Politics Cafe: Restrictive definition of 'on-topic', and associated mod warnings

hatrickpatrick

The last thread got closed because we were posting about mod warnings while the thread title referenced mod actions, which is fair enough. I'm going to copy my last two posts from that thread here as they refer to mod warnings and specifically the declaration of certain topics as "off topic" for the Cafe, which myself and many other users apparently feel are very much on topic. This part of the discussion went unaddressed in the closing post so I feel it's reasonable to continue it with this thread.

My final two posts (excepting replies) were as follows:

hatrickpatrick wrote:

to be specific, this is the mod warning I take issue with regarding the immigration thread on the Cafe:

mod warning wrote:

If you want to discuss the role of Islam as a faith in the Western World, go to World religions.

If you want to discuss how Islam is going to impose it's will and imprison all Western Women and force them to abide by Sharia law, go to conspiracy theories.

If you want to discuss overall immigration from outside the EU and the impact it is having, considering all of the nationalities, feel free to post here.

This is just moronic. The current migrant crisis involves predominantly Middle Eastern and African countries which are majority Islam and have elements of Islamic law in the law of the land, much as Ireland has elements of Catholic doctrine in the law of the land. To suggest that there's no place on a politics forum to discuss specifically this issue without diluting it is absolutely ridiculous. To suggest that the role of Islam in the Western world is not a political issue is ridiculous. To suggest that discussion of whether mass immigration from such countries could lead to social movements in favour of hardline doctrines such as sharia etc is not relevant to a politics forum and is a mere conspiracy theory, is as insulting to right wing posters as tropes such as "SF/IRA", "magic money tree" and "looney left" are to left wing posters like myself - these have been rightly banned on the Cafe, but now we have a mod essentially dismissing right wing beliefs as conspiracy nuts in a similar fashion.

I'm a far left poster, the fact that I'm posting here in defence of the right's allegations of ideological moderation and bias should speak for itself. Unless Boards wants to openly state that opinions further right than an arbritrary set point are unwelcome (while similarly far left views are clearly not), this needs to end. And if Boards does make such an official announcement, in my view, prepare to see a haemorrhage of users like never before.

This kicked off a year or two ago and after a thread very similar to this one, Boards actually did briefly get its act together in this regard - it seems that over time though, the results of those discussions have been forgotten about.

and

It's completely mad - trying to make ultraconservative Islam and its potential impact on the EU's political culture in the event of widespread immigration from countries such as Syria etc, an elephant in the room. Everybody knows that when the migrant crisis is discussed, or even multiculturalism in general, this is currently the main issue on peoples' minds. It's ridiculous to suggest that it's not relevant to politics, when it's the decisions of our political leaders and the impact of certain extreme, hardline Muslim ideologies on our political systems which is the main concern most of these right wing posters on the subject have. Declaring discussions of fundamentalist Islam off topic to such a discussion is like declaring discussion of how a storm might affect a football match off-topic to a thread about said match on the football forum because technically such discussion belongs in the weather forum - absurd and inexplicable, unless the reality is that Boards, or some of its moderators, are uncomfortable with anybody expressing the view that they do not support multiculturalism or that they do not believe that people with certain ideologies, which they believe are incompatible with the values of our society, should be allowed to immigrate en masse to the EU.

Once again: I literally have no problem with immigration or Islam (hate to trot this old line out, but some of my best friends are Muslims) so I can't be accused of having a dog in that fight - I just think it's ridiculous that such discussion is being suppressed when it's so obviously the biggest issue on everyone's minds when discussing recent immigration to the EU - the migrant crisis, the fact that many of the migrants are coming from countries which do not believe in the secular freedoms that we do, the fact that Isis has gloated about using the migrant crisis to smuggle their operatives into the EU and the fact that radical Islamist attacks have been on the rise in Europe over the last number of years.

To suggest that these subjects are off topic to a political discussion is utterly ridiculous. And with that thread now locked, there is nowhere on Boards where one can discuss these issues at all.

If this thread is to be closed as well, can we please address this issue first? Repeating myself but to be absolutely clear here, I do not agree with the right wing's view of this issue AT ALL. I am merely concerned that the Cafe will become an incredibly boring and quiet place if everybody other than those of us who agree with eachother is silenced there. I also find it impossible to conjure any justification for suggesting that the political and social issues arising from a large influx of people who adhere to a very different cultural system and set of cultural values (this just happens to be religious in this case but it doesn't necessarily have to be - Japan for instance has a vastly different culture to our own and this is not as far as I know born out of religious differences) could be "off topic" on a politics forum and better suited in forums which, ironically, would probably consider them off topic because they actually have too much of a political slant. For instance, I highly doubt that a religion or humanities forum would be remotely interested in hosting a discussion about the political and governmental issues around immigration from vastly different cultures, it is at its very heart a political issue.

