Would someone mind explaining

Amhran Nua

Why this was locked and the user banned? I'm particulary interested to hear about his new bannable offence, "soapboxing", which one would hardly think is too far outside the pale for a politics forum.

A soapbox is a raised platform on which one stands to make an impromptu speech, often about a political subject.

The thread in question was not abusive or indeed trivial in any way, and in fact struck me as one which raised questions that would bear some scrutiny. I would politely request that the user be unbanned and the moderator in question reflect for a period upon the extent to which their personal feelings on the matter influence their moderating decisions.

Or is "soapboxing" now mentioning any issue that might cause impassioned debate, god forbid? Is there somewhere we can find a list of these hot button topics for the avoidance of future punishment? Perhaps those responsible can upload a dynamic page of things they personally feel won't bear the burden of polite conversation?

tbh

I'm just speaking as a regular user, but for me, soapboxing is where a user seeks to assert a point of view as opposed to opening a discussion to explore and test that point of view. I understand the rationale of starting a thread as far as the op is concerned, and some examples are well crafted and thought provoking, but personally I think the op is more suited to a blog rather than a discussion forum.
The OP has already made their mind up about the topic in hand and will generally rarely entertain any contrary opinions, and it becomes generally an argument rather than a genuine discussion. after a year or two you learn to spot the signs and avoid those type of threads, and if it happens a lot, avoid the forum.
Just to clarify, this isnt directed at the op you've referenced, just thoughts on what soapboxing means to me in general.

Amhran Nua

tbh wrote: »

I'm just speaking as a regular user, but for me, soapboxing is where a user seeks to assert a point of view as opposed to opening a discussion to explore and test that point of view.

In fairness completely neutral threads like that are few and far between, and regardless of what ops want, frank discussion is the usually inevitable result. If an op had any control over their thread, I could see the point, but they don't.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Why this was locked and the user banned?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056232953

I'm particulary interested to hear about his new bannable offence, "soapboxing"...

It's not new. People have been banned before for soapboxing. I think the infamous jimmmy, a precursor of gigino, was banned on that charge.

There was this thread that ran for more than half a year and almost 4,000 posts: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055958148. I participated in it for a while. But it became trench warfare and, like many others, I abandoned it. And on and on it went, with never a new idea of any import, and nobody persuading anybody of anything. So the mods locked it, and not before time. Almost immediately, one of the principal protagonists started another thread on a fairly similar topic. At best, I would class that as mischievous.

Locked Messed Monster

Mike65 cant start IRA threads any more.

There is a God.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056232953

Well it's great that some have a crystal ball to see the future and every single post in a thread. I'd have found it interesting to have an open discussion on the economic value of the Irish language, if any. What seems to be the pattern here is that "soapboxing" has become a byword for "trolling", which is an attempt to raise temperatures by making a provocative statement and then sitting back to watch the fireworks. This is substantially different to people who really believe what they are saying and want to tell others why they feel that way. Likewise I've noticed mods in other forums (not politics) locking down discussions because of political shilling - even when I was opposed to the politician in question, I did make a point of saying that politicians do have followers who will support them. That's not shilling, it's just support.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There was this thread that ran for more than half a year and almost 4,000 posts: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055958148. I participated in it for a while. But it became trench warfare and, like many others, I abandoned it. And on and on it went, with never a new idea of any import, and nobody persuading anybody of anything. So the mods locked it, and not before time. Almost immediately, one of the principal protagonists started another thread on a fairly similar topic. At best, I would class that as mischievous.

It's not like anyone is forcing people to read the thread though. This really is how politics works.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amhran Nua

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What, does a "soapboxer" steal your mouse to prevent you posting? Who is to say that you are not the soapboxer, but instead of continuing the discussion it becomes more expedient to appeal to a higher power as it were, in the form of the mods? And nobody is without an opinion on certain matters. The soap box is an intrinsic part of the political mechanism, it is quite ironic that people are getting banned for using it. With reference to the thread in question in particular.

Permabear wrote: »

Soapboxing and trench warfare (which occurs when groups of soapboxers align themselves against one another, dig in, and go at it for sometimes thousands of posts) are real issues in the Politics forums. I for one am very happy to see the mods take a stand against it.

