Why the censorship?

RDM_83 again

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I think the core problem with moderation here - and this extends to all of Boards, so I'm not specifically referencing the migrant threads - is that when a sufficiently heated topic comes up, the moderation tends to focus on using an inconsistent hodge-podge of methods to get rid of those debates, rather than deal with the root causes of the poor quality posting (or e.g. treat bringing up a topic that causes heated debate, as the 'root cause' of the problem itself, which is nonsense and leads effectively to censorship of that topic - i.e. sacrificing freedom of discussion, for mod convenience).

It's obvious that some topics are just ones many moderators can't be arsed with and just want to be rid of - and when that happens, the focus isn't on improving the quality of debate while keeping full freedom of discussion (and emphasis on freedom of discussion, as that's what's most important on a public forum), it just becomes about taking the easiest measure that is handy for the mods, to avoid more work for themselves - even if that means doling out unfair punishment in order to do that, or even outright banning topics in an underhanded way, to try and make it easier to get rid of a trend of heated topics.

It's a very bad form of moderating, because it's easy for posters to just be deliberately inflammatory in large numbers, on topics where there is a minority view they want off the forum, to try and get mods to shut down discussion of that.

The inconsistency in mod action - and mods defence of being inconsistent - also is very 'convenient' for mods, because they can just make-up any excuse they want after the fact to justify the mod action - to save face upon receiving criticism, which is inherently dishonest, as that can be used to retroactively justify any kind of mod action.

This is all very true, we all know there is posters that consistently bait just within the rules and have done without sanction for years, its the fault of other less experienced users that rise too it and get themselves banned but the fact the baiting is never actioned is noteworthy.

In relation to the allegations of mod bias in the treatment of threads I'm not sure its deliberate simply that OP's that fit with their personal view points are considered more worthwhile, from a impartial viewpoint the 'Drowned boy' thread was always going to be a mod time sink but it stayed up because its OP was considered more "worthy" other threads with less "worthy" OP's got immediately locked.

Its frustrating because these conscious/unconscious biases are always dismissed as baseless paranoia, the fact that due to the high volume of thread starts and my taking a bit of time to actually look at the treatment of threads shows it in action yet we don't get a meaningful response from the AH mods.
Another issue will roll down the line in a month or so, people will cry foul, they will be dismissed as sore loosers or suffering from a victim complex yet here at the minute we can prove bias yet nothing is done.
Just get a mission statement and be open about it.

KomradeBishop

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This is all very true, we all know there is posters that consistently bait just within the rules and have done without sanction for years, its the fault of other less experienced users that rise too it and get themselves banned but the fact the baiting is never actioned is noteworthy.

In relation to the allegations of mod bias in the treatment of threads I'm not sure its deliberate simply that OP's that fit with their personal view points are considered more worthwhile, from a impartial viewpoint the 'Drowned boy' thread was always going to be a mod time sink but it stayed up because its OP was considered more "worthy" other threads with less "worthy" OP's got immediately locked.

Its frustrating because these conscious/unconscious biases are always dismissed as baseless paranoia, the fact that due to the high volume of thread starts and my taking a bit of time to actually look at the treatment of threads shows it in action yet we don't get a meaningful response from the AH mods.
Another issue will roll down the line in a month or so, people will cry foul, they will be dismissed as sore loosers or suffering from a victim complex yet here at the minute we can prove bias yet nothing is done.
Just get a mission statement and be open about it.

It's true that there are posters who bait and pretty much never get actioned, but the problem is also that simply slinging crap (the constant baiting) is a very successful way of shutting down debate - so you're kind of damned if you do (respond in kind), damned if you don't (the discussion is still successfully killed) - and this is usually on topics that mods don't seem to give a toss about or otherwise want to wash their hands of, so are happy to let slide into a mess (until it gets to the point where cards have to be handed out) or 'take the easy way out' as described in my previous post, which ends up also shutting down the topic of discussion.

This is where mods personal biases come in - precisely as you mention - particularly the small number of mods that like to act really condescending for no reason, and who sometimes think it is justified to allow posters to sling crap at subjects/points-of-view, that they (the mods) personally disagree with, or where they otherwise agree with the poster slinging crap.