I never like to kick off a thread like this with a blunt allegation, but in this case it would feel utterly bizarre not to - if there is a policy of not allowing right wing discussion of this issue on the grounds that our current cultural climate regards such views as unacceptable to express, then this should be clearly stated. It honestly feels - and I'm not trying to cast aspersions on anyone here but merely speaking what I know many posters are feeling - like the off topic thing is a red herring designed to mask what's actually going on - that, as I say, right wing views which are further right than an arbitrary line in the sand are now regarded as socially unacceptable and therefore are unwelcome on Boards, or at least on the Cafe specifically.

If this is the case, I would simply request that it be openly stated. The charter refers to the vilification of groups, but I would argue that it's perfectly possible to refrain from vilifying a group while still openly stating that you believe their cultural values and belief systems to be incompatible with our own, and worry about the effect of these values and belief systems becoming mainstream where currently they are not. That does not amount to vilification - if it does, then surely attacking mainstream right wing views or left wing views, as we do every day on the cafe (capitalism vs socialism to take an obvious example) also amounts to vilifying the people who subscribe to those ideologies and should therefore be equally unwelcome?

dudara

hatrickpatrick- thanks for posting this and giving us your thoughts. Right now, I think the topic of the Café is very emotive, both for mods and posters alike. I honestly feel that we need to step back for a while and give all this some time to percolate. Many mods and others are not very active (if at all) this weekend, for obvious reasons.

The comments from the earlier thread have been heard loud and clear and I'm genuinely not sure if further criticism at this point will achieve anything. The only way I can see this thread remaining open is if posters give us genuine suggestions or potential solutions . We've had enough of hearing what's wrong, we can all see that. It's clear that a lot of posters care, but I'm asking you now to help us in our discussions by putting constructive solutions on the table.

dudara

For instance, potential suggestions might include the following. I'm suppose I'm hoping that someone here might have a novel suggestion that we haven't thought of before.

1 - Closing the Café, but then what do we do with these types of discussion topics
2 - Making the Café access request only (like Soccer)
3 - Using a strike system (akin to Soccer) to help identify the trolls, bigots and others who have no welcome on Boards
And so so ...

hatrickpatrick

dudara wrote: »

hatrickpatrick- thanks for posting this and giving us your thoughts. Right now, I think the topic of the Café is very emotive, both for mods and posters alike. I honestly feel that we need to step back for a while and give all this some time to percolate. Many mods and others are not very active (if at all) this weekend, for obvious reasons.

The comments from the earlier thread have been heard loud and clear and I'm genuinely not sure if further criticism at this point will achieve anything. The only way I can see this thread remaining open is if posters give us genuine suggestions or potential solutions . We've had enough of hearing what's wrong, we can all see that. It's clear that a lot of posters care, but I'm asking you now to help us in our discussions by putting constructive solutions on the table.

Fair point - I would have thought it was implied, but I tend to be a little (just a little ) verbose in my posts

Specifically: The subject of religious and cultural values held by potential immigrants to the EU, particularly where a large influx of the same demographic is concerned as with the current migrant crisis, is in my view 100% on-topic to the Cafe and should not be regarded, as in the mod warning I quoted in my opening post, as belonging on some other forum. If necessary, the charter should be updated to enshrine this and ensure that no further declarations of "off topic" will be made for such discussions.

Secondarily, as I said in my opening post, it should also be either openly stated that far right views are unwelcome, or a clear distinction should be made between actively vilifying people with different belief systems, and simply stating that one is uncomfortable with seeing a large enough influx of those demographics that might actually have the effect of changing the current cultural climate of the EU countries involved. This, again, should probably be inserted into the charter either way.

That's my view anyway.

EDIT: Just saw your second post in this thread - to be honest, from where I'm sitting this situation is more of a communications breakdown than anything else which is why I'm suggesting announcements or amendments to the charter as opposed to new actions that could be taken - both mods and users are bound by the forum charter, so amending it would have the double effect of clearly disallowing users from posting certain things that are unwelcome but currently not explicitly stated as such, while conversely clearly stating for the benefit of the mods that certain topics are officially regarded as on-topic and therefore should not be closed with a "take this to X other forum" message.

Potkettle

A quick glance shows unease at modding.

What might alleviate work load might be if a distributed modding or thread modding system was tried. I'm just thinking out loud that if in addition to a thanks button there was a distributed modding button that would just register unease with a post that had crossed a line it might reduce workload and give posters a sense of policing standards themselves.

