Politics/Sub-fora and it's questionable "high standards"

_Kaiser_

Morning all,

Regular posters in Politics and its sub-fora (Irish Economy and so on) will no doubt be aware that these sections of Boards have what the mods consider to be a high standard of posting and I'd in fact stretch that to say, high opinion of the forum itself.

However, this only seems to be the case in certain instances - for example take this thread on "The Dole" and the attitudes of people who receive it to working in general.

As is usual in threads like this, it's not too long before the usual suspects appear to tell everyone how some poor unfortunate who's lost his job should be allowed spend his (ie: the taxpayer's) money or even live their lives.

Normally this right-wing keyboard warrior/economist type shows themselves to be ignorant of the reality of the situation of trying to make €188 stretch for a week when the bills, debts and responsibilities you have to try and meet didn't disappear along with the person's income.

However, on this occasion I think we hit a new low when starting with post 80, a user suggests:

You obviously need to move then. Jobs will not come to you.

If only life was so black and white, as the reply was (post 81):

I have a child who I barely see as it is, moving is not an option.

This then resulted in the following retort (post 82):

Why should the taxpayer fund these kind of lifestyle choices?
There are people who don't see their children often because they are working hundreds of kms away or abroad so that you can see yours.

Over the next few posts, others jump in to disagree with this assertion that wanting to see your child - who you may see little enough as it is - is now a "lifestyle choice" that Dole recipients shouldn't be entitled to make.

That to me was a new low for even these kinds of threads, so my contribution was as follows (quoting one of the aforementioned other posters who similarly disagreed):

I wish I could add more than 1 thanks to the above post. This forum disgusts me whenever this topic comes up.

It's like a magnet for all the keyboard warriors/wannabe economists who think that because they're lucky enough to be working (for now/at the moment) and paying taxes it gives them the right to dictate how those less fortunate should be allowed live their lives or spend "their" (the worker's) money.

I work, I pay my taxes and do things the right way and get very little in return (being a healthy, single PAYE worker living in private rented accommodation), but not for a second would I have the neck to think that this allows me to tell others how they should live their life, what they can spend their money on and how often they can see their child??!!

It's generally the same crowd too - individuals who I can only assume grew up sheltered by mammy and daddy's money, who've never had to try and manage on the Dole while supporting a family and paying off their bills (which as I keep saying, DON'T just "disappear" along with the person's job and income).

Some of the stuff posted is outright trolling really (like the suggestion above that seeing your child is a "lifestyle choice") and frankly, I'm amazed that on a forum that has such a high opinion of itself and its "standards" that it's allowed.

For this I earned an "infraction" from Black Swan as apparently you're not allowed to suggest someone is trolling, but this right-wing holier-than-thou muppetry is all ok I guess as none of the inflammatory posts above received any comment.

Now I'm hardly going to lose sleep over a "yellow card" from a internet forum, but I do find it a bit hypocritical that the Mods of these particular fora will hand out warnings and bans and locks threads for not meeting their "high standards", but allow an ongoing situation where situations like the above can pass without any actions - except against those who call the poster out on it.

I think the issue with my comment isn't that I suggested the other poster was trolling, but that I questioned the selective "high-minded" moderation standards.

Considering I've seen threads locked and posters banned for trivialities, I find it a bit rich that I'm getting warnings while others can tell people when they can and can't see their own child?!

Either way I don't really care about Black Swan's "infraction" as I stand by my post and my point and someone hiding behind the "moderator" title handing out yellow cards isn't going to change my opinion on anything I've said here.

I would appreciate the thoughts of the higher-ups though (or any other constructive feedback), just for reference.

Cheers

K-9

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Morning all,

Regular posters in Politics and its sub-fora (Irish Economy and so on) will no doubt be aware that these sections of Boards have what the mods consider to be a high standard of posting and I'd in fact stretch that to say, high opinion of the forum itself.

However, this only seems to be the case in certain instances - for example take this thread on "The Dole" and the attitudes of people who receive it to working in general.

As is usual in threads like this, it's not too long before the usual suspects appear to tell everyone how some poor unfortunate who's lost his job should be allowed spend his (ie: the taxpayer's) money or even live their lives.

