Moderation of boards as a whole.

mike_ie wrote: »

Since you insist on pressing the issue, let me confirm to you that the poster's stance on it being a homophobic attack (maybe/maybe not/who really knows) was ridiculously stupid. Having looked at the mod warning, I don't think any reasonable person could disagree with them.

this is how that thread was modded, certainly.

it raises the question of consistency, modding to behaviour and not the argument, and (pointedly in this instance) the rights and wrongs of moderation doing the heavy lifting when an argument reaches an impasse

worth declaring my own interest tbf: i was infracted in that thread for describing a post as a tantrum

out of context, bang to rights. couldn't argue with the mod

in context of the posts in that thread from both sides (but mainly, frankly, the other side) it was pretty ridiculous.

so what can one do?

disagree and argue in reasonable faith with an unpopular/'wrong' opinion and you're going to take the brunt when a mod has to clean up

you arent allowed, if we're honest, to point to context or to provocation.

so you start reporting. report it all. report report report. sauce for goose is sauce for gander and all that.

and .... zip. nada.

so we have conversations where breach and stretching of charter is moderated in a skew-whiff basis, and the result (in my instance, presumin im typical) where you get stung and think hang on, this doesnt pass a smell test and you create ten times the work for mods because if the bar is that low for you then it should be that low for everyone

and, well, ive started a thread in feedback about the black hole of modding once you know for sure that posts have been reported that seem clear breaches which have seen certain posters thumped and nothing happens

and that's where we are imo

ironically imo the posters allowed to consistently abuse and ad-hom because they are 'right' (they just are, mannn) are the very same demanding that the opinions they disagree with are barred from the site completely.

id say the site is doing its best to do this in ten soft ways but is avoiding just dropping a hammer based on ideology alone.

its just gonna take a little longer.

kimsang and i are, i think, trying to make the same broad point.

i presume we're both sincere, and i think it's quite an important one, but its possible that this isnt the consensus at the decision making level

if the response is no response, or "everyone thinks they're the victim of inconsistent modding" can a mod/admin blink once and I'll never ask again (until the next time).

fair enough!

ill digest that mike, but want to acknowledge the considered and courteous reponse as always.

”mike_ie;110558498&#8221 wrote:

I think there is merit to what you say, though I don't believe to the extent you describe the situation.


Unpopular opinions are, by definition, unpopular. Therefore, posters who express unpopular opinions get called out at a much higher rate than those whose opinions are popular. And it's quite probable that posts of that nature generate more reported posts - it's simple maths - there are more people of the opposing opinion to report them.


What I don't agree with though, is that (a) mod simply react to the number of reported posts on a particular post, or (b) the constantly thrown out accusation of mods using (abusing) their position to steer a thread towards a particular point of view. I know I have the luxury of having a broader viewpoint (access to reported posts, mod and CMod forums, posters histories etc.) as admin, but what I see is discussion for both points of view behind the scenes, and mods trying to get the discussion back on track toward being a discussion, and not just a series of foot stomps. To the letter of the word, it's steering the debate, yes, but in the sense of trying to improve it and I think that's a fair use of the mod hat.

Taking the above as a start (and apologies if I’ve managed to destroy the quotes) there’s a few things I think worth pointing out:



- Agreed that the unpopular side of a debate (no ‘right and wrong’ unless clearly over what ought to be fairly defined lines is, I think, our agreed/common aim) will generate through human nature more reports and that mods shouldn’t be swayed by this. But I think there’s a case building to ask that the wider view of modding do keep an eye on this as opposed to reactively defending against it, as it is also human nature for the mods to react to sheer numbers, and I’m phrasing that as passively as I can.



- I’ve raised a thread on visibility of reported posts and actions, and I think this is of a piece with your point that mods/admin are seeing *and using* a different context that we as posters are permitted/able to in making some calls. I don’t doubt you that mods are doing behind the scenes work on every call, but it’s a black box to users and it’s a point of friction that everyone feels when the action occurs- and never more so than the actions that aren’t taken. If modding occurs in context, then a poster who appeals an infraction should have the same right to bring in the same context to their appeal, and I think (speaking only for myself) that time and again when this is denied it’s the kind of selective hard enforcement of rules that does begin to look exactly like the accusation you note as being constantly thrown out- moderation of views and not behaviours.