If a threshold of DM was hit then a mod could actually intervene. It's similar to report post but it brings in a step before it gets to mod and it shows the poster others have concerns. That might stop trouble flaring, reduce workload for mods, and narrow the grounds for mod action to actual DM totals so that posters would not feel it was personal or perspective based.

Just a thought that in these outsourced, robotic and horizontally organized times might help.

dudara

Potkettle - if you don't mind, I'm going to merge this into the other open thread, where I've asked for suggestions. It's a creative suggestion and thanks for putting it out there

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

dudara wrote: »

For instance, potential suggestions might include the following. I'm suppose I'm hoping that someone here might have a novel suggestion that we haven't thought of before.

1 - Closing the Café, but then what do we do with these types of discussion topics
2 - Making the Café access request only (like Soccer)
3 - Using a strike system (akin to Soccer) to help identify the trolls, bigots and others who have no welcome on Boards
And so so ...

I am not a big politics cafe poster but I think some deeper thinking should be made about why it exists and the current state of Boards.ie before its culled.

The Politics Cafe is actually fairly popular, far more so than any other recent forum and probably more so than politics, on most sites the creation of a new popular area would be cause for celebration but its not.

For the record I dont think Boards.ie should tolerate a Far Right friendly message board however I think a little perspective is need.

1- Politics Cafe is about having a place for current affairs to go outside of AH

2- Politics with hard moderation already exists people dont want that

3-the wider user base of boards.ie has much more varied political views than the mod team

4- Whats wrong with a place where people air views that would be found in the Sun, Mail or Express, take a step back outside the bubble and think if what a poster says can be published in the most popular newspapers in the UK its not hate speech.
Seriously this is important, hate speech is pretty blatantly hate speech, what concerns boards mods 90% of the time isn't hate speech its wrong opinions.

5- Whats the point of nuking these threads and the Politics Cafe, over the years I've seen a fair few of the most prominent users to push for more control leave on their own accord, the posters (and mods) driving calls for increased clamping down on this type of debate are never going to be happy anyway, sure nuke the re-reg trolls but your cutting yourself off from a lot of your userbase.
Simply put, somebody doesnt like the cafe they can stay out, why make it invite only? people dont have to click on it, they can go to the main politics page if they like or humanities

6- Take seriously concerns about mods, I have only ever seen one or two mods get their wings clipped due to feedback but that doesn't mean bias doesn't exist. For the record if you poll the mod team and every member would come on one side of an issue that has split (or more anti) support you have an issue that shouldn't be waved away

Also please leave up feedback threads till they are done, this is a rushed messy response because i feel this thread might get nuked again.

RDM_83 again

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wouldn't it just hide the problem because the mods views would still be held but it would just be less visible?

ancapailldorcha

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We're volunteers so if you take away our right to contribute to a forum then there's no incentive for us to spend our free time modding it.

Tom Mann Centuria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

We're volunteers so if you take away our right to contribute to a forum then there's no incentive for us to spend our free time modding it.

Yeah, agree completely, god knows why anyone would mod a forum they have no interest in, so who would mod there/anywhere if that were the case. Mods have to be able to post where they mod surely?

_Kaiser_

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

We're volunteers so if you take away our right to contribute to a forum then there's no incentive for us to spend our free time modding it.

Unfortunately though part of the issue is that personal interest appears to be adversely influencing mod decisions in a few cases so I can see the point being made.

Ultimately I think the problems in the Cafe as a whole boil down to a handful of posters (on all sides of the Immigration/Party lines) and an even smaller number of the mods who are letting their own views cloud their objectivity

I don't think closing down or restricting the Cafe is a solution.. all that'll happen is more political threads in AH (which ye say you don't want) or "grown-up" Politics shutting them down outright (although the whole Politics vs Cafe "notions" have never sat well with me to be honest - "here's a forum for you kids to play in while the adults discuss the real issues in the other room")

I think the Admin/Mod team and Boards management itself need to decide what position this site is taking on "controversial" issues.. are they to be discussed, or are they to be moderated so heavily that the valid topics therein become lost among the warnings, cards and "reviews"?

If you do want to permit discussions then you just need to clamp down on the trolling and baiting that goes on all over that forum (again by all sides) and ensure that your Mods are if not exactly neutral, then counterbalanced by a range of views being represented on the team with perhaps a CMod or Admin doing the occasional spot-check on decisions or the more active/"controversial threads (maybe this already happens?)

But restricting or limiting the ability to talk about real and valid topics is not the way. If it means ye need a team of 15 mods then get 15 mods (and preferably not those who already have 5/6 forums to their name.. not that I'm sure they aren't doing a good job, but a genuinely fresh perspective on the role from outside the usual gene pool might also be beneficial?)

