Politics (International) Mod bias thread

RDM_83 again

Mod Note:

Moved from the discussion on the rules thread because it is more suitable to feedback. RDM, Dan Bambi and TT, you are now free to discuss biased moderation and will get a wider and more influential audicence. If the CMods or Admins do find bias then they can take action.

Please read the feeback charter before posting. Js




Biases in moderation in relation to migration/refugee crisis. Several of the Mods of this forum are active on the migration crisis thread, with what I will clunkyly term the "pro refugee/migration".

This was just posted.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If this is all you have to add to this thread then please do not post in it. Other posters have presented sources for their claims and you have not.

In response to this post

gallag wrote: »

You choose to believe that despite their higher unemployment and working mostly unskilled jobs that they can be net contributors to the economy and don't displace natives from work or cause wage deflation ! All because party's with vested intrests wrote it is so. Yay slight bump in GDP!!!

A quick peruse of this thread shows many short to the point rebuttals being tolerated, info dumps that don't break down whats actually said in links, repeated questions not being answered, meaningful links not being supplied for opinion/common sense posts.

In short it appears that there is a double standard in terms of the moderation of comments depending on the posters view point on the issue, I would hazard that this is because there is a desire to keep view points effectively quarantined in the the Politics Cafe thread.

ancapailldorcha

At the time of writing, there are 1,129 posts in that thread. 20 of them are mine and a few of those are mod warnings. My interest in that thread is passive to say the least. In addition, several of the prominent contributors to that thread are right wing posters.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

A quick peruse of this thread shows many short to the point rebuttals being tolerated, info dumps that don't break down whats actually said in links, repeated questions not being answered, meaningful links not being supplied for opinion/common sense posts.

In short it appears that there is a double standard in terms of the moderation of comments depending on the posters view point on the issue, I would hazard that this is because there is a desire to keep view points effectively quarantined in the the Politics Cafe thread.

Except that the comment in question isn't a rebuttal. It is simply sarcasm and adds nothing to the discussion.

Gentleman Off The Pitch

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

At the time of writing, there are 1,129 posts in that thread. 20 of them are mine and a few of those are mod warnings. My interest in that thread is passive to say the least. In addition, several of the prominent contributors to that thread are right wing posters.



Except that the comment in question isn't a rebuttal. It is simply sarcasm and adds nothing to the discussion.

How is the following post from the same thread (which is a typical one liner from the poster in question), thanked by you and written in response to a 900+ word post which attempted to directly answer a question by another poster, any different to gallag's post?

Nodin wrote: »

Pseudo scientific nonsense that confuses and conflates immigration with colonisation, using terminology to cloak its base nature.

ancapailldorcha

Gentleman Off The Pitch wrote: »

How is the following post from the same thread (which is a typical one liner from the poster in question), thanked by you and written in response to a 900+ word post which attempted to directly answer a question by another poster, any different to gallag's post?

The comment you've highlighted is a brief analysis of the source. Gallag's post was just a sarcastic quip.

RDM_83 again

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

At the time of writing, there are 1,129 posts in that thread. 20 of them are mine and a few of those are mod warnings. My interest in that thread is passive to say the least. In addition, several of the prominent contributors to that thread are right wing posters.



Except that the comment in question isn't a rebuttal. It is simply sarcasm and adds nothing to the discussion.

The response to this issue doesn't split on traditional left/right grounds, economic "liberal" right/ultra capitalists for example tend to be in favour of porous borders.

And do you seriously think that response noted by Gentleman Off the Pitch is a brief analysis of the source, the poster doesn't actually note any of the contents or support their argument.
Are you holding that if a poster that supports your world view info dumps its up to the responder to read each of the links and highlight the issues (as I did) or else the post isn't up to standard, but if its a view counter to yours seventeen words and no supporting argument is acceptable.
Pretty clear bias there.

ancapailldorcha

RDM_83 again wrote: »

And do you seriously think that response noted by Gentleman Off the Pitch is a brief analysis of the source, the poster doesn't actually note any of the contents or support their argument.

Well, opinion might be the more accurate term.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Are you holding that if a poster that supports your world view info dumps its up to the responder to read each of the links and highlight the issues (as I did) or else the post isn't up to standard, but if its a view counter to yours seventeen words and no supporting argument is acceptable.

The second post cited is an opinion. The first is merely a sarcastic quip of the sort that poster has been warned about before on multiple occasions.

So no, I do not hold that every link must be read word for word. However, when someone does not even attempt to engage with the argument presented and instead dismisses it with sarcasm or whatever then that constitutes soapboxing IMO.