Normally this right-wing keyboard warrior/economist type shows themselves to be ignorant of the reality of the situation of trying to make €188 stretch for a week when the bills, debts and responsibilities you have to try and meet didn't disappear along with the person's income.

However, on this occasion I think we hit a new low when starting with post 80, a user suggests:



If only life was so black and white, as the reply was (post 81):



This then resulted in the following retort (post 82):



Over the next few posts, others jump in to disagree with this assertion that wanting to see your child - who you may see little enough as it is - is now a "lifestyle choice" that Dole recipients shouldn't be entitled to make.

That to me was a new low for even these kinds of threads, so my contribution was as follows (quoting one of the aforementioned other posters who similarly disagreed):



For this I earned an "infraction" from Black Swan as apparently you're not allowed to suggest someone is trolling, but this right-wing holier-than-thou muppetry is all ok I guess as none of the inflammatory posts above received any comment.

Now I'm hardly going to lose sleep over a "yellow card" from a internet forum, but I do find it a bit hypocritical that the Mods of these particular fora will hand out warnings and bans and locks threads for not meeting their "high standards", but allow an ongoing situation where situations like the above can pass without any actions - except against those who call the poster out on it.

I think the issue with my comment isn't that I suggested the other poster was trolling, but that I questioned the selective "high-minded" moderation standards.

Considering I've seen threads locked and posters banned for trivialities, I find it a bit rich that I'm getting warnings while others can tell people when they can and can't see their own child?!

Either way I don't really care about Black Swan's "infraction" as I stand by my post and my point and someone hiding behind the "moderator" title handing out yellow cards isn't going to change my opinion on anything I've said here.

I would appreciate the thoughts of the higher-ups though (or any other constructive feedback), just for reference.

Cheers

Just a couple of things:

We do have our own feedback thread in politics here.

Other posters got cards, and there was an on thread warning on that thread too.

_Kaiser_

K-9 wrote: »

Just a couple of things:

We do have our own feedback thread in politics here.

Other posters got cards, and there was an on thread warning on that thread too.

I'm aware of the internal thread but I'd prefer the opinion of a wider audience in a thread which isn't under the Moderation of those individuals I'm referring to

As for the "cards".. these were issued for someone having an issue with being quizzed about what jobs they have applied for, and the rather hot-headed reply.

Regardless, my point still stands.. How is it acceptable for a certain group in these sort of threads to be allowed "dictate" to people who are on the Dole/unemployed what they can and can't do, spend their money on (and contrary to the thinking behind this, in most cases the recipient is only getting back what they themselves contributed in tax previously), and in this instance trying to tell someone how often they can see their child?!

If you're going to be issuing "infractions" for people telling these individuals where to go with their holier-than-thou, ignorant of the facts/reality attitudes, then you should be taking similar action against those who are causing the situation... unless of course you agree that it's acceptable behavior on such a "serious" forum.

It's not enough to be handing out infractions and quoting from the rule book without addressing the actual cause of the problem in the first place.

K-9

As for the "cards".. these were issued for someone having an issue with being quizzed about what jobs they have applied for, and the rather hot-headed reply.

Not the case at all, simply not true, there were more cards than that. And yes, it is always better to stay reasonably civil and not give hot headed replies.

Regardless, my point still stands.. How is it acceptable for a certain group in these sort of threads to be allowed "dictate" to people who are on the Dole/unemployed what they can and can't do, spend their money on (and contrary to the thinking behind this, in most cases the recipient is only getting back what they themselves contributed in tax previously), and in this instance trying to tell someone how often they can see their child?!

Often it is better to let posters answer points themselves. Suggesting to somebody they should move elsewhere, was met by a good reason why that often isn't feasible, that's a perfectly fine rebuttal and I don't think anybody contested it. That's the best way to show up unreasonable opinions/questions.

Posters making stupid generalisations on both sides helps nobody, and they get dealt with.

If you're going to be issuing "infractions" for people telling these individuals where to go with their holier-than-thou, ignorant of the facts/reality attitudes, then you should be taking similar action against those who are causing the situation... unless of course you agree that it's acceptable behavior on such a "serious" forum.