- The mods steering a debate towards discussion cannot but be an imperfect/inconsistent judgement call. When posters feel that it has been imperfectly carried out (in any given debate we all feel there’s a ‘fair way’ for the debate to occur and no two posters will agree, certainly no two sides will at any rate) the above friction surfaces, and it’s not going to stop. I can accept is as a fact of life as a poster and no doubt it’s the mod’s burden in life, but that’s not to say that things are where they need to be to allow a debate that isn’t being modded to a pre-determined wind-down.

”mike_ie;110558498&#8221 wrote:

There is the plain reality that posters 'throwing out one-liners and [not] actually participating' (on both sides) is exceptionally common. You and I both would like a world where everyone is rational and well researched and post substantively. In real life that doesn't happen here any more than it happens in real life. So what should be done? In many cases, the members themselves do a more than adequate job of exposing weak arguments. But when that is not enough, part of the moderator's role is to step in and keep some forward momentum in the thread.

- I think this is really interesting (yeah look I can’t help how I’m built). I don’t actually want a world/board where every post is rational and well-researched! This is where I’d take it back to my (rapidly building thesis) comparison to the pub or the lecture hall. There are many ways to debate and converse, many levels on which to do so. I think Irish people have an innate/ingrained understanding of this and it’s totally inherent to our culture as a whole. A one-line zing can expose an opposing view in a way that a green paper often cannot. There has to be space- within the one thread- to allow for both and all the other approaches. Many *topics* are worthy of serious consideration while many *elements and viewpoints within those topics* should be open to a robust volley of ridicule, hostility, contempt. Attack the post/argument and not the poster is a very good rule (if applied rigidly and fairly, of course) and it’s enough.



- The idea that a new current affairs forum means that serious topics must be addressed seriously here has the potential to gut debates of a huge amount of valid (imo utterly necessary) commentary style. In particular, the idea that all serious topics go to this forum and are subject to the new/blossoming rules of debate implied hasn’t, imo, been fully explored just yet. Can a serious topic be discussed non-seriously in AH? Or will it be moved to CA to be discussed in the proper way? I think this is a big question in terms of a new approach.



- ‘forward momentum’ is not a value-free concept. It implies a desirable pace of progress, it implies a given vector. This is murky enough ground. Some debates reflect reality in that they don’t lead towards consensus, they don’t see a move towards resolution, they certainly don’t lend themselves to posters coolly engaging and shaking hands afterwards. They reflect the current positions and conflicts in our wider society and I don’t know that moderation should see its role as advancing that artificially (even if an end-point could be identified as a goal). Better a monthly thread with the same people genuinely banging heads than a resolution imposed from above!



- Personally speaking, nothing kills a debate more than the quote marathons we commonly see between three or four very well-established posters (I realise the irony given this current rather dry litany). Nothing keeps a debate going better than concise and zippy posts that hit their mark (even if they might leave a bruise). These are preferences and again I don’t know that we should put a value judgement on style, once a standard is in place covering behaviour.

”mike_ie;110558498&#8221 wrote:

]This isn't about unpopular ideas. This is about someone coming to a site specifically because they know that their unpopular ideas will cause conflict, and then specifically refraining from doing anything other than ranting in a manner that can reasonably be expected to do nothing but piss off their targets while not providing a scrap of support for their position and flaming their targets. Frankly, I would love to see more intellectual debate and less whataboutery, more reason and less rhetoric. I bet I'm not alone in that.

- Fully on-board with dealing with trolls. But if you don’t have conflict on a message board- within the moderation framework that supports the community ideals, obviously- then you don’t have a message board (not that I don’t love my information-only forums, like). I think more consideration has to be given to not lumping in any and all minority/unpopular positions with the behaviour described above. Which I think your next point addresses pretty well tbf, but as a poster vs your position as admin/mod I’m not sure the balance is right as things stand.

”mike_ie;110558498&#8221 wrote:

But I do take your point, though I would consider it more of a tangential issue than a one of intent. That is that moderation, particularly when it's not straight boards rules stuff, can give one side of a debate undue weight if not done correctly. I'd say that this can be inadvertent though, rather than a mod deliberately trying to sway an argument in their particular favour, and I don't believe it's as regular an occurrence as people seem to think.

I would ask for mods to read this and just keep it in the backs of their minds though - it never hurts to be reminded of these things from time to time. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that most already do - posts in mod forums asking for a second opinion to ensure objectivity, and other conversations that regular posters don't get to see.

- Watch them, Mike. Watch them like hawks.