A discussion on the rules.

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

And here I was thinking you'd run to the defense of my anti-authoritarian idea.

Unworkable ideas are unworkable, whether anti-authoritarian or not.

Laminations wrote: »

And I'd love to see the percentage of decisions that are overturned at arbitration, the whole arbitration process is sidelined anyway. 'Of course you can protest, just do it over in this room here where nobody visits'

As a percentage of those that are complained about, it's probably about 25%.

Laminations wrote: »

I think a democracy is better than an aristocracy. The people will get the moderators they deserve.

Well yes, and you both are saying that too. All posters here are politically partisan, and Scofflaw is saying they are unable to moderate the forum due to biases and pettiness. The wisdom of crowds works fine for Wikipedia

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that where posters are unaccountable they have no reason not to exercise their biases, and your system would involve exactly that lack of accountability. Most posters, if asked to mod, would at the very least make a conscious effort not to act on their prejudices, because they are highly visible while doing so. Acting by your mechanism they would have no such impetus, and so the mechanism is far more likely to be used for the suppression of opposing viewpoints.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that where posters are unaccountable they have no reason not to exercise their biases, and your system would involve exactly that lack of accountability. Most posters, if asked to mod, would at the very least make a conscious effort not to act on their prejudices, because they are highly visible while doing so. Acting by your mechanism they would have no such impetus, and so the mechanism is far more likely to be used for the suppression of opposing viewpoints.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't see where you get the lack of accountability in my proposal. All complaints would be made in public, when you report a post your name is attached to in just like thanks. So if you are spuriously reporting posts ticking a box that in no way fits it shows you up not only to the mods but to the posting community as a petty poster who makes baseless complaints. The impetus is not looking like a douche, the revised role of mods would be limited to the current dispute resolution. For it to go totally pear shaped you'd need to be saying we have a majority of douchebags on here, is that your opinion of the forum membership?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

I don't see where you get the lack of accountability in my proposal. All complaints would be made in public, when you report a post your name is attached to in just like thanks. So if you are spuriously reporting posts ticking a box that in no way fits it shows you up not only to the mods but to the posting community as a petty poster who makes baseless complaints. The impetus is not looking like a douche, the revised role of mods would be limited to the current dispute resolution. For it to go totally pear shaped you'd need to be saying we have a majority of douchebags on here, is that your opinion of the forum membership?

If I thought that, I'd hardly post here, let alone moderate the forum. Luckily, I don't think that - instead, it's a rather poor attempt to back me into a corner where I either support your idea, or think everybody's a douche.

What you've left out, of course, is the possibility that your scheme lacks merit despite the majority of posters being entirely reasonable. A small number of posters with a very strong partisan viewpoint - extremely common in political discussions - are all that's required for the scheme to founder, because the minute anybody starts to abuse the system, it will be abused right back at them.

A case in point is the current set of calls for the abolition of the thanks system, on the basis that it gets used as a clique tool by some groups of posters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

A small number of posters with a very strong partisan viewpoint - extremely common in political discussions - are all that's required for the scheme to founder, because the minute anybody starts to abuse the system, it will be abused right back at them.

But let's take an example of that. NI or Israel/Palestinian threads are very polarised. If both sides baselessly reported each others posts they'd all get blocked and they'd ruin it for themselves. So I think they'd be unlikely to do that. It's game theory, they'd improve their conduct and interaction for mutual survival. It would be a reporting version of the nuclear standoff, people would probably be more considerate when they report posts. Like it or not, the current nodding system treats the users as children. I don't need a mod to tell me a thread is pointless and close it down, allow myself and other posters decide that for ourselves. If someone starts a crass or content free thread it'll get reported and/or ignored. If republicans and unionists continue soapboxing at each other let posters decide the worth of their arguments. You are worried that if people are left to their own devices then debate will descend into farce, so clearly you don't trust posters to moderate themselves.