Eh a libertarian in favour of more regulation, will wonders never cease, an affiliation that moderator Elliot Rosewater shares, I might add. Once again, this is politics. This is what politics entails. Simply locking a thread on boards is not going to stop discussion, nor is it even productive.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amhran Nua

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

From the looks of that thread, the poster was indeed participating in good faith. I saw nothing objectionable in the subject, tone, or delivery of the thread. Nice adjustment of the forum guidelines to suit your agenda, though.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah now I am the soapboxer? Marvellously versatile vehicle you seem to have invented there. I'm merely pointing out that yourself and the mod in question share an indefatiguable religious conviction in the same belief system, which no doubt has no bearing at all on your support of said individual. Almost a soapboxing conviction, one might say.

But then again, you're the same fella who saw fit to blame the ravages of the great famine on the peasantry of Ireland who apparently were so wealthy from exports to England that they bred like rabbits on the back of it. No bias there at all.

Politics folks, in all its glory.

Back on topic, however, I still see no reason why that thread might have been locked and the poster banned. The economic advantages of the Irish language are an area which is rarely explored in public discourse, and this would have been an opportunity to do so.

Amhran Nua

RopeDrink wrote: »

Overall if people cannot accept the opportunity to further their views by allowing different opinion or views to be posted and debated between eachother in a healthy environment then said threads should not exist.

You see, this is what baffles me. How exactly are they not allowing different opinions or views? Have they some power over the thread I am not aware of? Again, I would point out the difference between trolling and someone that genuinely believes in what they are saying.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

What, does a "soapboxer" steal your mouse to prevent you posting? ...

In a sense, yes.

I am interested in Irish, and I participated in the original thread for a while. Then it went bad because of a handful of people getting into entrenched positions and fighting with one another in a petty and repetitive way. The noise drowned out the signal. I pretty well gave up, and I think many other posters also did.

I continued to check on the thread for a while, but it never seemed to return to its previous quality (which wasn't wonderful, but there was enough good stuff in the earlier days to sustain my interest).

And the new thread wasn't really new: the economic value of the Irish language was done to death in the previous thread. As I said, opening another thread looked to me (and, clearly, the mods) as mischievous.

We currently have an active thread in Feedback on "Problems in the Politics Forum". Here you are opposing mod action to deal with one of the problems.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think many other posters also did.

Clearly though some did not, else there would be no thread.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I continued to check on the thread for a while, but it never seemed to return to its previous quality (which wasn't wonderful, but there was enough good stuff in the earlier days to sustain my interest).

Yes, but your opinion on thread quality is not the only or deciding one.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And the new thread wasn't really new: the economic value of the Irish language was done to death in the previous thread.

Nonetheless, it was an interesting thread in the appropriate place.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

We currently have an active thread in Feedback on "Problems in the Politics Forum". Here you are opposing mod action to deal with one of the problems.

And rightly so, since the mod in question has decided to align themselves with an ideology whose proponents have no shortage of vitriol towards all things Irish, and I reference the comments of not just DonegalFella/Permabear but others, in this very forum. Indeed, the appointment of a mod in politics with such clearly and strongly held political views is cause for concern in what should be a neutral position.

On its own merits however I see no reason to lock that thread and ban the user on the strength of moderator ennui, for want of a better expression.

Amhran Nua

RopeDrink wrote: »

shouting down debate

How, exactly?

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Clearly though some did not, else there would be no thread....

So it's all right if a few people dig in and conduct their own little war, and discourage others with an interest in a subject from discussing it? Because that is all your argument amounts to.

I don't recall that you participated in that thread, yet you suggest that it was a healthy discussion.

And now you are attacking a mod.

Frankly, I doubt your bona fides in this matter.

Gordon

No soapboxing rule is in the charter, and as P. Breathnach says, it's been there for some time.

7 years ago

bonkey wrote: »

WEll, if you think I'm going to simply allow you to use this forum as a soapbox to shout your particular flavour of invective and bile from, you are very much mistaken. If you are not interested in joining in the discussion, then don't.

bonkey wrote: »

Hobbes then pointed to the flaw in the whole "mothers" argument, which you are ignoring. This could mean you aren't reading replies, in which case you're not trying to add to the discussion, but rather just use it as a soap-box for your propaganda. Again...if thats the case, I'll ban you for it.