It is that kind of thing - the type of uncivil/condescending attitude shown by some mods - which, among other things (particularly the 'justifying inconsistent modding' stuff I mention before, where mods just make up excuses for mod actions after the fact), makes me wonder if there is bit of 'politicking' going on, where the bias may actually be conscious, and mods are just trying to massage a public face-saving reason onto their actions after the fact, to avoid criticism and make life easier.

If that is what is happening - and the more I get to know the forum, the more I think such 'politicking' is quite common (probably with just the aim of making life easier for mods) - I don't expect to ever see any kind of mission statement outlining an honest reason, because of the criticism it would evoke.

Cold War Kid

I'd bet there's no mission statement possible because what you're seeing RDM is not deliberate. You keep ignoring that that thread which might have seemed pro migration due to it being about the drowned boy... was absolutely filled with non censored negative views towards the migrants.

RDM_83 again

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I'd bet there's no mission statement possible because what you're seeing RDM is not deliberate. You keep ignoring that that thread which might have seemed pro migration due to it being about the drowned boy... was absolutely filled with non censored negative views towards the migrants.

And you keep ignoring that it had a OP that aligned with mod views so was treated differently to those that didn't.
It could even be argued, as other posters have (personally I am not sure as the thread was probably a bit of a mess by that stage) when the "anti" (for want of a better word) started to become more prevelant on thread in light of further details about the case then the thread was closed.

Overheal

jank wrote: »

Perhaps but can anyone actually give me an example?



Again, isn't that what the politics cafe is for? Why have two threads discussing the same thing when the politics cafe was created deliberately to try and push this type of topic out of AH into a type of cafe AH type political forum in the politics cafe.

It is just lacking total consistency and tbh have no idea what the purpose of the cafe forum is anymore. It just seems to be there for the sake of it now, with political discussion still going on in AH.

If you want to search humanities for AH or After Hours you'd probably score a few hits where mods have moved a thread.

well you also have a lot of people bitch and complain when all of the threads were funneled straight into politics cafe so clearly there is no pleasing everyone. some of those mentioned also (like Fukushima) were as much at home in AH as anywhere else - nobody was really discussing the politics of whether a nuclear fallout event was occuring..they were more or less worried about the fallout, and the bananas.

Overheal

RDM_83 again wrote: »

And you keep ignoring that it had a OP that aligned with mod views so was treated differently to those that didn't.
It could even be argued, as other posters have (personally I am not sure as the thread was probably a bit of a mess by that stage) when the "anti" (for want of a better word) started to become more prevelant on thread in light of further details about the case then the thread was closed.

That better word you're looking for might have been "racism," and thats just the nature of the conversation; one of those conversations handled sensitively by politics or humanities in my opinion, not after hours.

AlekSmart

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Exactly! Serious issues get discussed in AH all the time, and I don't know why there seems to be little faith that this particular topic won't be discussed to a high standard. I personally love the vibrancy of threads on serious issues in AH. They are fast-moving, often frenetic and potent and display the many different views there can be on any particular topic. It's frequently fascinating to behold.

I've never understood why AH being the pub of boards.ie means only light-hearted topics may be discussed. Often my deepest chinwags happen in the pub!

Well said Tarzana2.

It is a valid point that the "Vibrancy" and speed of the AH debate,once it reached a certain critical mass,may have begun to be a tad TOO populist..or popular.

The frenetic potency,and variety of exchanges in the AH thread,may well have mirrored ACTUAL exchanges between folks out on the street,rather than conforming to the niceties of a Varsity L & H Society black-tie debate ?

With almost the entirity of mainstream European media now firmly on-message in relation to the Mediterranian Migrant issue,it is hardly surprising that few,if any,Irish Journalists will be facilitated to follow a road less travelled in search of rational explanations or even justifications.

This just about leaves those with legitimate concerns and differences,the avenue of media such as Boards,and that has to be appreciated and protected too.

K-9

I would take baiting into account when looking at a sequence of events, as personal sniping usually means two or three at it. It takes time to root out those that do it regularly as it needs to be proven that it is a recurring thing.

K-9

AlekSmart wrote: »

Well said Tarzana2.

It is a valid point that the "Vibrancy" and speed of the AH debate,once it reached a certain critical mass,may have begun to be a tad TOO populist..or popular.