We can't sanction people for having what some see as offensive attitudes, except for banned things like racism etc. As I said, often posters post the best rebuttals and show the unfairness or stupidity of a point. It is always better to keep your calm and answer civilly, rather than what I'd call give the other side ammunition.

It's not enough to be handing out infractions and quoting from the rule book without addressing the actual cause of the problem in the first place.

When somebody posts personal circumstances naturally some will ask questions. Again as in the moving away question, always best to give a to the point rebuttal, rather than get smart alecky as many of the posts were.

Pawwed Rig

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

As for the "cards".. these were issued for someone having an issue with being quizzed about what jobs they have applied for, and the rather hot-headed reply.

I have found the forum to be overly concerned with the letter of the rules rather than the content of posts.

Having said that I think generally the level of moderating on the forum is decent and considering what a forum where people can be entrenched in their views could be like I think there is a fair job being done.

nesf

It's a Politics forum. It will attract people whose opinions you think are indicative of a detachment from reality that will worry you very deeply when you think that these people get to vote.

It's the nature of the topic. There's not a whole lot we can do about that. It's very easy to mistake for trolling what is actually the honest opinion of someone who just thinks very differently to you politically.


If you want to challenge the warning bring it up in DRP and Ickle Magoo will have a look at it (she's the non-Politics Soc CMod now).

K-9

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I have found the forum to be overly concerned with the letter of the rules rather than the content of posts.

Having said that I think generally the level of moderating on the forum is decent and considering what a forum where people can be entrenched in their views could be like I think there is a fair job being done.

Just a general point and I don't want to appear to be monopolising the debate, but often the reason the letter of the rule applies is, exactly because posters can be entrenched in their views.

There is no middle ground to be met, even though it might seem obvious to outsiders and indeed mods. It just becomes a point scoring exercise from opposing sides with all reasonableness thrown aside, so, we have to apply the letter of the law consistently, absurd as it may look.

Pighead

nesf wrote: »

It's a Politics forum. It will attract people whose opinions you think are indicative of a detachment from reality that will worry you very deeply when you think that these people get to vote.

It's the nature of the topic. There's not a whole lot we can do about that. It's very easy to mistake for trolling what is actually the honest opinion of someone who just thinks very differently to you politically.


If you want to challenge the warning bring it up in DRP and Ickle Magoo will have a look at it (she's the non-Politics Soc CMod now).

All fair points but is there a limit to how far you tolerate differing opinions?

I know in After Hours a poster got banned for airing his personal (negative) views on transexuals. If he had done so in politics how would he have been treated? I'm guessing judging by the above that his views would have been allowed?

nesf

Pighead wrote: »

All fair points but is there a limit to how far you tolerate differing opinions?

I know in After Hours a poster got banned for airing his personal (negative) views on transexuals. If he had done so in politics how would he have been treated? I'm guessing judging by the above that his views would have been allowed?

Some things aren't allowed on a site basis like racism or incitements to violence. On economic issues you are free to argue for Maoist Communism while someone else argues for an anarchistic libertarian position. It's more problematic on social issues usually because they tend to be more emotive but there would be a big difference between someone saying "rar, all transexuals are evil!" and "I don't think transexuals should get special treatment with regard to discrimination law or whatever." Context and nuance are important here even though both views could be looked at as negative by some people.

Pawwed Rig

K-9 wrote: »

It just becomes a point scoring exercise from opposing sides with all reasonableness thrown aside, so, we have to apply the letter of the law consistently, absurd as it may look.

Funnily enough my first and as yet only yellow card/infraction on this site was in this forum by the mod mentioned in the OP. My heinous crime? Trolling? Personal abuse? Being a dick? No.
It was referring to a scumbag criminal gang from Limerick in a thread about prostitution. I thought at the time and still think it was a petty reaction by the mod and was unnecessary given the context of the post. But the letter of the law is THE LAW. You would think that welcoming people into the forum would be a better strategy.



The word scumbag is apparenty forbidden which is silly in that it is a mild enough phrase and is just putting infractions on people who are reluctant to use harsher language.


A quick search on the forum shows it is still a popular one for the mods to throw yellow cards for.