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

But let's take an example of that. NI or Israel/Palestinian threads are very polarised. If both sides baselessly reported each others posts they'd all get blocked and they'd ruin it for themselves. It would be a reporting version of the nuclear standoff, people would probably be more considerate when they report posts. Like it or not, the current nodding system treats the users as children. I don't need a mod to tell me a thread is pointless and close it down, allow myself and other posters decide that for ourselves. If someone starts a crass or content free thread it'll get reported and/or ignored. If republicans and unionists continue soapboxing at each other let posters decide the worth of their arguments. You are worried that if people are left to their own devices then debate will descend into farce, so clearly you don't trust posters to moderate themselves.

Again, you're attempting to paint me as saying something I haven't, so this is my final comment here. What I've pointed out, repeatedly, is that your system is hostage to any sufficiently motivated minority, as any self-policing system is. There are other flaws in it, but something tells me you're not interested.

cordially, but finally,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Ok we'll end it there. It was merely a suggestion, I still do not think the nodding system is the best way. And you managed to self-police this situation quite well by simply disengaging. Am I going to be vindictive and disengage with debating you in future? Contrary to what you may think, no. Because I am here to debate and tit for tat would be self defeating.

later12

I have a question.

What is a handbag warning?

Scofflaw

later10 wrote: »

I have a question.

What is a handbag warning?

It's a way of saying that a thread is descending into personal wrangling, without necessarily ascribing blame to anyone in particular or penalising anyone. You might call it the Nyberg option...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

Could moderators, when they put a warning in the thread, change the thread title to draw attention to it like is done elsewhere? I.e "Read Mod warning post 98" or something like that?

sceptre

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Could moderators, when they put a warning in the thread, change the thread title to draw attention to it like is done elsewhere? I.e "Read Mod warning post 98" or something like that?

Fair point - I've not done that with a recent thread and it's possibly been missed by a few contributors. Editing the warning into the first post as well is something I should have done. Every warning doesn't require highlighting in that way but the more generally aimed ones in hotly contested threads could do with it.

Having said that, most generally aimed warnings are to stay on topic, to avoid insulting other forum members or personalising the discussion against other members, to make contributions useful and generally to make an actual effort in posting (in other words, not to be treating the forum like an idiotic soap box). All of which are obvious, common sense and in the forum charter so people should be doing that anyway at all times:)

later12

In light of this aspect of the charter

NEVER attack a poster. Attack the content of their post. (You can tell someone that their opinion is based on incomplete or incorrect information, but do not call them an idiot.)

What are the moderators opinions on aspects of the (admittedly long and unattractive) thread on the David Norris media attention whereby insinuations have been made, repeatedly, that posters were or may be homophobic and-or have hardline nationalist views?

Scofflaw

later10 wrote: »

In light of this aspect of the charter


What are the moderators opinions on aspects of the (admittedly long and unattractive) thread on the David Norris media attention whereby insinuations have been made, repeatedly, that posters were or may be homophobic and-or have hardline nationalist views?

The usual, I suppose - if they're attempts to stifle debate, as per the tactical use of "anti-Semitic" in Israel debates, then they're something to be quashed. If, on the other hand, they're a genuine response to what is, after all, a pretty widespread prejudice in Ireland (far more widespread than real anti-Semitism), then they're fair enough.

The question is, I suppose, whether Norris is being discussed primarily in terms of his politics, or in terms of his sexuality and attitudes to sexuality - and I think it's pretty obvious that it's the latter. His fitness for the job appears to be, in many people's minds, related almost entirely to his sexuality and his attitudes to sexuality - and in those circumstances, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that homophobia of varying degrees underlies many of the 'concerns', since the sexuality and attitudes to sexuality of other Presidential hopefuls isn't even on the radar.

If you feel that epithets are being applied in an attempt to stifle debate, let us know in the usual way.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

I think I might have made a post or two on something along the above lines. My view was that certain Christian and republican hard line elements would have problems with Norris regardless of issues and I think it is reasonable to say so.