6 years ago

sceptre wrote: »

As for freedom of speech, all that lark and allowing someone a soapbox (I call it a playground) where they're not willing (or sometimes able) to discuss their views (the word is "discuss", not "babble", not "declaim" and not anything else that isn't "discuss"), I reckon Mr Pudding (who also hasn't the power to ban anyone) has referenced and linked to the relevant section of the rules made to facilitate discusion on political (and sometimes economic or socio-economic) matters for the benefit of the community as a whole.

5 years ago

Black Briar wrote: »

I asked you to debate earlier rather than the constant soapboxing and ranting.
This place is not a soap box.
Now no more of that from you please or you will be the newly departed from this forum.
Final warning

4 years ago

Black Briar wrote: »

I'm locking this thread now and banning you ILK for blatant trolling.
This is a discussion forum and not your personal ignore valid backed up points arena or soapbox.

2 months ago

nesf wrote: »

Not that we don't welcome said posters but as a general warning posting only to soapbox and list all the good things about your party without engaging in debate in threads will get you banned. This is a discussion forum not a party political broadcast.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So it's all right if a few people dig in and conduct their own little war, and discourage others with an interest in a subject from discussing it? Because that is all your argument amounts to.

So lets say that I started that thread. Would it have been immediately locked? If I went off and did a bit of independent research and opened a very similar thread, would it be locked? I don't think so.

Whats the number one rule again, attack the post not the poster, surely.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't recall that you participated in that thread, yet you suggest that it was a healthy discussion.

Despite which I'm still capable of reading it, and a lot of other discussions I don't participate in.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And now you are attacking a mod.

A mod is just a person who has been given a tiny sliver of power on a single website on the internet. This is no way makes them immune from personal bias or grants them any sort of elevated moral platform. As such, they can and should be pulled up when that bias interferes with their moderating decisions. I'd expect no less if I was a mod, not that I would assume such a position.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Frankly, I doubt your bona fides in this matter.

I seem to recall a couple of threads (notably any to do with the civil service) where you were engaging in what could have been very readily described as soapboxing yourself. You see, it's too easily bent to suit a particular point of view.

Gordon wrote:

No soapboxing rule is in the charter, and as P. Breathnach says, it's been there for some time.

I wouldn't characterise the particular poster there as a one trick pony however, he's contributed on a variety of topics without ever being accused of soapboxing. That discussion would have been interesting.

Here's what it boils down to: Stop talking about something you feel passionately about, because we think you've said enough. This is not an attitude likely to foster healthy political discussion. I do see that some posters are just there to cause problems, that's a subtle form of trolling. I don't think the poster in question falls into that category however.

AckwelFoley

I dont post in that forum, and i wouldnt post in that thread - frankly because the irish language is as useful to our economy as Tok Pisin is to Papua New Guinea' economy.

There are going to be people that want Irish forced down the throat of the nation, where i am of the opinion that it should be like all other things of irish culture - something you choose to do if you wish, such as irish dance and GAA.

Im a little uncomfortable about the definition of soapboxing and how you can distinguish it from the countless threads on "the government and bankers are bastards" that we are subjected to ad nauseum.

The mods are regular readers of the forums they mod in, so i will assume that the history and trends of the poster are what constitutes formulation the definition of soapboxing

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

...
I seem to recall a couple of threads (notably any to do with the civil service) where you were engaging in what could have been very readily described as soapboxing yourself. You see, it's too easily bent to suit a particular point of view....

I could challenge you to back up that claim, but 'll save you the bother: there is no evidence.

Gordon

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I wouldn't characterise the particular poster there as a one trick pony however, he's contributed on a variety of topics without ever being accused of soapboxing. That discussion would have been interesting.

You could rant and rave on a whole load of subjects and still be defined as soapboxing, it's not about being a one trick pony. However, I have searched for all threads created by this person on the politics forum, there are 10 threads. From these threads, here are the ones discussing the topic of Irish Language:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056232876
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056204188
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056104303
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056160790

So actually, 40% of the threads that this person has created have been on that subject. And that's just in Politics, I found loads of threads that they started elsewhere.

