Why the censorship?

Penn

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

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.

Again though, particularly for forums where such topics are prone to crop up, the ability to mod without bias is one of the key abilities that is sought when nominating a new mod.

Lovely Bloke

Penn wrote: »

Again though, particularly for forums where such topics are prone to crop up, the ability to mod without bias is one of the key abilities that is sought when nominating a new mod.

Yes, and that's great written down and all lovely and all that, but, again, I'm saying that when people of a particular mind-set are looking for an un-biased person they may feel that a person of a similar mind-set to their own is not as biased as someone who is of the polar opposite mind-set.

For example, and let's stick to the "gender fluid" topic.

If The Admin in charge of appointing a new AH mod is a "liberal" and sees two people put forward for modship - thinks both of them can do a job without bias - one of them posted the above about "lads in dresses" while the other is often to be found espousing the virtues of "gender fluidity" - a website with a liberal/left outlook is most likely going to give the job to the second guy - even though they are probably both equally as biased.

Or maybe we all should think the first lad is a monster. Because that's what this is about. The site itself is biased, skewed to a socially liberal agenda, and people who push (even slightly) the other way are vilified from the outset, get reported more and have harsher actions taken against them (reversed or not), leading to the selection of more and more liberal types into mod positions (& higher).

It just seems that there is no nuanced view of the "un-liberal" posters, if you take a view that is less than "isn't everyone great, we are all the same" then you are suddenly some kind of foot stomping neo-nazi.

Chips Lovell

There's a line. And the line is subjective. What one person may find to be racist, misogynistic, or homophobic etc., someone else may consider a legitimate point of view.

Where that line is depends on a site's owners and mods and, within that pool of people, there'll always be some divergence of opinion, which is why there's checks and balances in the form of Cmod and Admin appeals.

What I don't understand is the people who don't agree with a site's outlook on what is or isn't acceptable, but insist on hanging around complaining about it. If your views about transgender people or travellers or Muslims aren't welcome here, why not find somewhere where they are?

wendell borton

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

This site does not want any debate on Immigration and anything that goes against there left wing open borders agenda.
Pure censorship of the highest order, the usual tactics of the left.

It's more an agenda of neo liberals.

osarusan

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

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

You did say it in the quotes I highlighted. That there is a way that Boards/Distilled Media wants its mods to do things, and that there is a way it wants the discussion to be shaped - these are conscious things.

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

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.

This isn't really consistent is it though - why attach more weight to one than the other?

Why is the original ban indicative of a much wider and bigger trend about modding, and the overturning of the ban just dismissed as almost an irrelevance?

Why is it not the other way round - why is the overturning of the ban not considered indicative of a wider and bigger trend about modding?

Why, for that matter, would the team reach the conclusion that it had been a bit harsh, if they were mods due to the unconscious bias you suggest?

Penn

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

If The Admin in charge of appointing a new AH mod is a "liberal" and sees two people put forward for modship - thinks both of them can do a job without bias - one of them posted the above about "lads in dresses" while the other is often to be found espousing the virtues of "gender fluidity" - a website with a liberal/left outlook is most likely going to give the job to the second guy - even though they are probably both equally as biased.

Depends how the person put forward the "lads in dresses" opinion. If I were making the decision and one of the two choices had posted the same comment as was posted on the Radio forum, and *absolutely all else being equal*, yeah, he'd lose marks, because there's a better way to make the point that poster was trying to make without reducing someone to "a guy in a dress", a needlessly diminishing way of describing someone's choice of gender. Do I believe that person to be a monster because of it, of course not. But again, this is based on *absolutely all else being equal*. If the liberal-type poster then in turn called that poster a bigot, they'd be marked down even more, and so the winner in that case would be the non-liberal poster.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

The site itself is biased, skewed to a socially liberal agenda, and people who push (even slightly) the other way are vilified from the outset, get reported more and have harsher actions taken against them (reversed or not), leading to the selection of more and more liberal types into mod positions (& higher).

The site itself is 1's and 0's. With respect and absolutely feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but your problem seems to be more about the people on the site. The majority of posters, most likely due to the typical age range of posters etc, are skewed to a socially liberal agenda. The site is unbiased, and any and all measures are taken in the processes of selecting mods and reviewing their actions to maintain that lack of bias. However, the people on it aren't unbiased, and the ones with minority views will always have have to fight against a majority.

From what I tend to see, the ones in the minority tend to get more mod actions taken against them because they break the rules more often. Again, whether that's because they tend to become overly defensive while in heated debates against numerous members of the majority or whatever, I've seen more than my fair share of "minority-side" posters either starting off discussions well enough and then ending up turning to personal abuse or breaking other rules, or they post their minority opinions in a needlessly antagonistic manner.

