Why the censorship?

KomradeBishop

The mod selection process, and the potential for mod bias through selection, that can affect the tone of a forum - thus can achieve censorship of views on a forum, through (possibly unconsciously) biased modding - is a relevant idea.

How does the selection process for mods, cmods and all the way up to admins work? Not saying this happens - I'm curious, because if it's some form of 'mods choosing mods' from/for the same forum, that can have a high potential for a kind of 'selection bias'.

Mr E

Not really a factor. Remember that all Mods, CMods and Admins started out as regular users. Sure, it can be easy to select a new mod for a forum from a list of established and trusted mods, but we also use tools available to us to see what regular posters are prolific in a forum and see if there are any suitable candidates there too. It's a healthy mixture of giving more responsibility to the good mods and bringing in new 'blood'.

It can also go the other way where we demod mods that were generating work for other mods (which happened as recently as last month).

CMod selection is a more rigorous process. Selections are made from mods only (not users) who have proven themselves to be capable mods.

Penn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The mod selection process, and the potential for mod bias through selection, that can affect the tone of a forum - thus can achieve censorship of views on a forum, through (possibly unconsciously) biased modding - is a relevant idea.

How does the selection process for mods, cmods and all the way up to admins work? Not saying this happens - I'm curious, because if it's some form of 'mods choosing mods' from/for the same forum, that can have a high potential for a kind of 'selection bias'.

There is no "one way" for mods to be picked. Sometimes it's because they're a prolific poster, sometimes it's because of how much they report posts, sometimes a request is simply put in the Mods forum for existing mods of other forums to put their own name forward for it.

Mods aren't chosen based on what side of the fence they fall on for controversial topics though, and in forums where controversial topics tend to arise, mods are generally chosen exactly because it's believed that they will mod in an unbiased way.

Does it always work perfectly? Of course not, we're human. There is a Dispute Resolution Process, as well as both here and the HelpDesk for people to raise issues. Mods answer to CMods. Mods and CMods answer to Admin. Mods, CMods and Admin answer to the Boards Staff.

However, Baldy Conscience was suggesting that the bias is by design by decree of the Admin/Staff, in order to shape discussion in the way they want it to go. And that's pure bullsh*t.

Lovely Bloke

KomradeBishop wrote: »

How does the selection process for mods, cmods and all the way up to admins work?

For mods (either replacement or just upping the numbers), the current mod team (or outgoing mods) are indeed asked to recommend new faces to the CMod, the CMod then vets the list and given recommendations to the Admin, who further vet that list and agree to the person of their choosing.

So yeah, there is indeed scope for the mods of the Purple Forum to not put forward anyone of an anti-Purple mindset, or for the Admin to have a look at a persons posting history and see that a person had posted in the past with an anti-Purple agenda, or maybe even a not-so-pro-Purple agenda.

If the whole of Boards was pro-Purple and the admin choice came down to two people, one of whom expressed an ambiguous (at best) attitude to Purplism in the past then the admins are going to choose the other guy.

That is all unconscious, and not a conspiracy, but does happen.

Lovely Bloke

Penn wrote: »

However, Baldy Conscience was suggesting that the bias is by design by decree of the Admin/Staff, in order to shape discussion in the way they want it to go. And that's pure bullsh*t.

I never said it was by design or decree, I think my last post above makes that a bit clearer.

I think it ONLY applies to (hot) social topics too - like transgenderism, same sex marriage, religious freedom, abortion, refugees, homelessness and other topics where you are labelled "intolerant" or a "bigot" if you don't manifestly come down on the side of the liberal mindset that pervades the moderation, and adminning, of this website.

I don't think the Admins give a shiney crap if a Liverpool, Man Utd or Accrington Stanley supporter becomes a mod of the Soccer forum, for example, but a guy who's always posting posts that lean to the political right of the topics above is never going to become a mod in After Hours or similar forums.

Because

a. the current mods won't recommend that poster
b. he's already been spoken about in the Mod Forums as "one to watch" because of his non-liberal views
c. the right on brigade constantly report him, shout him down and threads get moved or locked

Penn

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

I never said it was by design or decree, I think my last post above makes that a bit clearer.