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

dudara

Please - let's stick to suggestions or solutions only. I really don't want this thread to start falling into the old patterns. We really need to work together here.

Will I Am Not

Shut it down and leave it to After Hours and it's lighter moderation.

It's so off putting to open a thread on PC to see a wall of red and yellow cards and user banned under every other post.

Potkettle

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

We're volunteers so if you take away our right to contribute to a forum then there's no incentive for us to spend our free time modding it.

Then the matters you mod need to be narrowed and reduced. Modding can't be about excluding a POV that isn't liked or approved. What would incentivize mods to keep modding?

ancapailldorcha

Potkettle wrote: »

Then the matters you mod need to be narrowed and reduced. Modding can't be about excluding a POV that isn't liked or approved. What would incentivize mods to keep modding?

A few points:

1. I don't exclude POV's I don't like,
2. I do not mod the Cafe. I was trying to provide some insight as I mod the other Politics forum,

I'm not going to respond further as I think this might violate dudara's on thread warning.

Ludo

dudara wrote: »

For instance, potential suggestions might include the following. I'm suppose I'm hoping that someone here might have a novel suggestion that we haven't thought of before.

1 - Closing the Café, but then what do we do with these types of discussion topics
2 - Making the Café access request only (like Soccer)
3 - Using a strike system (akin to Soccer) to help identify the trolls, bigots and others who have no welcome on Boards
And so so ...

If they are your suggestions from the other thread then I don't hold out much hope for change. The issue raised is related to mods curtailing discussion of certain topics and points of view. I fail to see how closing it, making it request access only or bringing in a three strike rule addresses that in ANY way. I'm afraid that is immediately blaming the users again and not even considering that there may be an issue with the moderation.

Some other suggestions.
Don't delete posts unless there is a VERY good reason...and even then maybe redact it rather than deleting so as not to influence the discussion.
Be more open minded and tolerant. Let discussion flow while maintaining the dont be a dick rule and attack the post not the poster.

hatrickpatrick

RDM_83 again wrote: »

For the record I dont think Boards.ie should tolerate a Far Right friendly message board however I think a little perspective is need.

Why not, if that's how the majority of the userbase feels about politics? There was a time, believe it or not, when it was the left on Boards who were often targeted by former, now retired mods on the politics forum - I and other current posters led the successful campaign against that. Shouldn't a discussion forum about politics 'tolerate' whatever views its users hold, provided they don't incite violence, hatred, etc?

As a lefty, I don't see the point in debating when the other side is either constantly getting shut down, or is afraid to post for fear of repercussions.

Pelvis Parsley

There used to be an unwritten agreement that mods would attempt to avoid moderating on a thread they were stuck in.

That's forgotten these days on PC, where you have two or so mods ****eing all over threads, and imposing their will.

I won't even get into the whole notion of unconscious bias, because I for one am very conscious of it, and I know that it is a source of endless frustration that it is unwittingly or wilfully ignored by the admins, despite being hammered home by users, again and again.

dudara

Thanks to all who have contributed a potential solution or constructive suggestion. Please keep them coming. I ask that this thread remain civil with healthy debate.

hatrickpatrick

I just want to point one thing out here - I like the mods of the Cafe and have known a lot of them since before they even became mods on the forum. As we're always saying about Garda controversies, this isn't a matter of individuals but a cultural problem - Boards as a website, as opposed to any specific individual moderator, seems to be hostile to right wing views in a way that it is not hostile to left wing ones. And as I've said, I do remember a time, in the early years of the celtic tiger's meltdown, that this pendulum was actually in the opposing side - I remember for instance a time when anti-EU sentiments were frequently modded as off-topic, and right wing posters got far more leeway when using insulting and degrading language to attack the poster rather than the post. So I'd suggest that the idea of ideological (as opposed to strictly rule-enforcing) moderation has always been an issue on Boards - and is perhaps only causing significant controversy now because the politically-minded world has become such a bitterly divided place over the last couple of years.

So in essence, I'm not casting aspersions on any individual moderator or group of moderators - it's the fact that there seem, currently, to be unwritten and undisclosed rules which limit right wing views, which are not explicitly stated in the charter or the site-wide terms of use. Hell, if the charter of the Cafe explicitly stated "posts which are culturally nationalistic (IE, do not support multiculturalism and oppose immigration from countries with different cultural belief systems) are not welcome on the Politics Cafe" I would obviously disagree with such a rule, but I don't think any of us could claim that the moderation itself was unfair. The issue seems to be that a set of "unofficial" criteria for acceptable ideologies has been implemented, with those on the far right finding themselves being shut down repeatedly without it ever being clearly and openly stated that their views are simply not welcome.