Amhran Nua

snyper wrote: »

Im a little uncomfortable about the definition of soapboxing and how you can distinguish it from the countless threads on "the government and bankers are bastards" that we are subjected to ad nauseum.

You're uncomfortable with good reason, next time you post in the politics forum you must not consider merely your opinion and what you want to say, but the opinion of anonymous moderators who may or may not have had their coffee this morning.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I could challenge you to back up that claim, but 'll save you the bother: there is no evidence.

Wasn't there a thread about the undue influence of the civil service on political decision making, and a couple more around that time? You'd change neither your mind nor the topic as I recall, possibly because you were a member of said service in a past life.

Here's the thing though, I don't think you should be gagged because of that, on the contrary, I want to hear what you have to say, even if it becomes a stuck record situation. It's not like you're holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to read the thread.

Amhran Nua

Gordon wrote: »

You could rant and rave on a whole load of subjects and still be defined as soapboxing, it's not about being a one trick pony. However, I have searched for all threads created by this person on the politics forum, there are 10 threads. From these threads, here are the ones discussing the topic of Irish Language:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056232876
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056204188
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056104303
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056160790

So actually, 40% of the threads that this person has created have been on that subject. And that's just in Politics, I found loads of threads that they started elsewhere.

So? Maybe that's his profession. None of those threads were particularly pushing any point of view, starting an argument, or "soapboxing":

With the current government on its way out and a FG - Labour government almost a certainty, I would like to see what change people think should be made to the teaching of the Irish Language.

What reforms do you expect there to be made to how Irish is taught over the comming months and years, and what reforms do you think should be made?

I have E-mailed Him on this question, When (if) he responds I will let you know what his position is.

Plus, with the upcoming adjustments in the Irish curriculum, it should hardly be a surprise that more threads on the language get started.

Gordon

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So?

So, I thought you'd find it interesting seeing as you brought up the 'one trick pony' remark

Maybe that's his profession. None of those threads were particularly pushing any point of view, starting an argument, or "soapboxing":

I haven't read the threads, and if that's the case, then that's probably why he wasn't banned after creating them

Amhran Nua

Gordon wrote: »

I haven't read the threads, and if that's the case, then that's probably why he wasn't banned after creating them

I see nothing more objectionable in the one he got banned for. And lets face it, there would be more than a few red faces around politics if one were to apply the "soapboxing on particular topics" metric to numerous vocal posters.

Gordon

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I wouldn't characterise the particular poster there as a one trick pony

What if he was? Would you agree with the soapboxing rule?

Amhran Nua

Gordon wrote: »

What if he was? Would you agree with the soapboxing rule?

Not especially. As long as others are able to argue their own corner, no poster has a monopoly on a discussion, and others can make up their own minds as they read. If someone is loading up ten threads on the same topic per hour, that's a problem, but it's not a soapboxing problem. If someone is baiting others and trying to stir trouble for the sake of it, that's also a problem, but not a soapboxing problem.

Eh my comment on his contributions was in reference to his general posting in political forums, not just the threads he has started. I'd be a lot quicker to point out certain other posters who might not have started threads particulary on their pet topic, but whose contributions to those topics should they arise are as regular and predictable as clockwork.

Gordon

Amhran Nua wrote: »

[As long as] no poster has a monopoly on a discussion.

Indeed, the no soapboxing rule aims to combat that. By hammering on with a subject by blindly preaching about it, sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting 'LALALA' would be soapboxing. Glad to see you're in favour of this rule, at least on some level

Amhran Nua

Gordon wrote: »

Indeed, the no soapboxing rule aims to combat that.

Aims to combat poster monopolies on discussions? How does one acquire such a monopoly? There's nothing stopping anyone posting in any discussion. This "soapboxing" idea, which I do get by the way, is also very easy to abuse since there is no possible means of testing it. Abuse, easy to spot and report. Trolling, not too hard either. Threadjacking, easy.

To be accused of soapboxing however you need to have made quite a few posts on a presumably contentious topic, which means that right or wrong you immediately have a few people with an incentive to get rid of you, although they might be just as bad.