Fair enough, I agree your second post makes that clearer and I retract what I said.

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

I think it ONLY applies to (hot) social topics too - like transgenderism, same sex marriage, religious freedom, abortion, refugees, homelessness and other topics where you are labelled "intolerant" or a "bigot" if you don't manifestly come down on the side of the liberal mindset that pervades the moderation, and adminning, of this website.

I don't think the Admins give a shiney crap if a Liverpool, Man Utd or Accrington Stanley supporter becomes a mod of the Soccer forum, for example, but a guy who's always posting posts that lean to the political right of the topics above is never going to become a mod in After Hours or similar forums.

Because

a. the current mods won't recommend that poster
b. he's already been spoken about in the Mod Forums as "one to watch" because of his non-liberal views
c. the right on brigade constantly report him, shout him down and threads get moved or locked

It's not about what people say, it's about how they say it. People whose views go against the norm can and have been put forward for moderating positions if they've shown themselves to be suitable as a mod. Where I would believe the trouble tends to come from, is that those with opposing views are generally having a lot of aggressive posts directed at them that they tend to either respond in kind (thereby reducing their suitability as a mod) or are expressing those opinions in a way which they know will get people's backs up to begin with.

However, people aren't put on "one to watch" lists simply for holding non-liberal views. How they present those views is what matters. It's easy to cry censorship or bias, when in the majority of cases posters are simply being needlessly antagonistic expressing their views.

RDM_83 again

Penn wrote: »

Where I would believe the trouble tends to come from, is that those with opposing views are generally having a lot of aggressive posts directed at them that they tend to either respond in kind (thereby reducing their suitability as a mod) or are expressing those opinions in a way which they know will get people's backs up to begin with.However, people aren't put on "one to watch" lists simply for holding non-liberal views.

Here is the thing though.
There is very little action taken at those who post aggressively to those in the minority opinion. The fact that dispute resolution doesn't allow the defense of X poster did this first adds to that, and often as far as I can see the initial antagonist will not be moderated in a public way or a way that shows up on their infraction record, so they never get noted as a problem poster, the example we are currently talking about is a good one, those posters getting angry simply get a on thread warning and are forgotten about.
This was something a previous feedback thread talked about in terms of "invisible" moderation and it doesn't ever seem to have been resolved, personally I think way more yellow cards should be given.

Penn wrote: »

How they present those views is what matters. It's easy to cry censorship or bias, when in the majority of cases posters are simply being needlessly antagonistic expressing their views.

But you see people who end up holding moderator positions put across their views very forcefully but they do it with the prevailing consensus

Penn

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Here is the thing though.
There is very little action taken at those who post aggressively to those in the minority opinion. The fact that dispute resolution doesn't allow the defense of X poster did this first adds to that, and often as far as I can see the initial antagonist will not be moderated in a public way or a way that shows up on their infraction record, so they never get noted as a problem poster, the example we are currently talking about is a good one, those posters getting angry simply get a on thread warning and are forgotten about.
This was something a previous feedback thread talked about in terms of "invisible" moderation and it doesn't ever seem to have been resolved, personally I think way more yellow cards should be given.

But you see people who end up holding moderator positions put across their views very forcefully but they do it with the prevailing consensus

That's all issues regarding moderation, and I'd probably agree with you about most of that. But none of it constitutes censorship, whether intentionally or not. If people don't break the rules, they won't be actioned, and if they are actioned and feel they shouldn't have been, there are processes in place to challenge it.

But likewise, I'm sure you would agree that for some people these topics can be hugely emotive, particularly as it tends to affect those who go with the prevailing consensus, as opposed to those on the other side, who it generally doesn't affect personally. Context has to be a factor in mod decisions. It can't always be one size fits all moderation.

KomradeBishop

Thanks for the replies on mod selection, interesting to hear how the process works; to be honest, it does sound like there is a non-zero chance for bias in mod selection, with the way it's setup - and I think that bias can be completely unconscious/not-deliberate.

So, it might be worth rethinking the selection process a bit, and maybe adding some randomization to the selection, or even considering more frequent randomized 'rotation' of mods between different forums.