So again I'll always come back to the communication / language thing - we need this issue to be clearly addressed and clarified, and either (a) the mods lay off closing threads and stifling discussion when it veers into right wing territory, or (b) a very clear announcement be made that certain right wing ideologies are regarded as socially unacceptable and therefore are not allowed to be expressed on Boards.ie.

Obviously I would very, very strongly advocate for the former but the current situation of elephants in the room is what's pissing everyone off. It feels like the day before an election, when RTE is not allowed to host any discussions of the election at all even though it's the main issue on everyone's minds. I don't think this can continue on Boards without the politics forums becoming debating deserts, with only left of centre echo chamber posts flourishing and right wing posters either too weary to try and navigate the unwritten rules about what is and isn't allowed, or pissed off enough that they have packed up and left the site altogether.

dudara wrote: »

Thanks to all who have contributed a potential solution or constructive suggestion. Please keep them coming. I ask that this thread remain civil with healthy debate.

I'm afraid Hatrickpatrick's fourth law of Boards Relativity states that as soon as a request for civility is made, users begin to call eachother rather unprintable names and fling digital poo at eachother. :pac:

(For clarity, rule 3 states that a poorly written, grammatical train wreck of a thread is almost inevitable every Sunday morning about how all Irish women are horrible people because the OP was rejected the night before and still hasn't sobered up yet, rule 2 states that the relevance of posts to the OP is inversely proportional to the current page number, and rule 1 of course states that the winning team shall be the first team that wins)

RDM_83 again

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why not, if that's how the majority of the userbase feels about politics? There was a time, believe it or not, when it was the left on Boards who were often targeted by former, now retired mods on the politics forum - I and other current posters led the successful campaign against that. Shouldn't a discussion forum about politics 'tolerate' whatever views its users hold, provided they don't incite violence, hatred, etc?

As a lefty, I don't see the point in debating when the other side is either constantly getting shut down, or is afraid to post for fear of repercussions.

I complain about moderation being too Politically Correct a lot but in reality there does need to be some level of control.

I get the notion that free speech is an important principle and think that debate and reaching out to those with toxic political views is better than pushing them down.

However we need to be realistic, a place like Voat for example isn't a good place for discussion, nearly all non extreme users just move away, similarly a lot of the online Far Right community is disproportionately active for their numbers and do attempt "outreach" and to shift the discourse.

Possibly we are arguing two sides of the same coin though,

provided they don't incite violence, hatred, etc?

, something like that would exclude much of the Neo Nazi groups etc

I know it seems like a minor distinction but I think there is a fairly major difference between somebody like Le Pen, De Wilders or the AFD and groups like Golden Dawn.

Basically though I do complain about the bias etc I am talking about the way the views of the 10-60% are treated differently (e.g take something like migration Boards policy kicks likely kicks against the majorities views), giving a completely free platform to race supremacists and conspiracy trolls while philosophically a good idea won't be good for the forums in practice and would only benefit a tiny minority of posters.

gandalf

Just a point, Politics is "quiet" because Politics Cafe gutted it's traffic. I'd fully support shutting the Politics Cafe forum down, it's a complete and utter mess of a forum with very mixed moderation. So much that I haven't bothered to post in either it or Politics for months.

hatrickpatrick

RDM_83 again wrote: »

However we need to be realistic, a place like Voat for example isn't a good place for discussion, nearly all non extreme users just move away, similarly a lot of the online Far Right community is disproportionately active for their numbers and do attempt "outreach" and to shift the discourse.

But that's our own fault on the left - Voat exists because far right discussion was driven off Reddit to begin with, and Voat itself is now an echo chamber not because they ban left wing posters, but because a lot of left wing posters apparently can't hack not being in the majority, or having their fundamental beliefs questioned - and therefore choose not to post on communities which don't protect them from such. Coming from where I'm coming from - an internet which in the early 2000s was about as hostile to the left as it is now to the right (Boards included, see my earlier posts in this thread) - it's absurd that the left now treats the right as it once complained rightly of being treated itself. Voat surged in popularity after Reddit took an ideological stance against far right groups, and I can tell you from my own experience that ironically, they do not ban left wing users from their website in the manner in which they were themselves banned from Reddit for being too right wing - it's just that the left chooses to remain in its own "safe space" over on Reddit and rarely crosses over to engage.