Again, no one is claiming the current system of everything is perfect, but what's the solution? Non-"liberal" (whatever that means) people being chosen to become mods (even though that's choosing people based on personal opinion rather than ability to mod)? Posters who post against the majority being given more leeway because they're up against the majority?

Honest question, what do you think is the solution? What do you think needs to be done? Because it honestly seems like the problem isn't the site or the rules, it's that the minority is the minority.

K-9

Penn wrote: »

"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.

Stuff like that would suggest a bit of an agenda all right, then look into the poster's history and see if they've a bit of bee in their bonnet! about this stuff. Permaban is undoubtedly harsh though.

K-9

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

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.

We'd a libertarian mod until recently enough so that kind of confuses things in many ways.

The problem in politics for a good while now is the lack of suitable options in general. Activity, conduct, record, stuff like that.

KomradeBishop

Penn wrote: »

The site itself is 1's and 0's. With respect and absolutely feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but your problem seems to be more about the people on the site. The majority of posters, most likely due to the typical age range of posters etc, are skewed to a socially liberal agenda. The site is unbiased, and any and all measures are taken in the processes of selecting mods and reviewing their actions to maintain that lack of bias. However, the people on it aren't unbiased, and the ones with minority views will always have have to fight against a majority.

From what I tend to see, the ones in the minority tend to get more mod actions taken against them because they break the rules more often. Again, whether that's because they tend to become overly defensive while in heated debates against numerous members of the majority or whatever, I've seen more than my fair share of "minority-side" posters either starting off discussions well enough and then ending up turning to personal abuse or breaking other rules, or they post their minority opinions in a needlessly antagonistic manner.

Again, no one is claiming the current system of everything is perfect, but what's the solution? Non-"liberal" (whatever that means) people being chosen to become mods (even though that's choosing people based on personal opinion rather than ability to mod)? Posters who post against the majority being given more leeway because they're up against the majority?

Honest question, what do you think is the solution? What do you think needs to be done? Because it honestly seems like the problem isn't the site or the rules, it's that the minority is the minority.

Again this goes back to my earlier post (described best here), in that some of these minority views have to "run the gauntlet" and give as good as they get, just to be heard - because the majority posting against the minority views, are able to pretty much just get away with a poor quality of posting that brings down the tone of debate.

This can (and in my opinion does) lead to a relatively small band of posters, being able to take over or censor/shut-down entire specific subjects of discussion - and even drive people away from a forum, so that the concentration of posters who are left, are more likely to hold a view matching that band of posters.


The way things should be, is that these minority views - so long as they are something the site doesn't want explicitly gone - should be protected against browbeating that is brought on by excessive amounts of uncivil/heavily-condescending responses (and this would help prevent 'respond in kind' activity from minority posters, as they can have a bit more faith in mods upholding standards of discussion, instead of targeting the minority view).

What tends to happen in some cases, is the minority opinion posters themselves are targeted as troublemakers, for bringing up a topic that is known to be contentious - which (bringing up contentious topics) there's nothing wrong with, it's not the minority posters fault, that other posters react so strongly to legitimate subjects.

That also gives posters who want to shut-down discussion of a topic a really easy way to do it: Be as uncivil/condescending as possible, to bring down the tone of debate, while toeing the line as far as forum rules go, so that the topic they want to censor becomes so contentious, that it attracts mod action against those who bring it up.


If the site doesn't protect minority views (and just to pre-empt this: we're not talking about bigoted minority views, minority views include legitimate ones) - then discussion on the site suffers, as a lot of very important topics of discussion can be excluded.

Dav

OK, enough.

Boards Ltd has no say whatsoever in "editorial" beyond "don't talk about illegal things and be civil." Niamh and I have a vote on whether or not someone gets made a mod, but we have only one vote of many Admins. I won't speak for everyone else, but my criteria are "what did the CMod think of this person when kicking them up the line, what's their track record on the site and do I know them" - if it's a name I know, that's usually not a good sign because if someone's name comes to my attention it's rarely for good reasons. And once again for those of you who refuse to listen when I say this: There is no more group operation under the Distilled Media brand - there is just us. Just Boards.ie Ltd. I don't know why people don't seem to get this.

If people are going to insist that complex socio-political issues are something you can boil down to stupid terms like "liberal" and "conservative" then more fool them.

If those who see tolerance as being an attack on their beliefs (such as those who would object to same sex marriage or basic respect of someone who identifies as gender fluid or the notion that people fleeing a war zone need help) can't argue their points in a civil manner, then they will get sanctioned on this site as per the site's long standing rules. We didn't suddenly start banning Right Wing opinion, Right Wing opinion has become dangerously extremist because the rest of the world has become a more tolerant place.

And for the record, I am most assuredly not a "Liberal."