RDM_83 again

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, opinion might be the more accurate term.



The second post cited is an opinion. The first is merely a sarcastic quip of the sort that poster has been warned about before on multiple occasions.

So no, I do not hold that every link must be read word for word. However, when someone does not even attempt to engage with the argument presented and instead dismisses it with sarcasm or whatever then that constitutes soapboxing IMO.

How is Gallags post not an opinion that

A) Migrants have higher unemployment, unskilled jobs, displace citizens from work and cause wage deflation , all of which as I pointed out can be argued from the links in the post he was replying too so it can be viewed that Gallags post is actually engaging with the argument

That a slight bump in GDP isn't the be all and end all

And how is the other post that says the content is

Pseudo scientific nonsense

and is

using terminology to cloak its base nature

without any support for that view baiting dismissive posting that doesn't engage in the argument.

Posters are clearly not being held to the same standards (so its not surprising that a poster on the wrong side of the argument will have more warnings )

ancapailldorcha

RDM_83 again wrote: »

How is Gallags post not an opinion that

A) Migrants have higher unemployment, unskilled jobs, displace citizens from work and cause wage deflation , all of which as I pointed out can be argued from the links in the post he was replying too so it can be viewed that Gallags post is actually engaging with the argument

That a slight bump in GDP isn't the be all and end all

And how is the other post that says the content is and is

without any support for that view baiting dismissive posting that doesn't engage in the argument.

Posters are clearly not being held to the same standards (so its not surprising that a poster on the wrong side of the argument will have more warnings )

That point could easily have been made without resorting to sarcasm and childish pithy remarks. This is something for which warnings have been issued before on multiple occasions.

Dyr

RDM_83 again wrote: »

ur world view info dumps its up to the responder to read each of the links and highlight the issues (as I did) or else the post isn't up to standard, but if its a view counter to yours seventeen words and no supporting argument is acceptable.
Pretty clear bias there.

I used to post a lot on american forums for martial arts etc and wherever they had an off topic/politics forum you say the same thing play out. You'd get a few mods who were of a libertarian/tea party bent and they would indulge any shenanigans from posters of a similar outlook. When the targets of this carry on eventually responded in kind they would be slapped down.

So you essentially wound up a situation where anyone who posted a dissenting view to that of the moderators clique would be mobbed. Eventually what you were left with was a bunch of tea party loons posting links highlighting what retards liberals are to a chorus of approval. Because that mindset doesn't want dissenting views, they just want a soap box for their own outlook.

The politics fora here have always had a particular slant but you've had the exact situation outlined above develop over the last few years. It's no use complaining to the mods about it, they're the ones who brought it about.

RDM_83 again

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That point could easily have been made without resorting to sarcasm and childish pithy remarks. This is something for which warnings have been issued before on multiple occasions.

calling something pseudo-scientific and cloaking its base nature without support for the argument isn't childish pithy remarks then

ancapailldorcha

RDM_83 again wrote: »

calling something pseudo-scientific and cloaking its base nature without support for the argument isn't childish pithy remarks then

It at references the material provided in the relevant post. Casually dismissing backed up arguments is not the same thing. I have explained this above.

RDM_83 again

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It at references the material provided in the relevant post. Casually dismissing backed up arguments is not the same thing. I have explained this above.

Nodins post is exactly casually dismissing, Gallags post (unless you know he hasn't read the links) references the material just as much (as I pointed out his statement is arguably correct according to the material in the links).
"The parties with vested interest line" is arguably less dismissive than cloaking its base nature



Perhaps this would be better if we got some feedback from a mod that hasn't been involved on the thread on the side that bias is allegedly occurring on (e.g Not K-9 or Lockstop)

ancapailldorcha

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Nodins post is exactly casually dismissing, Gallags post (unless you know he hasn't read the links) references the material just as much (as I pointed out his statement is arguably correct according to the material in the links).
"The parties with vested interest line" is arguably less dismissive than cloaking its base nature

I would disagree here but I'll leave it at that as per the latter half of your post.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Perhaps this would be better if we got some feedback from a mod that hasn't been involved on the thread on the side that bias is allegedly occurring on (e.g Not K-9 or Lockstop)

Fair enough. I'll leave it 'til morning. Thank you for using the word "allegedly" in any case.

RDM_83 again

Cheers in general I think politics for such a contentious forum is pretty decently moderated apart from a few issues (and even on most of those much better than certain times in the past) and the fact this thread exists is a positive.

johnnyskeleton

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Perhaps this would be better if we got some feedback from a mod that hasn't been involved on the thread on the side that bias is allegedly occurring on (e.g Not K-9 or Lockstop)

Here is another terse response that went unmoderated:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98264277&postcount=1117

So there isnt a heavy hand that clamps down on one side or the other. Gallas was warned on thread for sarcastically deriding linked sources without providing sources of his own. Something he seems to have form for. Even then, he could have come back and prepared a more logical argument backed by sources, but chose to argue moderation on thread.