The frenetic potency,and variety of exchanges in the AH thread,may well have mirrored ACTUAL exchanges between folks out on the street,rather than conforming to the niceties of a Varsity L & H Society black-tie debate ?

With almost the entirity of mainstream European media now firmly on-message in relation to the Mediterranian Migrant issue,it is hardly surprising that few,if any,Irish Journalists will be facilitated to follow a road less travelled in search of rational explanations or even justifications.

This just about leaves those with legitimate concerns and differences,the avenue of media such as Boards,and that has to be appreciated and protected too.

There's plenty of discussion on it in the cafe which is a very busy forum so there's no censorship there. Humanities and politics require a higher standard than AH or the cafe so there's a different dynamic there.

The other thing is making sure a forum doesn't get over run with one topic, 6 or 7 open active threads on the one topic is a waste of bandwidth really.

Overheal

K-9 wrote: »

I would take baiting into account when looking at a sequence of events, as personal sniping usually means two or three at it. It takes time to root out those that do it regularly as it needs to be proven that it is a recurring thing.

Report posts that are baiting/trolling, and above all do not react to them. If you know its bait, and you get hooked anyway, are you absolved of personal responsibility?

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

Report posts that are baiting/trolling, and above all do not react to them. If you know its bait, and you get hooked anyway, are you absolved of personal responsibility?

It was in response to somebody saying those who get hooked get acted on so that was kind of taken as granted.

Agree though, those that consistently take the bait are a problem too.

jackofalltrades

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Threads of 1,400 posts and 4,200 posts is hardly = being locked sharpish. The other threads you list have had *plenty* of comments coming from the "against" side.

Too much of a mess (from, as you say, both sides) to be moderating for people who are volunteering though, so were locked - it happens with lots of very heated threads.

What are you basing this on though?
I've seen threads on more controversial/emotive topics being kept open.
Even where the has been a lengthy and stern warning in the OP and further warnings throughout the thread.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This is all very true, we all know there is posters that consistently bait just within the rules and have done without sanction for years, its the fault of other less experienced users that rise too it and get themselves banned but the fact the baiting is never actioned is noteworthy.

That's something I'd like to see addressed.
Posting within the letter of the law but completely against it's spirit.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's a very bad form of moderating, because it's easy for posters to just be deliberately inflammatory in large numbers, on topics where there is a minority view they want off the forum, to try and get mods to shut down discussion of that.

Completely agree with you there.

Overheal

jackofalltrades wrote: »

What are you basing this on though?
I've seen threads on more controversial/emotive topics being kept open.
Even where the has been a lengthy and stern warning in the OP and further warnings throughout the thread.

That's not to say that threads where on-thread warnings have kept the peace, have been less of a headache to moderate than other threads. A lot depends on most users' ability to self-moderate the conversation (ie. talking politely, not sniping) for one; and other times its about what users are reporting. Moderators aren't on all the time and aren't committed to regular hours, so sometimes if nothing is reported then nothing is done.

KomradeBishop

Overheal wrote: »

Report posts that are baiting/trolling, and above all do not react to them. If you know its bait, and you get hooked anyway, are you absolved of personal responsibility?

For posters that know how to toe-the-line between baiting and acceptable posting (or who mods can't be bothered with, perhaps), this does absolutely nothing.

The problem largely, is the borderline posters who can successfully bring down the tone of debate, and drag a thread to the gutter, but which mods can't really act upon.

Usually constant straw-men is the tactic used here, and mods can do bugger all about it.


So this is very much a case, of either 'take' the bait and respond in kind (to try and get your word in), or just be brow-beaten out of discussion, in anticipation of mods coming down hard on both sides of a debate (when one side may be a minority, being trolled/baited but trying to still get a word in, and thus receiving a disproportionate amount of mod action, which is doled out to both sides in a supposedly 'balanced' way) - as you can see, in cases where mods can't act on the 'baiting', that creates an effective means of controlling discussion on the forum.

The Randy Riverbeast

Looking at the Politics Cafe and Humanities is appears that the threads there are living long and fruitful lives. If the mods are trying to kill off discussion they have failed miserably.

Politics Cafe is a popular enough forum anyway, it could hardly be considered sweeping the topic under the rug there.