There's no question that the entire internet is becoming divided and polarised, with echo chambers on both sides, but it's the left which started that trend by ostracising the right, not the other way around. Boards is following the same path, or so it seems to me, and I'm simply pointing out that the site will become very boring if that continues, since there'll be nobody to argue with anymore. And if there's one thing an Irishman cannot countenance, it's being deprived of a good old fashioned rowdy argument.

hatrickpatrick

RDM_83 again wrote: »

something like that would exclude much of the Neo Nazi groups etc

But it wouldn't exclude those who believe that mass immigration of religiously motivated extreme social conservatives into a liberal democracy is perhaps a bad idea. That is not hate speech, yet that is the kind of speech which is being singled out and targeted by the mod warnings which I mentioned in my OP. It's most certainly right wing, but it's not incitement to hatred or violence.

_Kaiser_

gandalf wrote: »

Just a point, Politics is "quiet" because Politics Cafe gutted it's traffic. I'd fully support shutting the Politics Cafe forum down, it's a complete and utter mess of a forum with very mixed moderation. So much that I haven't bothered to post in either it or Politics for months.

The Cafe serves a purpose in that it's clear from its popularity and the number of politically-themed threads created there and elsewhere (eg: AH) on a weekly basis that it's a topic/subject more people have become interested in in the last few years - possibly the legacy of the crash, the reasons behind it, and the actions since, that have made more people take an interest in the actions of our leaders and others. Personally I'd consider this a very "good thing".

If "the other" Politics is quiet then perhaps that more a sign that the rules and restrictions there (the forum equivalent of a private members club IMO) don't fit the new reality of political discourse on the site/in the country, rather than it again being the fault of the Cafe. I keep seeing some posters lamenting the decline of the former, but no-one is stopping you/them from posting to change that either.

The issue with the Cafe is some suspect moderation, and some muppetry from a handful of posters, not the existence of the Cafe itself. Shutting it down certainly won't drive increased traffic to Politics if that's what you're hoping... at least not the traffic you'd "want" based on the above.

gandalf

No I think the problem is that the powers that be don't have a bloody clue what they want the forum to be hence the complaints about varying moderation quality from all angles because it's all over the place. As for your snide remarks about the "old boys club" of the original forum at least those that posted in it knew what they could and couldn't post. I don't want anything any longer I post on only a couple of forums on boards, most of this place is a busted flush these days. Part of the reason for that is attitudes like your tbh.

Cookie_Monster

gandalf wrote: »

Just a point, Politics is "quiet" because Politics Cafe gutted it's traffic. I'd fully support shutting the Politics Cafe forum down, it's a complete and utter mess of a forum with very mixed moderation. So much that I haven't bothered to post in either it or Politics for months.

+1
What the actual issue with light political discussion on AH anyway, why can't it stay there? Have a serious Politics forum with more rigid rules (as is) and do away with the cafe as some half baked middle man.

There is no consistency with either moving all political threads from AH or removing other topics from there to more suitable fora anyway.

If we are going the route of "serious" discussion then remove the ability to thank a post here. Not a solution but a start.

_Kaiser_

gandalf wrote: »

No I think the problem is that the powers that be don't have a bloody clue what they want the forum to be hence the complaints about varying moderation quality from all angles because it's all over the place. As for your snide remarks about the "old boys club" of the original forum at least those that posted in it knew what they could and couldn't post. I don't want anything any longer I post on only a couple of forums on boards, most of this place is a busted flush these days. Part of the reason for that is attitudes like your tbh.

I fail to see why you're taking such offence.. The Cafe was born out of a desire/need to create a space for a more relaxed discussion of political topics without the more restrictive rules of the main forum was it not?

The fact this has proven to be overwhelmingly successful (despite the issues - which I agree with you are partly the result of a confused "mission statement"), and the subsequent decline of the original forum is not a cause to shut the Cafe down in my opinion.

If there is a desire for a more thoughtful/mature/whatever-term-you-prefer discussion of the issues than the Cafe offers, then why isn't it being used? Politics is still there and open to all after all.

In short, whatever its origins, you cannot relate the current status of one to the other IMO.

gandalf

But the whole execution is half hearted. Some political threads are left in AH and some aren't. There is absolutely no consistency at all to it. What constitutes a thread staying in AH and one being moved to the PC?

I also disagree with the PC forum being a success, it is a complete and utter mess. It is confusing the situation and of course it is taking traffic from the actual politics forum given its getting directly linked traffic from AH :rolleyes:. Boards is effectively promoting PC at the expense of the Politics forum.

_Kaiser_

gandalf wrote: »

But the whole execution is half hearted. Some political threads are left in AH and some aren't. There is absolutely no consistency at all to it. What constitutes a thread staying in AH and one being moved to the PC?