Had I seen Nodins post at the time (new years day), I may have given an on thread warning. Looking at it in isolation it is a little bit dismissive. But looked at in the thread, JPN saw it, understood it and responded to it on thread. So it was a comment that clearly kept the topic going rather than bog it down, which is the type of contribution that keep a thread functional.

The real proof that there is no biased moderation against a side on that thread is that you have also commented on it but, unlike Gallag, did so civilly, constructively and with links to sources. He was warned, you were not. If there is any discernable difference it is not between pro or anti migrant stances, its between quality and disruptive posters.

There are many factors in all mod decisions, and this is not the thread to discuss individual mod actions. Such matters are better addressed in the feedback forum.

johnnyskeleton

Bambi wrote: »

The politics fora here have always had a particular slant but you've had the exact situation outlined above develop over the last few years. It's no use complaining to the mods about it, they're the ones who brought it about.

Everyone knows we are clearly biased, but no one can agree which side we are biased in favour of and which side we are biased against. This week we are biased against anti-migration posters. Next week we will be biased against pro-migration posters. And even though the moderators names change every couple of years, the bias has remained unbroken since this thread was started some 13 years ago.

K-9

I wouldn't be particularly on the pro or anti (silly terms) side, I'd question some of the more hyperbolic and xenophobic posts. I understand some people with very defined views might see that as me being "pro" when it is me just bring skeptical of the more OTT claims imo. I suppose I would be "pro" but would share some of the valid, reasoned and backed up concerns raised by the "anti" side.

As mods we are very aware that there needs to be different views on the thread, we don't want an echo chamber, we've examples on the site of when that happens, and it's no good for anyone.

Despite claims otherwise, debate is going on in the thread, and a decent quality one too, with people providing links, detailed rebuttals and counter links. That's what we want and kudos to the posters for doing that.

Thanks for the feedback, valid points raised I think. Don't think there has been many cards or bans handed out which considering the topic and the length of the thread is good. Racism of course will be clamped down on, I'm sure everybody agrees there is no need for that.

K-9

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Biases in moderation in relation to migration/refugee crisis. Several of the Mods of this forum are active on the migration crisis thread, with what I will clunkyly term the "pro refugee/migration".

This was just posted.



In response to this post



A quick peruse of this thread shows many short to the point rebuttals being tolerated, info dumps that don't break down whats actually said in links, repeated questions not being answered, meaningful links not being supplied for opinion/common sense posts.

In short it appears that there is a double standard in terms of the moderation of comments depending on the posters view point on the issue, I would hazard that this is because there is a desire to keep view points effectively quarantined in the the Politics Cafe thread.

Looking back on the last couple of pages, there was a strong warning given to a "pro" poster for poor standard posts, baiting, that type of thing.

As for somebody not answering repeated questions, I see that going on with both sides definitely. I'm not sure what we can do there. Somebody could have a poster on ignore, which is their right, and indeed recommended by mods in certain cases. In extreme cases it could be soap boxing all right, but that would need more than that. Completely ignoring or dismissing lightly other opinions, not debating or discussing, that would be a guideline there.

Info dumps, again context is key, if it's a large report, yep, the poster should provide a decent summary or show the valid points. Or if somebody just posts a link and not much else, not ideal.

We can't go overboard demanding links and back up for all posts though. I suppose if somebody has gone to a lot of time researching links and reports and backs up their posts with data, just dismissing it with opinion, with no back up, isn't ideal. Continuously doing it is going to attract attention.

Dan_Solo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Everyone knows we are clearly biased, but no one can agree which side we are biased in favour of and which side we are biased against. This week we are biased against anti-migration posters. Next week we will be biased against pro-migration posters. And even though the moderators names change every couple of years, the bias has remained unbroken since this thread was started some 13 years ago.

Has anybody claimed mods are "anti-migrant" though? Where are you getting that from?

K-9

We need:
Anti Immigration
Pro Immigration
Left Wing
Right Wing
Centrist
Pro Republican
Pro Loyalist
Pro American
Pro Russian
Pro Israeli
Pro Palestinian
Socialist
Capitalist
Pro Irish Water
Anti Irish Water
Pro Libertarian
Communist
mods

If you address one perceived bias you create another.