Pat Mustard

jank wrote: »

Perhaps but can anyone actually give me an example?

As requested:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=96583895#post96583895

weisses

Pat Mustard wrote: »

As requested:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=96583895#post96583895

exactly proves another point made here ... Exposure

that thread ... 90 posts in one day in AH

Moved to humanities ... 20 posts in over two weeks

Cold War Kid

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Looking at the Politics Cafe and Humanities is appears that the threads there are living long and fruitful lives. If the mods are trying to kill off discussion they have failed miserably.

Politics Cafe is a popular enough forum anyway, it could hardly be considered sweeping the topic under the rug there.

There's also a thread in European Union about the issue - and another thread in Politics Café about immigration into Britain.

Most people are discussing the issue very sensibly from whichever standpoint they hold (for, against or middle - mostly middle) and this is why those threads are staying open, and the lack of same is why the After Hours threads were closed.

There's the odd person trying to stir up a fight, which is the kind of thing that would get a thread closed - it's almost like they want to get the thread closed so that they can go on about censorship.

weisses

Cold War Kid wrote: »

There's the odd person trying to stir up a fight, which is the kind of thing that would get a thread closed - it's almost like they want to get the thread closed so that they can go on about censorship.

No its not .. the odd person would get a slap on the wrist ..Its almost if you make things up as you go along

K-9

weisses wrote: »

exactly proves another point made here ... Exposure

that thread ... 90 posts in one day in AH

Moved to humanities ... 20 posts in over two weeks

Quantity does not necessarily mean quality.

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

exactly proves another point made here ... Exposure

that thread ... 90 posts in one day in AH

Moved to humanities ... 20 posts in over two weeks

From AH Charter:

If there is a more appropriate forum, post your thread there wrote:

There are a huge amount of forums on boards.ie. Often it can be difficult to locate the one you are looking for. If you need help please ask in newbies and FAQ.
If you post a thread in After Hours that is more suited to another forum it will either be locked or moved to the correct forum. If you are unsure if a topic is suitable for After Hours please send a private message to any of the moderators.

For example:
Dublin Forum for anything relating to Dublin.
Television Forum for TV related threads
Cool Vids & Pics & Links for all YouTube videos etc.
Ranting and raving for when you just need to vent and you don't want to argue. (PM Grand_Rajah, Fluorescence or Overheal for access)
Politics forum for all serious political discussion
Irish economy forum for all issues relating to the Irish economy.
Celebs and showbiz for general celebrity gossip.

Exposure is not a valid reason to post in AH over another forum.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

From AH Charter:

Exposure is not a valid reason to post in AH over another forum.

Which brings us right back to the inconsistent moderating ... The vast majority of threads don't belong in AH but yet remain there ... Reason ??

Menas

Overheal wrote: »

Exposure is not a valid reason to post in AH over another forum.

This is probably the key point of the charter for me.
Without it AH would be inundated with local/specialised thread that people put in AH 'just to get a better response'.

weisses

K-9 wrote: »

Quantity does not necessarily mean quality.

Its about exposure

K-9

weisses wrote: »

Its about exposure

Which AH should not be used for.

weisses

K-9 wrote: »

Which AH should not be used for.

Exposure comes with the forum

I agree that there are more suitable forums for that discussion but so is it for the vast majority of threads in AH which are left open

There is not much consistency or clarity regarding this

K-9

But it shouldn't be used just to reach a wider audience.

Really, unless all threads are moved to the appropriate forums it will never be a consistent policy, and I don't think that is what people really want.

Eugene Norman

So what is After Hours for? The name sounds like it should only be a joky forum in which case all political and economic discussions should be moved.

weisses

K-9 wrote: »

But it shouldn't be used just to reach a wider audience.

Really, unless all threads are moved to the appropriate forums it will never be a consistent policy, and I don't think that is what people really want.

I don't know if it was the intend of the OP to reach a wider audience

And who knows what the people really wanted for this thread to happen ..We all know what the mods wanted apparently .... But they are they only ones who know but somehow cannot find the feedback thread anymore

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Which brings us right back to the inconsistent moderating ... The vast majority of threads don't belong in AH but yet remain there ... Reason ??

Not reported, primarily. The mods can do so much.