You'd still have some established mods for certain forums, but any potential for bias by them can be counteracted with the randomized selection and rotation of mods.


There are probably other ways to deal with such biases too, the above is just off the top of my head (and there would still be some bias potential) - I'm sure there may be some minor practical difficulties implementing the above, but shouldn't be unsolvable.

KomradeBishop

Penn wrote: »

It's not about what people say, it's about how they say it. People whose views go against the norm can and have been put forward for moderating positions if they've shown themselves to be suitable as a mod. Where I would believe the trouble tends to come from, is that those with opposing views are generally having a lot of aggressive posts directed at them that they tend to either respond in kind (thereby reducing their suitability as a mod) or are expressing those opinions in a way which they know will get people's backs up to begin with.

However, people aren't put on "one to watch" lists simply for holding non-liberal views. How they present those views is what matters. It's easy to cry censorship or bias, when in the majority of cases posters are simply being needlessly antagonistic expressing their views.

On this, I mentioned some of the 'respond in kind' stuff earlier in the thread - and on certain topics, it's actually not possible to get your view across without responding in kind, because you just get brow-beaten/shouted-down.

Ad hominem and antagonistic comments against your views - i.e. the brow-beating/shouting-down - does have a definite effect on how your views are perceived by other forum users, and is a very effective way of censoring some minority views (and actually attracting more posters into participating in the brow-beating), and making them impossible to discuss, and even attracting mod action against them in rare cases.

To give you an analogous example, showing proof of how harmful that kind of brow-beating/uncivil type of posting can be, look at the reasons why some news sites are now shutting off their comments section:

...
Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself.
...
Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they'd previously thought.
...

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments

Responding in kind is often necessary, but it does add to that problem, however sometimes mods will just take the easy way out that leads to sanctioning the minority view that is being brow-beaten.

If there is no standard where mods come down hard on that type of uncivil posting (as RDM points out well), so that posters don't feel that they need to respond in kind - and importantly some mods themselves are very condescending, and for no real reason, so they are part of the problem - then that has a similarly negative effect on discussion and minority points of view, as the article describes above.


That's actually a great example of a mod bias too: A mod who is, by habit, often condescending, is more likely to let posters displaying a similarly uncivil attitude on a forum (i.e. the ones who browbeat a minority view with heavily uncivil/condescending posts), have a free pass - that should be a black mark against a mod really.

This goes up the chain as well and affects mod selection (not just forum moderation, as described above), as any mods/cmods/admins who have a similar attitude, may have a bias for overlooking that kind of issue with a potential mod.

looksee

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Thanks for the replies on mod selection, interesting to hear how the process works; to be honest, it does sound like there is a non-zero chance for bias in mod selection, with the way it's setup - and I think that bias can be completely unconscious/not-deliberate.

So, it might be worth rethinking the selection process a bit, and maybe adding some randomization to the selection, or even considering more frequent randomized 'rotation' of mods between different forums.

You'd still have some established mods for certain forums, but any potential for bias by them can be counteracted with the randomized selection and rotation of mods.


There are probably other ways to deal with such biases too, the above is just off the top of my head (and there would still be some bias potential) - I'm sure there may be some minor practical difficulties implementing the above, but shouldn't be unsolvable.

Sounds great, but there is a practical problem, mods mod because they want to. There are loads of forums I would have absolutely no interest in modding, because I have zero interest in the subject I would have to be reading endlessly.

nesf

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This goes up the chain as well and affects mod selection (not just forum moderation, as described above), as any mods/cmods/admins who have a similar attitude, may have a bias for overlooking that kind of issue with a potential mod.

This is countered by not having just one individual do the picking and is one of the main reasons why mods don't pick their co-mods on their own.

Cold War Kid

Penn wrote: »

Fair enough, I agree your second post makes that clearer and I retract what I said.



It's not about what people say, it's about how they say it. People whose views go against the norm can and have been put forward for moderating positions if they've shown themselves to be suitable as a mod. Where I would believe the trouble tends to come from, is that those with opposing views are generally having a lot of aggressive posts directed at them that they tend to either respond in kind (thereby reducing their suitability as a mod) or are expressing those opinions in a way which they know will get people's backs up to begin with.