If I was so inclined I could get a couple dozen people from my own group to sign up and lurk about the place, hitting "report" with complaints of soapboxing when discussions weren't going my way. Eight or nine similar reports from unrelated posters spread around the country will probably get someone banned or at the very least censured.

Rules lawyering is to be expected in politics, which is why a rule like "soapboxing", if it is to be applied at all must be applied with extreme caution, since it's such an arbitrary brush.

looksee

So you have a guy in a bar who is holding forth on a subject and dominating the conversation just by the loudness of his voice and the non-stop presentation.

You are irritated by what he is saying because you know that he is just wrong on some points of his argument and on others there is an alternative point of view.

Your attempts to argue the basis of his thesis are just ignored by him - or he moves the goalposts - as he continues on repeating himself to hammer home his point. Every now and again one of his tame listeners picks up a minor point that they understand and makes an agreeable noise.

What you would like is for him to stop pontificating and to engage with you in discussion, but that is not going to happen, he is too fond of his own voice, and too insecure to actually reflect on his own position.

Eventually you get fed up, though it is a discussion you would like to pursue, so you move away and start a more reasoned discussion at another table. And what happens? Your man follows you over and starts again. Eventually the landlord says to him - 'I'm sick listening to the sound of your voice, you are barred'.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amhran Nua

looksee wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This isn't a bar and your voice has no volume here. You also have the benefit of an ignore button which real life omits.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm saying that it's quite likely those arguing against him were engaging at a similar level. I'm also saying that your position in this is highly suspect since you have argued vociferously against the poster on this very topic, and thus have every incentive to want to see him banned for your own personal satisfaction. And finally I'm saying that a moderator of politics shouldn't hold strong political convictions.

I'll be the first to admit that a mod like for example Scofflaw has for the most part struck a good neutral balance between their moderating and their political ideology, but that doesn't mean that everyone can achieve the same standard. Far from it.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Throw enough mud and some of it sticks eh?

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hardly, but it's no secret that yourself and Elliot are fruit from the same tree.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What same old drum, your opinion on the matter was so ludicrously incorrect and clearly biased I felt it would be instructive for others to be aware of how this might influence your posts in this discussion.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Especially if it goes against your personal ideology eh?

mike65

Locked Messed Monster wrote: »

Mike65 cant start IRA threads any more.

There is a God.

No idea what this is about....move along nothing to see here. (poster looks like another re-reg/dual account).

looksee

Amhran Nua wrote: »

This isn't a bar and your voice has no volume here. You also have the benefit of an ignore button which real life omits.


I'm saying that it's quite likely those arguing against him were engaging at a similar level. I'm also saying that your position in this is highly suspect since you have argued vociferously against the poster on this very topic, and thus have every incentive to want to see him banned for your own personal satisfaction. And finally I'm saying that a moderator of politics shouldn't hold strong political convictions.

I'll be the first to admit that a mod like for example Scofflaw has for the most part struck a good neutral balance between their moderating and their political ideology, but that doesn't mean that everyone can achieve the same standard. Far from it.


Throw enough mud and some of it sticks eh?


Hardly, but it's no secret that yourself and Elliot are fruit from the same tree.


What same old drum, your opinion on the matter was so ludicrously incorrect and clearly biased I felt it would be instructive for others to be aware of how this might influence your posts in this discussion.


Especially if it goes against your personal ideology eh?

You do realise that (once again) you have just proved everyone else's point?

P. Breathnach

Somebody starts a thread and makes a contentious point.

Others respond and express disagreement. OP rejects every opinion that differs from his, and does so vigorously -- to the point that just under 50% of the posts in the thread come from OP.

Seems like soapboxing.

That's this thread.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Somebody starts a thread and makes a contentious point.

Others respond and express disagreement. OP rejects every opinion that differs from his, and does so vigorously -- to the point that just under 50% of the posts in the thread come from OP.

Seems like soapboxing.

That's this thread.