Dan_Solo

K-9 wrote: »

We need:
Anti Immigration
Pro Immigration

Can I ask again? Who is claiming mods are "Anti immigration"? Just randomly listing contradictory possible biases doesn't provide any evidence of anything really.
Or are you claiming that because up is the opposite of down, neither of these directions actually exist at all?

johnnyskeleton

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Has anybody claimed mods are "anti-migrant" though? Where are you getting that from?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Can I ask again? Who is claiming mods are "Anti immigration"? Just randomly listing contradictory possible biases doesn't provide any evidence of anything really.
Or are you claiming that because up is the opposite of down, neither of these directions actually exist at all?

We have been very indulgent of your historic claims of bias etc. The point we were making is that mods are always going to be accused of bias based on the simple formula "I believe X, (s)he believes Y, my post got carded, therefore bias and censorship". It just so happens that this week the unruly posters happen to be anti-migration so they claim bias based on that (rather than looking at their own behaviour). I think you well know exactly the point we are making.

<snip - mod instruction no longer applies as is in feedback>

RDM_83 again

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm going to ask you to step back from this topic now. As I have said both to you in the past and to RDM yesterday, this thread is for a discussion on the rules not a free for all for you to grind your axe.

I'm going to point out that its not axe grinding to be worried that out of the 4 mods that are active in a forum (scofflaw isn't active anymore AFAIK?).
3 out of those Mods are debating from one view point as a user on a thread they are moderating, only one hasn't expressed an opinion.

This isn't a forum like Atheists where a shared view point would be expected, and its not a subject that has overwhelming support (depends how question is phrased but seems to parse 50:50) among the wider population (both public and boards users).

If with a detached eye you looked at another forum where the vast majority of the moderator team is involved in a thread on a controversial topic on one side of the argument while also actively moderating it I think most people would agree that it is not best practice (actually is there even examples of this on Boards.ie in other places aside from things like Gay Marriage where the overwhelming demographic is in support anyway )

johnnyskeleton

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm going to point out that its not axe grinding to be worried that out of the 4 mods that are active in a forum (scofflaw isn't active anymore AFAIK?).

Sorry I didnt mean to convey that you had an axe to grind, just that Dan does and I had said yesterday that this isnt the place for discussion on individual mod decisions.

3 out of those Mods are debating from one view point as a user on a thread they are moderating, only one hasn't expressed an opinion.

Moderators are volunteers and are drawn from a forum which they post in. It would be very unfair if we couldnt post our views in a forum once we become moderators.

This isn't a forum like Atheists where a shared view point would be expected,

Please dont comment on the moderation in other forums, but you would be quite wrong to think that there is a shared viewpoint in the A&A or any other religious forum, and even moreso if you think the Mods of those forums enforce such a viewpoint.

and its not a subject that has overwhelming support (depends how question is phrased but seems to parse 50:50) among the wider population (both public and boards users).

Im dissappointed that you havent taken on board my points above. To be frank, Ive formed a view of your complaint here, based on what Ive seen in the other thread, and it is this:

You are a sensible poster who disagrees with open borders and increased migration. You have expressed your views articulately and they have been responded to. No mod has taken action against you nor is such likely if you keep posting as you have been in that thread. This disproves any notion that your views are being censored in any way. You understandably feel some affinity for people with the same viewpoint as you. But you fail to see that some of those people are not maintaing the same level of substantive debate as you are.

So you are not being censored, you are free and indeed encouraged to post in the manner you had been doing. But I am discouraging you from championing the cause of another poster whose contributions are often below the forum standards.

If with a detached eye you looked at another forum where the vast majority of the moderator team is involved in a thread on a controversial topic on one side of the argument while also actively moderating it I think most people would agree that it is not best practice (actually is there even examples of this on Boards.ie in other places aside from things like Gay Marriage where the overwhelming demographic is in support anyway )

Im afraid if you think that as a rule, mods should refrain from contributing to threads on controversial issues that they feel strongly about, that is never going to happen.

I think the nub of your issue is not so much that you think the mods are biased qua mods, but that you feel it may seem unfair or that our views may be given greater weight than non-mods'. But don't worry on that front - people hardly ever agree with me. It doesnt stop me from posting or arguing with other mods, Cmods or even Admins. If your view is genuinely one that half the population share, they will not be silenced just because some mods happen to disagree. I can ssure you of that.

Thelomen Toblackai

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The point we were making is that mods are always going to be accused of bias based on the simple formula "I believe X, (s)he believes Y, my post got carded, therefore bias and censorship". It just so happens that this week the unruly posters happen to be anti-migration so they claim bias based on that (rather than looking at their own behaviour)

As an innocent passer by who wasn't involved in that discussion and on the face of it doesn't agree with the anti-migration argument I think you're being a bit unfair to write this off with the emboldened bit.