However, people aren't put on "one to watch" lists simply for holding non-liberal views. How they present those views is what matters. It's easy to cry censorship or bias, when in the majority of cases posters are simply being needlessly antagonistic expressing their views.

+1

Plenty of people, including moderators, express non liberal views without any recourse. Because they don't do so via throwing out insults and inflammatory remarks spoiling for a fight.

I thought the permabanning of Padd was way too harsh but it's overturned - something that people accuse Boards of not doing.

KomradeBishop

looksee wrote: »

Sounds great, but there is a practical problem, mods mod because they want to. There are loads of forums I would have absolutely no interest in modding, because I have zero interest in the subject I would have to be reading endlessly.

That's true, yes - so I think it'd be fine to have well established mods for specific forums, but with co-mods on that forum, who are rotated in/out.

Most forums on the site wouldn't really benefit-from/need this kind of attempt at minimizing bias.

KomradeBishop

nesf wrote: »

This is countered by not having just one individual do the picking and is one of the main reasons why mods don't pick their co-mods on their own.

That definitely helps, but I doubt most people would even consider the subtly damaging attitude I outline, as being an issue - unless it had been explained to them how potentially damaging/biasing it can be - so it's not something I think many of the mods would be watching out for.

Indeed, many prominent mods, and even some cmods/admins, sometimes display the kind of attitude I outline.

nesf

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That definitely helps, but I doubt most people would even consider the subtly damaging attitude I outline, as being an issue - unless it had been explained to them how potentially damaging/biasing it can be - so it's not something I think many of the mods would be watching out for.

Indeed, many prominent mods, and even some cmods/admins, sometimes display the kind of attitude I outline.

It can get noticed. Something to goes to DRP, the CMod checks the thread and asks why X & Y weren't slapped on the wrist also. Similarly I've received PMs about this kind of thing in the past. I remember it being an issue *years* back and being picked up on by CMods.

I haven't paid much/any attention to modding in recent years. So I don't know if a lot of it is being missed or not.

Cabaal

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

I never said it was by design or decree, I think my last post above makes that a bit clearer.

I think it ONLY applies to (hot) social topics too - like transgenderism, same sex marriage, religious freedom, abortion, refugees, homelessness and other topics where you are labelled "intolerant" or a "bigot" if you don't manifestly come down on the side of the liberal mindset that pervades the moderation, and adminning, of this website.

I don't think the Admins give a shiney crap if a Liverpool, Man Utd or Accrington Stanley supporter becomes a mod of the Soccer forum, for example, but a guy who's always posting posts that lean to the political right of the topics above is never going to become a mod in After Hours or similar forums.

Because

a. the current mods won't recommend that poster
b. he's already been spoken about in the Mod Forums as "one to watch" because of his non-liberal views
c. the right on brigade constantly report him, shout him down and threads get moved or locked

You know there are atheists modding the Christian forum right? By your logic they'll shut down stuff they don't like in that very forum.

But they don't, plenty of hot topics are discussed in that forum.

Dan_Solo

Cabaal wrote: »

You know there are atheists modding the Christian forum right? By your logic they'll shut down stuff they don't like in that very forum.

Atheists almost entirely tend towards the tolerant kind though. They understand people have beliefs and respect these. They're not going to intervene in a Christianity forum to promote their own views.
Try getting the same objectivity out of a political party supporter in Politics though. Different kettle of fish.

weisses

Cabaal wrote: »

You know there are atheists modding the Christian forum right? By your logic they'll shut down stuff they don't like in that very forum.

But they don't, plenty of hot topics are discussed in that forum.

If you apply your "logic" the poster should not have been perma banned to begin with ...But look what happened

Lovely Bloke

Cabaal wrote: »

You know there are atheists modding the Christian forum right? By your logic they'll shut down stuff they don't like in that very forum.

But they don't, plenty of hot topics are discussed in that forum.

Well there's a "liberal" modding the Radio forum and she certainly shut down something she didn't like, with a permaban of a user who dared to ask pretty reasonable questions.

