Politics needs another moderator

dlofnep

All too often, a reported post can take hours before it's tended to. In this case, nearly 6 hours for one post today. Now, this is no sleight on the moderator's themselves they can't be at our every whim - but if the forum can go unmoderated for hours at a time during the busiest part of the day - then surely, it merits having another moderator.

I'm not putting my own name forward or anything, but there is a core group of people intended on derailing threads or taking them off-topic before any decent discussion can begin. If moderator's can't tend to these in the space of 6 hours from the first reported post like what has happened today - then we surely need someone else onboard to sort it out.

This isn't a bitch/moan/whine thread. This is genuine feedback which I hope you guys will act on.

Just a suggestion! Do with it what you may.

-Seán.

Rabies

I think Boards spoils its general populace with the amount of mods and the quick action that is taken most of the time. Sometimes its like the mod is sitting in your bedroom wardrobe watching you post.
A few hours to wait for a mod to come online isn't that bad.
A forum could have 20 mods, employed and unemployed, one in each timezone and they all could still be away for a day and no one will check the forum.
It will get done the next day, or an admin will see the worst (spam, porn) and clean it up.

dlofnep

Rabies wrote: »

A few hours to wait for a mod to come online isn't that bad.

It is that bad when by the time a moderator intervenes, there's so many people trying to derail the topic - he's forced to close the said thread.

I posted a thread yesterday, and the very first reply was from a user who tried to derail the topic from the beginning. I reported the post, and they continued to post with intent of derailing the topic and halting any chance of a meaningful discussion being taken place. It wasn't until 6 hours later, a moderator eventually got a chance to look at it - and was ultimately forced to close it.

Also - there doesn't seem to be any balance with regards to infractions. I've been infracted for asking posters to try and stay on topic - but those who intentionally take the thread off topic get away without an infraction.

Where's the balance? I'm becoming very disheartened with politics at the moment if I must be honest.

dr.bollocko

The whole concept of "infractions" is something I wish we'd never implemented. I've seen some absolutely ri-goddamn-diculous infractions handed out in the past.

dlofnep

I'm not against infractions - so long as moderators are consistent and fair with them. That however doesn't appear to be the case on the politics forum. There doesn't appear to be any balance. We go from periods of lax moderation, to periods of infractions being handed out for nothing. I believe the politics forum needs a complete review.

Threads are routinely allowed to be taken off-topic by trolls, but when a user asks them to stay on topic because reported posts have not been actioned - they are infracted instead of the original troll. It's counter-productive to the forum.

Wibbs

dr.bollocko wrote: »

The whole concept of "infractions" is something I wish we'd never implemented. I've seen some absolutely ri-goddamn-diculous infractions handed out in the past.

While it is a very handy way of tracking past transgressions, I would tend to agree that sometimes it can be a bit OTT alright.

gandalf

I agree with the OPs position on this. The forum for the majority of time seems to be very light with active moderator participation. I only see one moderator being active there at all with occasional cameo appearances from the other mods. I actually feel you need to add two additional active mods to the mix and take some of those out of the forum who are no longer available on a day to day basis.

I have seen posts from obvious trolls that I have reported being left for half the day without action, its unfair on the mod who is active and its unfair on the regular contributors to the politics forum that one of the busiest forums on boards has such a threadbare moderation representation and interaction.

I have already stated this view in the discussion on the rules in the Politics forum.

(for the record I do not want to be one of the new mods either, done it already and wild horses wouldn't drag me back to it!).

RoundyMooney

gandalf wrote: »

(for the record I do not want to be one of the new mods either, done it already and wild horses wouldn't drag me back to it!).

Pity, that. Understandable though.

Wolfe Tone

Needs more moderators. Needs new charter.

gandalf

Really surprised that there is no serious response to this from an admin? Politics is one of the frontline forums on this site and I have been surprised and disappointed at the apparent lack of moderators on the forum as of late.

Steve

gandalf wrote: »

Really surprised that there is no serious response to this from an admin? Politics is one of the frontline forums on this site and I have been surprised and disappointed at the apparent lack of moderators on the forum as of late.

It's not only the politics forum, I've seen it on other places on the site as well.
Possibly something to do with people having to work harder to keep their job and pay the mortgage these days (myself included).

gandalf

Steve wrote: »

It's not only the politics forum, I've seen it on other places on the site as well.
Possibly something to do with people having to work harder to keep their job and pay the mortgage these days (myself included).

Well as someone who had to sign on for the first time in 19 years today I can see where you are coming from.