That is definitely not saying Christian and Republican posters against Norris are all like like that, certainly not. Indeed, a good few Christian and republican posters are actually quite pro Norris.

P. Breathnach

Is it now acceptable on the day a politician dies to rejoice in his passing?

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Is it now acceptable on the day a politician dies to rejoice in his passing?

No - see note on thread, and modified thread title.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DrLHecters

Laminations wrote: »

And here I was thinking you'd run to the defense of my anti-authoritarian idea.



And I'd love to see the percentage of decisions that are overturned at arbitration, the whole arbitration process is sidelined anyway. 'Of course you can protest, just do it over in this room here where nobody visits'




I think a democracy is better than an aristocracy. The people will get the moderators they deserve.



Well yes, and you both are saying that too. All posters here are politically partisan, and Scofflaw is saying they are unable to moderate the forum due to biases and pettiness. The wisdom of crowds works fine for Wikipedia

There is no arbitration necessary for when a mod bans someone.
All that person need do is disconnect/turn off their modem for 10 mins and then re-register on boards.
a simple yahoo email address and 10 mins is all thats needed for bypassing the impotent mods.

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

No - see note on thread, and modified thread title.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So why has there been no action on this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72682990&postcount=19?

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So why has there been no action on this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72682990&postcount=19?

Because, on balance, while I consider that remark distasteful, as do many others, I don't consider it as rejoicing in Lenihan's death, unlike remarks such as "one less for the gallows" (although to be fair the poster in question regrets that remark) or idiots burbling about traitors.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

DrLHecters wrote: »

There is no arbitration necessary for when a mod bans someone.
All that person need do is disconnect/turn off their modem for 10 mins and then re-register on boards.
a simple yahoo email address and 10 mins is all thats needed for bypassing the impotent mods.

Thing is, though, that it takes even less time than that to ban someone - and if your idea is to re-register in order to continue acting the same way as got you banned previously, you'll be banned again in short order. It doesn't really bother any of the mods whether an idiot is a new idiot or a re-registered idiot.

amused,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because, on balance, while I consider that remark distasteful, as do many others, I don't consider it as rejoicing in Lenihan's death, unlike remarks such as "one less for the gallows" (although to be fair the poster in question regrets that remark) or idiots burbling about traitors.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FFS! To say "I for one am not sorry to see the back of him." on the day of a man's death is more that "merely distasteful"; it is grossly offensive, and departs from a custom that mods generally enforce that threads of this nature be treated as condolence threads.

The mod advisory to "behave" looks pusillanimous and the tenor of discussion in the thread reveals an approach to moderation that I consider altogether too uninvolved. AH, which is usually more of a bearpit than Politics, is performing much better.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

FFS! To say "I for one am not sorry to see the back of him." on the day of a man's death is more that "merely distasteful"; it is grossly offensive, and departs from a custom that mods generally enforce that threads of this nature be treated as condolence threads.

The mod advisory to "behave" looks pusillanimous and the tenor of discussion in the thread reveals an approach to moderation that I consider altogether too uninvolved. AH, which is usually more of a bearpit than Politics, is performing much better.

Were I moderating a non-political forum, I would have no hesitation in making the thread a purely condolences one, without any allowance for political commentary, and with instant sanction for distasteful comments. But this is not a non-political forum, and we are still in the midst of Brian Lenihan's policies, the current effects of which on the country and on people's own lives are so large as to give them justification for a degree of critical comment not usually acceptable in such matters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

If human decency is not part of the culture of the forum, then I do not feel I have any place in it.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If human decency is not part of the culture of the forum, then I do not feel I have any place in it.

Presumably that should really read "enforcement of human decency", since there's nothing I can do about the moral nature of posters themselves.

My view here is that I'm trying to balance the traditional respect for the recently deceased against the fact that the deceased had a huge influence on our current circumstances. Cookie_Monster's post neither celebrates Lenihan's death, nor calls him names, nor alleges that he was anything that he cannot now defend himself against. It expresses a view about the poster's feelings, and, I think, does no harm to Lenihan's memory, but rather to the reputation of the poster.

