Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Politics standards

135

Comments

  • #102
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    I really have no idea why you are picking out regular/ long term posters in particular. I think most people, moderators or not, would agree that you have to create a positive environment for everybody, not especially for regulars.

    There is a danger of this feedback thread being perceived as a few regulars kicking up a stink about having to share a trough with the masses. From my perspective, at least, that really isn't what it's about.
    ______________________________________________

    I would say to nesf, however that of course the opinions being expressed about poor moderating are not held substantially by the majority of users. It's a bit like John Bowman going on Questions & Answers and asking the audience if he's consulting them too often. Everybody has their own agenda, they each want their 30 seconds, nobody will answer negatively.

    If you put this to a vote on the forum, the majority of posters will inevitably choose quantity over quality - that's how it has to be. The real decision about what to do lies with the admins and the moderators, and I think it would be a shame if this thread went the way of previous discussions and nothing happened. At this stage, I think all users need and deserve a clear decision one way or the other.

    You are the moderators - so decide.


  • #103
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Dr Galen wrote: »
    I think that might go a long way. When I've had to deal with similar situations, I've found that actively engaging with the posters and the forum is the best way to deal with it, and to shape the outcome.

    As you say yourself, a lot of the time you guys are waiting for a post to be reported. To my mind, that not really enough, especially in a forum like politics, where it can all kick off in a short space of time. I have no doubt that its not lack of interest that has meant that this situation has come about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say its more down to the sheer volume of posts.

    Thats not me having a dig at you, Scoff or those of the Mod team who have found themselves AFK recently. Even if there were the 4 of you all doing the whole engaged Mod thing, I don't think there would be enough of you to do so in a forum that size. In fact, I'd say it would be impossible to do that sort of thing on an ongoing basis for every thread, and every post, not unless you had a huge Mod team, and that wouldn't be a runner at all, would likely create more problems than it solved tbh.

    The forum is too large, and most importantly, too active over a long span of the day to expect the mods to stay on top of it the whole time. It was no different with AH when I modded that. I really would not expect any co-mod of mine to be reading every thread every day.


  • #104
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    In fact, your complaints are personal, and have been going on now ever since a specific post of mine in the general thread on Libertarianism in the Political Theory forum. You've taken every possible public opportunity since then to bitch and whinge about it. It's pretty unimpressive, and I'm really not going to treat it as anything other than the personal issue it is, particularly since we've had exactly the same issues before.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • #105
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    later10 wrote: »
    I really have no idea why you are picking out regular/ long term posters in particular. I think most people, moderators or not, would agree that you have to create a positive environment for everybody, not especially for regulars.

    There is a danger of this feedback thread being perceived as a few regulars kicking up a stink about having to share a trough with the masses. From my perspective, at least, that really isn't what it's about.
    ______________________________________________

    I would say to nesf, however that of course the opinions being expressed about poor moderating are not held substantially by the majority of users. It's a bit like John Bowman going on Questions & Answers and asking the audience if he's consulting them too often. Everybody has their own agenda, they each want their 30 seconds, nobody will answer negatively.

    If you put this to a vote on the forum, the majority of posters will inevitably choose quantity over quality - that's how it has to be. The real decision about what to do lies with the admins and the moderators, and I think it would be a shame if this thread went the way of previous discussions and nothing happened. At this stage, I think all users need and deserve a clear decision one way or the other.

    You are the moderators - so decide.

    It'll take time to work out how things will work going forwards. That's all I can say, and I can't speak for the entire moderation team.


  • #106
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    nesf wrote: »
    The forum is too large, and most importantly, too active over a long span of the day to expect the mods to stay on top of it the whole time. It was no different with AH when I modded that. I really would not expect any co-mod of mine to be reading every thread every day.

    Neither would I Nesf, sorry if it came across like I would.

    I just think that there is room for a bit more pro-active Moderating, as opposed to waiting for posts to be reported. That room would only exist if there was additional moderating capacity. Even at that you still wouldn't come close to reading everything, everyday.


  • #107
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Dr Galen wrote: »
    Neither would I Nesf, sorry if it came across like I would.

    I just think that there is room for a bit more pro-active Moderating, as opposed to waiting for posts to be reported. That room would only exist if there was additional moderating capacity. Even at that you still wouldn't come close to reading everything, everyday.

    Well, part of this is my fault because I made it sound like all we do is sit by our email inboxes waiting for reported posts. We do read the forum and do pro-actively moderate when doing this. It's just a drop in the ocean compared to how fast a thread can spiral out of control. Thus why we have to rely on reported posts.


  • #108
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    LoLth wrote: »
    As for claims of comments being snide, nasty and sneering... However, being nasty isnt against boards rules. some people are nasty. plain and simple.

    Maybe that is why in some ways, posting in AH is more pleasant that posting in Politics lately: they take the whole 'don't be a dick' thing more seriously. Granted, you may have to wade through a lot of blasting with piss and the like, but it is far less grating.
    LoLth wrote: »
    @southsiderosie: no idea what happened your thread. I'll have a check and see if I can find it.

    Thanks.


  • #109
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    LoLth wrote: »
    As for claims of comments being snide, nasty and sneering... However, being nasty isnt against boards rules. some people are nasty. plain and simple.