But like others who have posted here I only see one active mod on that forum, one of the mainstream forums of boards.ie and one that is supposed to maintain a higher level of discussion standards. I also suppose as someone who spent a lot of time moderating Politics over the years it also concerns me that the forums standards appear to be waning as well.

I have pointed it out in the rules discussion on Politics and dlofnep has taken the time to point it out here and it seems to be that we are seen as the problem because we have pointed the issue out rather than addressing the actual concerns we have.

Steve

gandalf wrote: »

Well as someone who had to sign on for the first time in 19 years today I can see where you are coming from.

Very sorry to hear that, hope things work out for you

But like others who have posted here I only see one active mod on that forum, one of the mainstream forums of boards.ie and one that is supposed to maintain a higher level of discussion standards. I also suppose as someone who spent a lot of time moderating Politics over the years it also concerns me that the forums standards appear to be waning as well.

I have pointed it out in the rules discussion on Politics and dlofnep has taken the time to point it out here and it seems to be that we are seen as the problem because we have pointed the issue out rather than addressing the actual concerns we have.

I only know the forum by it's history in FB, and honestly, in the past it's just deterred me from posting there.

I honestly think the lack of a response from the admins is not because they are disinterested but more because they just don't have a viable answer.

As you said yourself - "wild horses wouldn't drag me back to it!". Maybe that's some of what the issue is - a general lack of experienced mod-hours available to run the forum. I don't think it's a place you could just throw numbers (of new mods) at and make it work.

baalthor

I don't understand why the "right wing party" thread was closed.

It's a bit like the referee calling off the world cup final instead of just showing Van Bommel a red card

dlofnep

It was way off-topic, so I understand why it was closed. I said all I needed to say. In fairness to Scofflaw, he's usually fair enough with his moderating and seems to be the most active mod in there. I've no problems with him.

Zaph

Steve wrote: »

I honestly think the lack of a response from the admins is not because they are disinterested but more because they just don't have a viable answer.

Personally I've no answer, 8 posts there in 3 years shows how much I visit the forum, so I'm afraid I can't add much here. However I've started a thread in the admin forum linking to this thread for oscarBravo and Sceptre, just in case they haven't seen it. I know RL is biting into the time of a couple of admins at the moment, and it's possible that they have been similarly impacted, so please bear with us.

gandalf

There are 5 mods on Politics. 2 of those are admins and 2 are Cat Mods. Only one mod is dedicated to Politics and their last activity from what I can see was in August?

The forum needs mods who are dedicated to that forum only and not distracted elsewhere.

Scofflaw

RL has certainly bitten into the time available for most of the mods recently, and there seems to have been an unfortunate overlap of AFK time recently. I'm not sure that being a CMod or Admin necessarily distracts from modding the forum as much as reality.

Have opened a thread on it in the Pol Mods forum as well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zaph

gandalf wrote: »

There are 5 mods on Politics. 2 of those are admins and 2 are Cat Mods. Only one mod is dedicated to Politics and their last activity from what I can see was in August?

The forum needs mods who are dedicated to that forum only and not distracted elsewhere.

As I said, it's not a forum I post on and have nothing useful that I can add regarding new mods there, so I've done what I can for the moment. I understand your frustration, but at least now please give the lads some time to respond.

oscarBravo

Feedback accepted in the spirit intended, dlofnep - thanks. We're discussing it now.

Rabies

Ok, didn't know there wasn't many active Politics mods. Then yes, I agree it needs more or some to step down and others fill their place.

dlofnep

Thanks guys. I appreciate it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

_blank_

gandalf wrote: »

Well as someone who had to sign on for the first time in 19 years today I can see where you are coming from.

Sorry to hear about that dude, I've been on that long queue for two long periods in the last few years. Ain't nice.

gandalf wrote: »

I also suppose as someone who spent a lot of time moderating Politics over the years it also concerns me that the forums standards appear to be waning as well.

Most of the long-term "big" forums, in my opinion, have seen a "drop" or waning in standards in the last 18-24 months.

It's a result of the explosion of Boards; more people = more muppets, unfortunately.

Scofflaw

Des wrote: »

Most of the long-term "big" forums, in my opinion, have seen a "drop" or waning in standards in the last 18-24 months.

It's a result of the explosion of Boards; more people = more muppets, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, there's a fair bit of truth in that, and the economy and politics is something there's particular interest in. It always takes time for new users to realise that they need to bring their game up above the barstool level - time, and mod intervention. Once the rate at which new posters arrive exceeds a certain threshold, the noise to signal ratio inevitably rises.