I would prefer to have had two separate threads - one for condolences, one for any other comments - but unfortunately, the thread was merged in by Darragh from elsewhere.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Presumably that should really read "enforcement of human decency", since there's nothing I can do about the moral nature of posters themselves.

That is specious: the culture of the forum is something about which the mods can do something.

My view here is that I'm trying to balance the traditional respect for the recently deceased against the fact that the deceased had a huge influence on our current circumstances. Cookie_Monster's post neither celebrates Lenihan's death, nor calls him names, nor alleges that he was anything that he cannot now defend himself against. It expresses a view about the poster's feelings, and, I think, does no harm to Lenihan's memory, but rather to the reputation of the poster.

Saying "I for one am not sorry to see the back of him" is celebrating Lenihan's demise, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

I would prefer to have had two separate threads - one for condolences, one for any other comments - but unfortunately, the thread was merged in by Darragh from elsewhere.

Not your responsibility, then?

You know that I have been generally onside with the moderators here, but in this case I think you have got things wrong, badly wrong.

Eliot Rosewater

I'm going to be honest here (and perhaps a little untactful), but I agree strongly with P. Breathnach. I don't think it's tenable to distance moderator duty from the culture of the forum. It seems that about half of what we do as moderators here is enforce discussion standards (i.e., expected forum norms).

I don't think the post by Cookie_Monster was strictly celebrating death - at least not directly - but it was tactless in the extreme and basically just plain stupid. If he or she wanted they could easily have set up a new "Legacy of BL" thread.

That, in my opinion, would have been the optimal solution. I accept what Scofflaw says, about the actions of Lenihan being relevant, but the thread was clearly set up to offer condolences and not the kind of commentary that developed.

Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm going to be honest here (and perhaps a little untactful), but I agree strongly with P. Breathnach. I don't think it's tenable to distance moderator duty from the culture of the forum. It seems that about half of what we do as moderators here is enforce discussion standards (i.e., expected forum norms).

I don't think the post by Cookie_Monster was strictly celebrating death - at least not directly - but it was tactless in the extreme and basically just plain stupid. If he or she wanted they could easily have set up a new "Legacy of BL" thread.

That, in my opinion, would have been the optimal solution. I accept what Scofflaw says, about the actions of Lenihan being relevant, but the thread was clearly set up to offer condolences and not the kind of commentary that developed.

That's true, and I'm happy that you've decided to take on the splitting of the thread. I'm afraid I simply couldn't face it, because by the time I got to the thread it was lunchtime and I had just lost a significant field from about 137,000 database records.

P.Breathneach wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Presumably that should really read "enforcement of human decency", since there's nothing I can do about the moral nature of posters themselves.

That is specious: the culture of the forum is something about which the mods can do something.

That's what I said - apologies for being flippant.

P.Breathneach wrote:

Not your responsibility, then?

You know that I have been generally onside with the moderators here, but in this case I think you have got things wrong, badly wrong.

No, I obviously accept that it's be my responsibility, but it wasn't something I had time to do today. I do regard Cookie_Monster's comment as a good deal less than 'celebrating' Lenihan's death, but Eliot's is the best solution.

apologies,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's true, and I'm happy that you've decided to take on the splitting of the thread. I'm afraid I simply couldn't face it, because by the time I got to the thread it was lunchtime and I had just lost a significant field from about 137,000 database records.

That's a disaster - sorry to hear about that.


I've split the thread now, and I've sent a PM to Cookie_Monster about the post.

Nodin

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's a disaster - sorry to hear about that.


I've split the thread now, and I've sent a PM to Cookie_Monster about the post.

Why have you pm'ed him about the post?

southsiderosie

Can I ask why there are even condolences threads in politics? It seems that in the forum it makes more sense to discuss someone's political legacy than to just have page after page of RIP with no further allowable comment.

It might be useful for the forum to have a clear policy on this, especially given the current state of Margaret Thatcher's health...