I also disagree with the PC forum being a success, it is a complete and utter mess. It is confusing the situation and of course it is taking traffic from the actual politics forum given its getting directly linked traffic from AH :rolleyes:. Boards is effectively promoting PC at the expense of the Politics forum.

So your issue is indeed that the threads/discourse you deem less "worthy" are taking away attention from the original politics forum... but by your own logic, it wouldn't fit there anyway... which is why there IS a Cafe

AH I agree (as someone gave a great example of previously) is full of threads that arguably could be moved to other areas of the site - but the reality is that AH is the most popular forum here so I guess the mods are trying to balance that against when to move a thread somewhere else.. not an easy task, especially as many threads/issues span several areas - housing policy for example is part Accommodation and Property, part Politics, even part Commuting and Transport.

I think the Cafe is better suited as an offshoot of AH rather than politics and that's how it should be used. Again, Politics is still there and if there is the demand for that more "serious" nature of posting then I'm sure that threads popping up on the front page of the site would draw traffic.. but if that's not happening then maybe the issue is more with Politics than AH/the Cafe to be honest...

I think there's a place for all 3 myself and the Cafe is such a headache not only because of the aforementioned moderation/muppetry but because by its very nature it's a divisive topic and in a more free-flowing AH-style environment, problems will inevitably occur.

But the solution isn't just to shut up shop but rather to agree and define clearly the rules (again within the spirit of the intent of the forum) and the penalties for breaking them, and then ensure you have enough mods (from all political backgrounds) to enforce them and indeed keep each other "honest" (for want of a better term).

Do that and I think many of today's issues would disappear.

Alf Stewart.

The only way I would support any notion of permanently closing the cafe, would be if political threads were allowed to remain in AH, because if you're to start shunting every thread that touches , even slightly on a political basis, over to the main politics thread, given that a card can be dished out there for the most trivial or things, expect an exodus from the site.

As Kaiser said, politics has caught the masses attention over the last ten years or so, with people being made redundant, the slow down, and the bailouts of the banks due to the crash, hence the popularity of the cafe.

I do think some rule needs to be examined (yet again) there should have been some clear set out and stuck to lines of not modding threads your actively posting in.

For example, go toe to toe with someone in a thread (in my case, questioning how €3600 represented value for money for a return flight to Washington) who was trying to normalize the cost, including throwing up first class flights, despite (afaik) first class not being available on that particular route, and others making comparisons to other TDs, something they gave me an in thread warning the day before not to do.

The next day, they're deleting my posts, claiming their libellous/or defaming (despite being reported on widely) then Infracting and banning me.

I'm not arguing the infraction and ban may i add, i broke a rule, i got penalised.

Im calling out the unfair advantage a mod has when indulging in debate.

Making up rules as you go along, only to go into another thread less than 24 hrs later, and do what you told others not to do, then delete posts discussing affairs that have widely been reported on, and been the subject of tribunals looks sus imo.

Denis O'Brien made payments to Lowry, and was given invaluable information that helped him secure a large state contract, ie a mobile license. = post deleted because possible libellous and defamatory. (Are we now rewriting the Moriarty tribunal?)

Gerry Adams is a murderer (in the same thread) = posts not deleted, user not actioned.

There's little to no consistency.

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

KERSPLAT!

Mods are usually picked because they are prolific posters in a forum, removing their ability to post leaves no incentive to mod and is frankly an absurd suggestion.

In AH mods do their best to not mod a thread they are actively posting in. While it is not set in stone and there are exceptions, this should generally be followed by mods of all forums, in my opinion, and seems to be the crux of a few issues in PC from what I'm reading.

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

KERSPLAT!

Chorus_suck wrote: »

Ok then, what do you suggest?

Or are you happy with PC as it is?

I don't post in PC to be honest but my second paragraph would be my initial suggestion. A guide, not a rule, that mods don't moderate threads they are actively posting in.

There seems to be a few other issues but that would be a start and not difficult to implement

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

Beasty

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Modding a quiet forum with hardly anything to moderate is quite easy for non-posters - that's the case for a couple of the forums I have taken responsibility for.

However a fast moving forum with extensive debate is very different. So, for example, I may well have CMod responsibility for the Soccer forum. However I don't post there much, but am very reliant on discussions amongst the mods that are active there to inform me what is going on if and when needed

Likewise with something like politics you need to understand context both of posters and within a thread itself. It may well be that you get something from seeing the reported posts, but equally you have a much better understanding if you are showing a genuine interest in the underlying topic and not just dropping by in reaction to something that's been reported. Indeed you risk losing any consistency and fairness if you are not seeing how an issue has evolved into something that may need further action.