And this demonstrates why the label of "soapboxing" is a handy little tool for people to suppress dissent when they find themselves incapable of coming up with logical arguments to the contrary. Should we set a maximum number of posts per thread limit now to appease the micromoderation crew? Because that's their whole objection - "you post too much". That's it. Not "you're wrong", or "you're wrong because", or any constructive objection.

looksee

A pint please barman, *looks for a table as far away as possible*.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amhran Nua

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You may have missed the shall we say vigorous discussion I had with Scofflaw about his Green support and what that meant vis-a-vis his ability to abuse the people of Ireland. I've no idea what Lockstep supports since he doesn't make an issue of it and I've never seen any potentially biased decisions from him.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I already made the point that weight of numbers on boards does not imply correctness, when I mentioned that any political group could probably get a couple dozen people to report posts that didn't suit them, untraceably and unstoppably. A previous attempt to ban the poster was in fact overturned.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yet you seem to have plenty to say on the topic.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The point of course being, and this is clear to everyone, that you have taken notably anti-Irish stances previously, that disgusting bit of revisionism was just the first example that sprang to mind. The thread that was locked was about the Irish language. You have consistently taken strong stances against that as well. Intractable, soapboxing positions one might say.

Wolfe Tone

So is the poster not allowed to contribute or create Irish language threads now?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

twinQuins

Amhran Nua wrote: »

A mod is just a person who has been given a tiny sliver of power on a single website on the internet. This is no way makes them immune from personal bias or grants them any sort of elevated moral platform. As such, they can and should be pulled up when that bias interferes with their moderating decisions. I'd expect no less if I was a mod, not that I would assume such a position.

I noticed you've brought this up a few times now. Are you suggesting that the Politics mods are biased in their decisions and, if so, do you have any proof of this?

Considering we've historically had posters of opposite sides cry bias against them I find the claim rather difficult to swallow.

Dr Galen

Would someone mind explaining why this thread needs to exist?

There is a thread in the DRP, in which the Mods & CMods are thrashing this out with the poster in question, not the OP of this thread. Would it not be appropriate for that thread to be concluded one way or the other before this discussion is had?

Eliot Rosewater

The problem with the thread was that the thread starter was not interested in discussion. He was interested in using the Politics forum to broadcast his views. There are a number of pertinent facts to support this, including a declaration to that effect from the poster concerned, but this is Feedback and not DRP and I feel that any discussion on modding should be about generalities instead of particular cases.

Boards.ie is a discussion forum. Soap-boxing is using the forum to publicise and forward your own point of view continuously and without respect for others. Typical symptoms of soap-boxing are: refusing to consider and deal properly with opposing arguments, a total lack of respect for alternative points of view and goal-post shifting. In short, an unwillingness to engage properly with others.

Soap-boxing damages the forum for those who are genuinely interested in debate and discussion. Trench warfare only benefits the belligerents, who aren't interested in discussion. Those on the outside who have an interest, but are not in the business of shouting and being thoroughly obstinate, are alienated. And that's the point when the forum starts failing in its core duty - providing a platform for interested and genuine individuals to discuss Politics honestly - and when the mods have to intervene.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So lets say that I started that thread. Would it have been immediately locked? If I went off and did a bit of independent research and opened a very similar thread, would it be locked? I don't think so.

Whats the number one rule again, attack the post not the poster, surely.

What you're suggesting here is the moderators shouldn't draw on past experience when dealing with posters. When an actionable reported post comes in, I check a user's history to see if this is the first time they've caused a problem. If they are repeat offenders I will issue a ban, as infractions clearly aren't working. By your standard above this is the wrong thing to do, as it's factoring in the poster's history in the decision making process. By your standard, moderators would have to do the same thing every single time, as to do otherwise would be to draw on personal factors.

Lockstep

On the issue of moderator bias, it's probably inevitable that all the moderators have their own personal beliefs and political viewpoints; that's probably why we're interested in politics enough to moderate it in the first place.

However, IMHO we have a good mix of moderators to ensure that no one viewpoint gets too much bias. Having so many different political orientations is a good way to strike a balance.

For the record, Permabear is correct; I'm a member of the Labour Party. I hope it doesn't affect my moderating too much

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dr Galen

Over the years in the Politics forum I've seen the same Mod told that he was a left winger, a right winger, a Marxist apologist, a free marketeer and a fascist.

I wouldn't be too worried Lockstep

I'd be worried if the Mods of the politics forum didn't lean one way or another tbh, it shows that even if I disagree with their political views, at least they have one! An interest in the subject is pretty important for any Mod I think.