P. Breathnach

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

...
The word scumbag is apparenty forbidden which is silly in that it is a mild enough phrase and is just putting infractions on people who are reluctant to use harsher language.

A quick search on the forum shows it is still a popular one for the mods to throw yellow cards for.

It's very apparent that it is forbidden. From the charter:

Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters and people in the public eye. Using unsavoury language does not add to your argument. The following words are not permitted specifically by this charter:
Scumbag (or a variant)
Beard(s)
Crusties
Teabagger(s)
Unwashed hippies (or a variant)
Zanu-FF
sheeple
zionazis

You might - indeed probably should - wonder why such a list exists. It's because posters lost the run of themselves in using those terms, and they became a lazy way of being a dick. Once you label somebody as a scumbag or a beard or a zionazi you have been rudely dismissive of that person, and save yourself the trouble (and deny your readers the service) of explaining why you disapprove of somebody: you disapprove because they are scumbags.

K-9

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Funnily enough my first and as yet only yellow card/infraction on this site was in this forum by the mod mentioned in the OP. My heinous crime? Trolling? Personal abuse? Being a dick? No.
It was referring to a scumbag criminal gang from Limerick in a thread about prostitution. I thought at the time and still think it was a petty reaction by the mod and was unnecessary given the context of the post. But the letter of the law is THE LAW. You would think that welcoming people into the forum would be a better strategy.

Well you are supposed to familiarise yourself with the charter (I know), but most people I think would try and get a feel for a forum first, or look at a few threads anyway. Terms like scumbag just aren't prevalent in the forum.

The word scumbag is apparenty forbidden which is silly in that it is a mild enough phrase and is just putting infractions on people who are reluctant to use harsher language.

The problem is a lot of people have their own idea who the scumbags are, Republicans, Loyalists, British Army, RUC, FF, SF, FG, SF, (insert politician/party/group of choice), the list goes on and on and each of those people thinks it is acceptable against their own pet hate, and unacceptable towards their pet love.

A quick search on the forum shows it is still a popular one for the mods to throw yellow cards for.

Yep, but the vast majority of posters seem to be able to manage just fine without ever using it.

Pawwed Rig

P. Breathnach wrote: »

From the charter.

Yes I am aware it is in the charter hence the reason for the infraction.

K-9 wrote: »

Terms like scumbag just aren't prevalent in the forum.

It is about context. Hence my point the letter of the law. It was hardly offensive to anyone in the manner I used it but, no it is in the charter = infraction. It is something that will trip up good posters and tbh it undermines the whole yellow card/infraction system. A simple PM would be a more measured approach rather than overzealously infracting anyone who mentions the s word. Funnily enough the thread I was posting in the point being made was that it is wrong to criminalise people for no reason.
Would it not be better to encourage new posters rather than put them off posting by overzealous moderation?

nesf

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It is about context. Hence my point the letter of the law. It was hardly offensive to anyone in the manner I used it but, no it is in the charter = infraction. It is something that will trip up good posters and tbh it undermines the whole yellow card/infraction system. A simple PM would be a more measured approach rather than overzealously infracting anyone who mentions the s word. Funnily enough the thread I was posting in the point being made was that it is wrong to criminalise people for no reason.
Would it not be better to encourage new posters rather than put them off posting by overzealous moderation?

I think you make a good point.

KyussBishop

There are a few things on Politics which receive a warning/infraction regardless of context, which take a bit of getting used to; among these are 'scumbag' and accusations of trolling.

I can understand the unexpectedness of getting warned for them, but I can see where the mods are going with it too (it's a fine line which is tricky to manage well); after a while you get a feel for the (in some cases slightly arbitrary, but understandable) boundaries, while still being able to add a justified pointedness/bite to some criticisms.


It's a bit frustrating I admit, when encountering something that pretty much is trolling, but is still below the point of being actionable by mods; it's kind of a grey area where there is no point in reporting it, but you can't really fully point it out on-thread either.

There can sometimes be a lot of that borderline stuff (though for the last while, not so much as before), and it can be tricky finding the best way to directly point it out and expose it (which is the best way of defusing it; once you point out the tactic and fault with a persons method of argument, it becomes very hard to justify/defend).