I read back a good many pages and I seen multiple mods actively involved in the discussion with multiple warnings for low posting standards, being sarcastic, post constructively and stop point scoring. All of which may be fine in and of themselves. But an argument could be made there was point scoring, low standards, sarcasm, non constructive posts from both sides yet only the anti-migration posters were the ones warned.

I'm not saying it's the case that there was bias. But from the outside it does look a bit unbalanced (eg a one liner dismissal is "analysis" or "opinion" while others are warned to post constructively and not point score when they post similar). And it's easy to understand how it can be seen that with multiple mods on one side of a discussion and multiple warnings aimed at the opposing side that there's a greater demand placed on those posters than anyone else to not only make their argument without any fault but also do it while having to endure other low standard posting from the opposing side which are deemed fine because mods may agree with them. Which I imagine would be frustrating.

K-9

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The response to this issue doesn't split on traditional left/right grounds, economic "liberal" right/ultra capitalists for example tend to be in favour of porous borders.

And do you seriously think that response noted by Gentleman Off the Pitch is a brief analysis of the source, the poster doesn't actually note any of the contents or support their argument.
Are you holding that if a poster that supports your world view info dumps its up to the responder to read each of the links and highlight the issues (as I did) or else the post isn't up to standard, but if its a view counter to yours seventeen words and no supporting argument is acceptable.
Pretty clear bias there.

Focusing on one post from the more pro side is not going to give a balanced view on the moderation. There are other examples of more below standard posts that were not carded on that thread as well, one post is not a representative sample at all. I can think of a couple of posts that argued moderation that could easily have been carded but were not.

So really finding say, a couple of posts from the more pro side that you felt got dealt with softly isn't much use, if you are going to ignore similar posts from the other side that also got treated softly.

K-9

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm going to point out that its not axe grinding to be worried that out of the 4 mods that are active in a forum (scofflaw isn't active anymore AFAIK?).
3 out of those Mods are debating from one view point as a user on a thread they are moderating, only one hasn't expressed an opinion.

This isn't a forum like Atheists where a shared view point would be expected, and its not a subject that has overwhelming support (depends how question is phrased but seems to parse 50:50) among the wider population (both public and boards users).

If with a detached eye you looked at another forum where the vast majority of the moderator team is involved in a thread on a controversial topic on one side of the argument while also actively moderating it I think most people would agree that it is not best practice (actually is there even examples of this on Boards.ie in other places aside from things like Gay Marriage where the overwhelming demographic is in support anyway )

Just a general point, take something like Gay Marriage. The perception is that Boards mods would have a more pro viewpoint. Is it not more transparent that mods post their views and opinions in the thread rather than stay out and say nothing? Just a general point to think about. At least with Boards it isn't some faceless mod bot making a decision.

Appreciate the feedback and you make a valid point, so we aren't dismissing the concerns at all. I'll just point out that we are very conscious that mods are posting and have tried to cut posters (on both sides) some slack because of that.

I'll take a step back today and might review the thread from the last few weeks with your post and concerns in mind.

gallag

I am disappointed to have been banned from international politics, the point of my post was to show that providing sources is not the most important aspect of debate, I then listed all the recent debate where the people who had all the sources were completely wrong, knowing this why would I let the debate now be steered by the same people who still seem to believe having sources is the be all and end all. I don't believe there should always be an expectation to provide or debate sources as quite ofter they are wrong or from a biased source and can lead to the conversation just bogging down.

johnnyskeleton

gallag wrote: »

I am disappointed to have been banned from international politics, the point of my post was to show that providing sources is not the most important aspect of debate, I then listed all the recent debate where the people who had all the sources were completely wrong, knowing this why would I let the debate now be steered by the same people who still seem to believe having sources is the be all and end all. I don't believe there should always be an expectation to provide or debate sources as quite ofter they are wrong or from a biased source and can lead to the conversation just bogging down.

<snip - moved to feedback>

gallag

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod Note:

As previously advised, if you wish to dispute a ban you can PM me and if not resolved go to DRP.

Please don't soap box in this thread or you will be banned from the main forum too.

My apologies, I genuinely thought a thread titled "a discussion on the rules" would be an acceptable place to discuss the rule that had just seen me banned, to be honest I feel like it's pointless now anyway as I have made a few posts now being careful in my opinion not to attract mod action but seem to be failing miserably, to be honest I don't really understand the hostility and think I'll just leave it alone with here and the international politics forum to be safe, Regards.