However, we're agreed that we do need more modding availability, so it's moved on to the question of who, and whether they'll pass the qualifiers, and whether they're interested - it's not something everyone wants to do, despite the awesome powers* and the huge increase in one's attractiveness**. Suggestions welcome.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*actually not true
**also not true - in fact, ensure you already have an understanding and patient partner

Nevyn

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, there's a fair bit of truth in that, and the economy and politics is something there's particular interest in. It always takes time for new users to realise that they need to bring their game up above the barstool level - time, and mod intervention. Once the rate at which new posters arrive exceeds a certain threshold, the noise to signal ratio inevitably rises.

Eternal September a lot of the larger forums are suffering this, it's been the case in PI as well.

But some people don't post in politics due to the fact it can be more like the political science forum then a general politics forum.

gandalf

Thaedydal wrote: »

But some people don't post in politics due to the fact it can be more like the political science forum then a general politics forum.

Actually I don't believe that's true at all. People are expected to be able to back up what they say properly rather than rely on one sentence sound-bites. Whether they use flowery language or get straight to the point doesn't matter, its once there is substance to their arguement then there is no problem.

Now if you were talking about the Politicial Theory forum then I could understand where you are coming from.

The problem recently is the standard of some of the threads being started is sub After Hours level which is what a lot of people are taking issue with.

Nevyn

The average person can not enguage to the same level as those who are more politically educated (be they hobbist, activist, party member ect) and we have more average people joining boards.

TBF, I like to think I'm "the average person" but when I post on politics I generally* take my time and phrase my questions or sentiments to be more appropriate to the forum. It's not really that difficult, thinking before you're posting. I hate the dumbing down of the world and I would hope that the politics forum here would stand up to it's forum principles and try it's best to not go down that road.

If it comes across as elitist, maybe the posters can read and educate themselves on "how to approach politics".



*I say generally, I'm sure I've ranted in there a couple of times

Nevyn

I lurk a lot on the politics forum and when ever I have tried and to enguage my lack of informed opinion and the responses I get have put me of time and again.

K-9

Thaedydal wrote: »

The average person can not enguage to the same level as those who are more politically educated (be they hobbist, activist, party member ect) and we have more average people joining boards.

And the interest doesn't seem to be there to understand the various political difficulties involved. There seems to be a lot of "single issue" posters on the forum and it gets to the stage that you nearly know what they are going to post. Still, it's alot better than other political sites and is well moderated in general.

Scofflaw

But some people don't post in politics due to the fact it can be more like the political science forum then a general politics forum.

I'd like to see a broader range of discussion, comparable perhaps to the range on other politics forums, but not at the expense of falling to their levels of "debate". If one went simply by the thread titles on politics.ie, for example, there seems to be a very wide range of debate on subjects we don't really touch - but a quick dip into the threads themselves tends to make that impression ring hollow.

I appreciate that not everyone is necessarily able to put together well-constructed logical arguments for their positions, and I'd prefer not to exclude people on that basis as a blanket rule - they vote, so it seems a little high-handed to claim their input is worthless. As far as is possible, I'd aim to allow everyone to debate with as much free speech as possible, but I do draw the line at people who appear to think that little gobbets of bile are some form of meaningful political discourse.

We do suffer to some extent from the September effect, of course, and unluckily this September also involved some extensive if temporary absences in the mod ranks.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

K-9 wrote: »

And the interest doesn't seem to be there to understand the various political difficulties involved. There seems to be a lot of "single issue" posters on the forum and it gets to the stage that you nearly know what they are going to post. Still, it's alot better than other political sites and is well moderated in general.

Is there anything wrong with "single issue" posters?

Scofflaw

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Is there anything wrong with "single issue" posters?

That depends whether they're actually monomaniacs - which, I hasten to add, does not apply to you.

I think what K-9 means, though, is people who have a single point of view on a subject, such as NAMA, or the Green Party, and just aren't ever going to change that view, but will take every opportunity to air it in a relentless sort of way.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

Scofflaw wrote: »

That depends whether they're actually monomaniacs - which, I hasten to add, does not apply to you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You mean posters who say constantly derail threads into their one obsession, eg bashing the Green Party in a totally unrelated thread?


Personally I see no problem with a poster who mostly comments on threads of a specific theme, like myself on republican threads. After all it is what they are intrested in.

K-9

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Is there anything wrong with "single issue" posters?

No, certainly not, especially if they are knowledgeable about the area, better than a Jack of all trades like myself!

Certainly not aimed at you or Republicans, that wouldn't be my idea of a single issue as it covers alot of other things as well.

It's more, to give an example, when it gets to the stage that it appears that nearly any thread in anyway linked to the finances of the state gets turned into a NAMA thread.

PS. As Scofflaw said, soap boxing basically. I don't put posters on ignore, so I do have that option but am against using it.