So yeah, in a forum where you wouldn't even expect it it's happening.

osarusan

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Well there's a "liberal" modding the Radio forum and she certainly shut down something she didn't like, with a permaban of a user who dared to ask pretty reasonable questions.

So yeah, in a forum where you wouldn't even expect it it's happening.

How does the overturning of the ban fit with your ideas about inherent bias in the running of the site?

I mean, shouldn't the CMods/admin have been supporting the ban handed out, given the mod had been chosen because of the likelihood of them moderating in this way?

Penn

Hell I would have actioned the poster too for breach of the forum charter

Radio Forum Charter wrote:

Blatant abuse including, but not limited to abuse based on sex, race, sexual orientation, gender identity or religion will not be tolerated.
In particular, personal abuse towards those working in the radio industry (presenters, producers, etc.) OR those appearing as guests/callers on radio shows will not be tolerated. Yes, they have put themselves in a public position and should be open to criticism but we must insist that criticisms be directed toward the radio programme and their skills at producing that programme, not them personally and that those criticisms be made in a civil way (i.e.: not stooping to name calling or vulgarity). See clarification below for more on this.
_____________________
With regard to radio programmes, this forum is NOT for the GENERAL discussion of the presenters themselves, but for discussion of their programmes and their presenting styles. i.e.: topics such as TV shows presented by them, books they may have written, etc. don’t suit this forum.
_____________________
There is an unacceptable level of homophobia on display in this forum on a daily basis and it stops now.

I have updated the charter's abuse rule to add that any comments based on sexual orientation or gender identity will come in under that heading. The reality is that such comments have always come under that heading but I thought I'd make it more overt.

Probably not permaban and would have to take poster's history into account, but it's not a huge injustice that the poster was actioned in the first place.

#istandwithhullaballoo

weisses

Penn wrote: »

Hell I would have actioned the poster too for breach of the forum charter



Probably not permaban and would have to take poster's history into account, but it's not a huge injustice that the poster was actioned in the first place.

#istandwithhullaballoo

I did not see any blatant abuse in the posters reply ... Or did I miss something ?

Penn

"this only brings it into the realms of laughing stock"
"a man in women's clothes really has no place conducting a hard-hitting political interview"
"and Clynch was grilling John Bruton about his VAT on children's shoes budget while wearing a pair of high heels!!"
"Clynch, with his here today, gone tomorrow femininity"
"a guy in a dress has little or no place in a serious professional environment"
"Except it's not if you look at it with the smallest bit of common sense..." (directed at another poster as opposed to Clynch)

Reducing someone's gender identity and personal choice down to "guy in a dress", or claiming that simply being dressed as a woman means they couldn't do their job as well, these are blatantly insulting comments directed at the person involved. One or two taken on their own, probably borderline. But the content and general tone of all the poster's posts in that thread, yeah, I'd have issued a mod action based on the rules as laid out in the forum charter.

KomradeBishop

osarusan wrote: »

How does the overturning of the ban fit with your ideas about inherent bias in the running of the site?

I mean, shouldn't the CMods/admin have been supporting the ban handed out, given the mod had been chosen because of the likelihood of them moderating in this way?

Everyone pointing out potential bias has been discussing largely unintentional/unconscious biases, and you're switching to assuming people mean deliberate/conscious biases here - why?

osarusan

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Everyone pointing out potential bias has been discussing largely unintentional/unconscious biases, and you're switching to assuming people mean deliberate/conscious biases here - why?

I don't understand your point at all, and I implied nothing about deliberate or conscious bias which was not already mentioned by BaldyConscience.

Here is the thrust of BaldyConscience's argument:

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

but those who have the power and wherewithall to appoint mods are going to appoint people who they think will mod in a certain way, people who have demonstrated that they lean a certain way on topics of interest to the powers-that-be.

...

You don't have to be told to mod in a certain way, or stick to some agenda, those are how you will just naturally approach things. They way you do things falls into the way Boards.ie/Distilled Media wants it's mods to do things - they pick the people they think will best shape the direction of the discussions

It is very clear BaldyConscience believe that while moderators are not told to moderate in a certain way, they are selected to moderate on the belief that they will naturally moderate in the way Boards/Distilled Media wants them to, and this will shape the site in the desired way. It's quite clear that BaldyConscience sees this as a conscious and deliberate process by Boards/Distilled Media.

