to whatever special interest group who wanted it 'to go away'. Either that, or the overwhelming consensus that was expressed by the posters conflicted with the moderator's views on the issue.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

sceptre has summed the situation up beautifully; I have little to add.

Papad wrote: »

The original thread had almost 94,000 views. There was apparent interest in the subject matter. The thread could have been moderated to keep it on topic and relevant.

It could, and was for over a year.

A concept I regularly borrow from the field of digital communications and apply to moderating is "signal to noise ratio". There have been no recent developments in the case. Positions have been stated and re-stated. Like sceptre, I've read pretty much every post in the entire thread from its inception, and there's nothing new being added.

It does appear that boards caved in to whatever special interest group who wanted it 'to go away'. Either that, or the overwhelming consensus that was expressed by the posters conflicted with the moderator's views on the issue.

It never ceases to amaze me that practically every moderator decision I've ever made has been judged by someone to be the result of prejudice against someone or other. It seems the only rational conclusion is that I'm prejudiced against everybody. That's me excused from jury duty, so.

donegalfella wrote: »

I believe that Izevbekhai's deportation appeal will come before the Supreme Court next month, so I'm sure there will be another thread to discuss that.

I'll be happy to allow another thread on the issue when there are developments to discuss, but it will not be allowed to spiral into a duplicate of the original thread.

turgon

oscarBravo wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me that practically every moderator decision I've ever made has been judged by someone to be the result of prejudice against someone or other.

I think that is usually a reflection on the poster, not the mod.

Some people in Politics especially seem to hostile towards any moderation, rational and all as it is.

GuanYin

oscarBravo wrote: »

sceptre has summed the situation up beautifully; I have little to add.

+1

DeVore

What "external pressure" do you think was brought? By whom?

I for one wouldnt want to be the one bringing it to Sceptre, OB, Gy or others... I value my dingledongles.

DeV.

GuanYin

oscarBravo wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me that practically every moderator decision I've ever made has been judged by someone to be the result of prejudice against someone or other. It seems the only rational conclusion is that I'm prejudiced against everybody. That's me excused from jury duty, so.

Do you remember the thread where I was accused of being biased towards both pro-tibet and pro-PRC on the same page by two different posters (I mean literally within 5 posts of each other)?


Regarding how we moderated the thread in question, I sat down with books, made of paper, from an actual library and learned about EU immigration law for the sake of moderating that thread.

It now appears I know more about European immigration law than I do the immigration laws of my own country!!!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart

Perchance anybody thinking i`m having a pop at the moderators or their moderating....I`m Not !

I`m quite content to leave well enough alone whilst merely registering my dissent as to the locking of the original thread.
FWIW,I believe the "Signal to Noise Ratio" issue is something that we all have to accept when engaged in open discussion on any topic.

I'll be happy to allow another thread on the issue when there are developments to discuss, but it will not be allowed to spiral into a duplicate of the original thread.

I do have some concerns however as to the mechanism`s which will be put in place to define the levels of spiralling and duplication in whatever thread emerges upon the Supreme Court`s decision..