Scofflaw

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

You mean posters who say constantly derail threads into their one obsession, eg bashing the Green Party in a totally unrelated thread?


Personally I see no problem with a poster who mostly comments on threads of a specific theme, like myself on republican threads. After all it is what they are intrested in.

Sorry - had edited my post to add pretty much that point before I saw yours. No, I've obviously no problem with people having specific interests and sticking to them - my personal interests are green/environmental policy, the Green Party, and Europe. I have no interest whatsoever in US Politics, for example, or in Northern Ireland.

belatedly,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

Ah I understand, clarity is key

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

There is a huge issue wth threads going off topic imo. I see it most in the threads I post in, ie northern themed threads. I have made my views on that clear to the mods so I wont go into it again.

Boils down to a need for more mods.

K-9

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It would, plus maybe a little more stick than carrot?

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... I think what K-9 means, though, is people who have a single point of view on a subject, such as NAMA, or the Green Party, and just aren't ever going to change that view, but will take every opportunity to air it in a relentless sort of way....

"Relentless" is too kind a word for the behaviour of some people.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dlofnep

I think that's a fair assessment DF.

I think the varying opinions provides for a healthy debate. There are a core group of people, perhaps no more than 15-20 who routinely engage with discussions on politics. Even if we do not agree with our views - I have to say, the majority of the core posters at least express their views as best they can.

There is a problem however with a handful of posters who pop in from time to time, on very specific threads to attack any posters who discuss a specific topic or two. Outside of these threads, they are never seen in politics - and they rarely ever actually entertain a debate. They pop in, throw a few ad hominems around and then they are not seen again for another 2 or 3 weeks. It's usually these very same posters who take the majority of threads off topic. And when someone makes a statement - many posters feel an onus on them to defend against it - knowing that it's either address the off-topic statement, and hope you can bring it back on topic - or let the comment slide without the poster being challenged for their views.

It's hard to balance the two.

Rubik.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is all very true, but there was a certain poster who used to try and shoe horn libertarism in nearly every thread in the forum (slight exaggeration, but only slight), however inapproiate it may have been to the content or intention of the OP, resulting in many a long-running battle in many a thread.

Thankfully, those days seem to have past.

Scofflaw

dlofnep wrote: »

I think that's a fair assessment DF.

I think the varying opinions provides for a healthy debate. There are a core group of people, perhaps no more than 15-20 who routinely engage with discussions on politics. Even if we do not agree with our views - I have to say, the majority of the core posters at least express their views as best they can.

There is a problem however with a handful of posters who pop in from time to time, on very specific threads to attack any posters who discuss a specific topic or two. Outside of these threads, they are never seen in politics - and they rarely ever actually entertain a debate. They pop in, throw a few ad hominems around and then they are not seen again for another 2 or 3 weeks. It's usually these very same posters who take the majority of threads off topic. And when someone makes a statement - many posters feel an onus on them to defend against it - knowing that it's either address the off-topic statement, and hope you can bring it back on topic - or let the comment slide without the poster being challenged for their views.

It's hard to balance the two.

Mm...'seagull posters' - fly in, squawk a bit, dump their load and leave. Almost no point in infracting them, since they'll do the same again the next time a thread they're interested in pops up. Permabanning them would seem to be the only solution, which seems a bit harsh given they're not strictly trolling.

However, I don't think seagull posters are the only problem here - with all due respect, a fair number of our regular posters are prone to filing into the trenches at fairly short notice. I appreciate, though, that it may well be with a sense of deep reluctance and war-weariness that they do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nevyn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which means the forum is harder for new comers to it to post in and it comes across as a closed shop tbh.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Thaedydal wrote: »

Which means the forum is harder for new comers to it to post in and it comes across as a closed shop tbh.

To be fair after hours allows political discussion for the average joe.

If the politics forum was like politics.ie I just wouldn't post there.

I've only posted on the politics forum in recent years. I used to lurk but felt a bit intimidated. Then I read more about history and politics and now feel fine posting there. I think it is better to encourage that than have lax discussion.

Maybe a half-way house is an option but I don't see much of a need.

On topic. I think something needs to be changed. More mods yes. Also I think northern issues cause a fair percentage of off topic derailing. That's why I've suggested a new forum. I feel if a charter there was strict on whataboutery and assumptions most of the problems would go away

nesf

Yeah guys, sorry about it but there's been a nasty convergence of real life problems between the mods.

On my part, well I've made no secret on here about me having bipolar, and I've been in a depression these past few months meaning less energy for boards. Nothing much I can do about it to be honest.

Wolfe Tone

Sorry to hear that, hope you feel better soon!