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

Skylinehead

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In a place like AH or the Cafe? Absolutely. They're massive time sinks that require a fair bit of work, they're nothing like modding a small forum that gets maybe 2 or 3 reported posts a week. I can't think of anybody sane that would want to mod AH but had no interest in contributing to it.

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

KERSPLAT!

Chorus_suck wrote: »

Too little too late imho. It's absurd to think that would work ... its effectively maintaining the status quo and addressing exactly none of the issues outlined upthread.

It's also absurd, and surprising tbh, to suggest that mods won't mod a forum if they are not allowed to post there. This happens a lot on boards and you, as a cat mod, should know that. Are you really suggesting mods won't mod a forum if they are not allowed to post there????

My suggestion is worth trying on a trial basis. If it doesn't work so be it. Yours, tbh, sounds like an effort to maintain the status quo and ignore all the concerns and problems stated.

I assume that's a rhetorical question because that's exactly what I said. I modded the Call of Duty forum because I posted there, I gave that up when I stopped posting there. You may have mods not posting in a forum they mod but it is highly likely they did at one point in time.

It was raised multiple times between this thread and the last, concerns regarding mods posting and modding at the same time. This is bad practice in my opinion hence the suggestion that this changes in PC, this addresses one of the concerns and as I said, is something that can be implemented almost immediately.

I can't ever see a mod being banned from posting in a forum they mod.

Mr E

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Absolutely 100% not going to happen. Stop bringing it up, please.

KERSPLAT!

Chorus_suck wrote: »

Too little too late imho. It's absurd to think that would work ... its effectively maintaining the status quo and addressing exactly none of the issues outlined upthread.

It's also absurd, and surprising tbh, to suggest that mods won't mod a forum if they are not allowed to post there. This happens a lot on boards and you, as a cat mod, should know that. Are you really suggesting mods won't mod a forum if they are not allowed to post there????

My suggestion is worth trying on a trial basis. If it doesn't work so be it. Yours, tbh, sounds like an effort to maintain the status quo and ignore all the concerns and problems stated.

I assume that's a rhetorical question because that's exactly what I said. I modded the Call of Duty forum because I posted there, I gave that up when I stopped posting there. You may have mods not posting in a forum they mod but it is highly likely they did at one point in time.

It was raised multiple times between this thread and the last, concerns regarding mods posting and modding at the same time. This is bad practice in my opinion hence the suggestion that this changes in PC, this addresses one of the concerns and as I said, is something that can be implemented almost immediately.

I can't ever see a mod being banned from posting in a forum they mod.

Beasty

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You do understand we are volunteers? We are here to get involved in healthy debate, perhaps learn a few things and contribute to the wider community and its sub-communities.

osarusan

Hi, you're a valuable and reasonable poster in the XYZ forum, and you spend a good bit of time there, so we'd like to make you a mod of the forum. It's voluntary, and all done in your own time. You get to deal with all the shyte that comes with moderation, and...here's the kicker, this should seal the deal...you can't post there any more.

I mean, what's not to like!

Snake Plisken

So as I asked on the other thread, if a mod has strong views on a particular subject being discussed then there is a conflict of interest for that mod they should excuse themselves and inform the Cmod about the reasons why they cannot mod and then they can participate in the thread and mod another thread they have a nuetral view on for example a thread on FG or Enda.
But if a mod does not come clean and declare they have strong opinions on one side of the arguement and based on the amount of cards and bans that are handed out and the amount of posters complaining then the Cmods should investigate and remove the mods from moderating that thread.
That would be my common sense approach to modding the Political Cafe.

dudara

@Chorus_suck - a request please to not raise this again in this thread. You have already done so, and your feedback has been received loud and clear. The same request goes to all posters, please do not repeatedly post the same suggestion. We're trying to cast the net as wide as possible here.

A thank you once again for all your comments. This is an extremely constructive Feedback thread to date.

dudara

KERSPLAT!

Snake Plisken wrote: »

So as I asked on the other thread, if a mod has strong views on a particular subject being discussed then there is a conflict of interest for that mod they should excuse themselves and inform the Cmod about the reasons why they cannot mod and then they can participate in the thread and mod another thread they have a nuetral view on for example a thread on FG or Enda.
But if a mod does not come clean and declare they have strong opinions on one side of the arguement and based on the amount of cards and bans that are handed out and the amount of posters complaining then the Cmods should investigate and remove the mods from moderating that thread.
That would be my common sense approach to modding the Political Cafe.

It shouldn't need cmod intervention. A mod taking part in a thread shouldn't mod it, whether they have strong views or not. It's best for posters and the mods themselves.