How does BaldyConscience reconcile this view of how and why moderators are chosen with the (fairly swift) overturning of the ban?

KomradeBishop

osarusan wrote: »

I don't understand your point at all, and I implied nothing about deliberate or conscious bias which was not already mentioned by BaldyConscience.

Here is the thrust of BaldyConscience's argument:



It is very clear BaldyConscience believe that while moderators are not told to moderate in a certain way, they are selected to moderate on the belief that they will naturally moderate in the way Boards/Distilled Media wants them to, and this will shape the site in the desired way. It's quite clear that BaldyConscience see this as a conscious and deliberate process by Boards/Distilled Mdeia.

How does BaldyConscience reconcile this view of how and why moderators are chosen with the (fairly swift) overturning of the ban?

Ah, fair enough, hadn't noticed it was stated as being more deliberate (as opposed to unconscious) there.

gallag

Would it be fair to say most mods are left leaning? One thing I have noticed is that whenever a thread is locked it's always thanked by left leaning posters! Are there any non pro EU mods in the EU forum? Or conservative/right leaning mods in the politics forum? I am sure over the whole site there is a liberal/left bias in moderation.

Lovely Bloke

osarusan wrote: »

It's quite clear that BaldyConscience sees this as a conscious and deliberate process by Boards/Distilled Media.

Again, I'm in no way saying it's conscious or deliberate.

What I'm saying is simply this, those at the top (Staff) and below them (Admin, Cmods) are more likely to appoint a more liberal-minded person to the position of moderator, CMod, Admin quite simply because that's the kind of person they think will make a good moderator - the reason they think that is because they are liberal minded themselves, and those are the people running the place.

Look - Dav is a very liberal person, he's campaigned for SSM, and really does come down hard on the liberal side of other "hot social topics". It absolutely stands to reason that he is going to appoint like minded people as Admins (or more to the point, he's NOT going to appoint someone with a history of posting similar to the examples above).

Now, it's down to the Admins to appoint CMods, and CMods to appoint Mods (with vetting procedures from above).

So what you get is a nice little feedback loop of never getting anyone appointed who's on the "wrong" side of the debates (from the POV of the site hierarchy), even if the choice comes down to two people equal in "qualifications" the guy who's posted about "men in dresses" vs the guy who's posted about "transgender inequality" - the second guy comes out on top, almost every time, because "we couldn't have someone like that" in such a position.

It's not deliberate, and it's certainly not conscious, but what it does lead to is a mod-team that is biased to one side of arguments, and prone to take tougher action against people on the less-liberal side.

I absolutely hate whataboutery, but you can 90% say that if there's some person on that thread vociferously going at the guy, even going so far as to abuse him for his "bigoted stance", the first port of call for the mod is not going to be an immediate permaban.

Now, the ban was overturned once the team took a look at itself and went "oops, probably a bit too harsh there lads" - but the fact that it's happened is indicative of where the site is going.

You can't have a thread about divisive social issues, without

a. it being shunted around once the less liberal side turns up
b. it being outright shut down
c. permabans being handed out with no prior warnings, cards, temp bans for people on only one side of the discussion
d. the liberal side being allowed to turn discussion in a way that inevitably leads to thread closure
e. strawmen and other logical fallacies taking over

And there doesn't seem to be any appetite to acknowledge that it's going on, never mind address it.

Lovely Bloke

gallag wrote: »

Would it be fair to say most mods are left leaning? One thing I have noticed is that whenever a thread is locked it's always thanked by left leaning posters! Are there any non pro EU mods in the EU forum? Or conservative/right leaning mods in the politics forum? I am sure over the whole site there is a liberal/left bias in moderation.

No, but I do think there is a left/liberal bias to the moderators on the forums where those topics are prone to crop up, yes.

For example, I don't think I know (or care) about the political leanings of the Soccer Mod Team, because it doesn't matter. The most political the forum ever gets is around the "poppy" issue, but that is usually stubbed out without prejudice, because the forum is not the place for it.

I would say that I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of them land somewhere to the left of Fianna Fail.