    Maybe that is why in some ways, posting in AH is more pleasant that posting in Politics lately: they take the whole 'don't be a dick' thing more seriously. Granted, you may have to wade through a lot of blasting with piss and the like, but it is far less grating.
    LoLth wrote: »
    @southsiderosie: no idea what happened your thread. I'll have a check and see if I can find it.

    Thanks.


  • #110
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Maybe that is why in some ways, posting in AH is more pleasant that posting in Politics lately: they take the whole 'don't be a dick' thing more seriously. Granted, you may have to wade through a lot of blasting with piss and the like, but it is far less grating.

    Yes, that's something we definitely could do with enforcing more strictly, although it's a little bit of a value judgement, as well as being open to personal issues.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #111
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Maybe that is why in some ways, posting in AH is more pleasant that posting in Politics lately: they take the whole 'don't be a dick' thing more seriously. Granted, you may have to wade through a lot of blasting with piss and the like, but it is far less grating.
    I think that's probably because we know where we stand with AH. I can post on serious topics in AH because I know that if someone makes little of a point I'm making without a substantial point in reply, it doesn't matter, that's all par for the course. We know that when we go in there.

    In politics, unsubstantiated rhetoric and general dickheadery is not supposed to be part of the deal, but in practice it's tolerated. In tolerating it, mods are creating a situation whereby there are two different hymn sheets floating about. The official hymn sheet demands Weihnachtsoratorium but half the congregation is breaking into Jingle Bells. That's what's so irritating in my opinion.

    There seems to be an understandable hesitation to scare away the posting traffic, but I'm not convinced this is warranted. I've just been scrolling through the 'heyday' of politics that nesf alluded to, c. 2006, and am seeing maybe 80 threads in the month, with maybe 10% of them with over 1,000 views, some of them well over that. If politics was a stricter place with greater posting quality back then, and those who were around back then are saying that it was, well clearly it still saw strong demand.


  • #113
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    later10 wrote: »
    I think that's probably because we know where we stand with AH. I can post oThere seems to be an understandable hesitation to scare away the posting traffic, but I'm not convinced this is warranted. I've just been scrolling through the 'heyday' of politics that nesf alluded to, c. 2006, and am seeing maybe 80 threads in the month, with maybe 10% of them with over 1,000 views, some of them well over that. If politics was a stricter place with greater posting quality back then, and those who were around back then are saying that it was, well clearly it still saw strong demand.

    It's not so much wanting to not lose traffic as much as it to cater to the forum's audience. We're over 240 threads a month at the moment with about 80% over 1,000 views at a quick glance with some threads heading towards 100K views.

    In short we're dealing with 3 times the traffic we used to have to handle. That's much of the problem in why standards have dropped. It's a lot easier to handle 80 threads a month that are on the smaller side than 240 threads, some of which run for 20+ pages.


  • #114
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    I think scofflaw is a tough debater, but he's an honest debater and he calls people on their possibly dodgy reasoning or conclusions - myself often included. That probably strikes people as condescending, simply because many people rarely like to be removed of their nice comfortable, possibly self serving conclusions.

    I don't think a lot of posters do raise issues with scofflaw, and i don't think they would have grounds to either. Your pursuit of this issue on this thread strikes me as blatant opportunism to release your own personal issues with one moderator.


  • #115
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    nesf wrote: »
    It's not so much wanting to not lose traffic as much as it to cater to the forum's audience. We're over 240 threads a month at the moment with about 80% over 1,000 views at a quick glance with some threads heading towards 100K views.

    In short we're dealing with 3 times the traffic we used to have to handle. That's much of the problem in why standards have dropped. It's a lot easier to handle 80 threads a month that are on the smaller side than 240 threads, some of which run for 20+ pages.

    Well basically it sounds like an issue of bandwidth here again.

    I am trying to remember how many mods we had back in 2006, I think it was 4 or 5 so by that reasoning if you have tripled traffic you need between 12-15 mods now to handle the increase in traffic. Now that probably won't be practical but you certainly need more than 7 and imho there is no way the forum should ever be left with three or less functioning moderators.

    On the topic of threads going to over 20 pages, a lot of those have burnt out as conduits of any constructive discussion long before they hit that number of pages.


  • #116
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    gandalf wrote: »
    Well basically it sounds like an issue of bandwidth here again.

    I am trying to remember how many mods we had back in 2006, I think it was 4 or 5 so by that reasoning if you have tripled traffic you need between 12-15 mods now to handle the increase in traffic. Now that probably won't be practical but you certainly need more than 7 and imho there is no way the forum should ever be left with three or less functioning moderators.

    Agreed. It wasn't by plan that we ended up with three though. :)

    I think it was 4 mods back then, but I could be wrong, with two mods I think doing most of the heavy lifting. Again, I could be wrong.

    7 is pushing the limits of how large a team can be before wires start getting crossed between mods, I think we'll have to restructure the team a bit when we add the new mods to keep everyone working off the same page.
    gandalf wrote: »
    On the topic of threads going to over 20 pages, a lot of those have burnt out as conduits of any constructive discussion long before they hit that number of pages.

    Yes and no. Current events threads can run way over 20 pages and still be relevant. Single issue threads do tend to become a mess at that point though, I will agree. I've been stepping in more over the past month on NI threads as a kind of experiment when they get to the trench warfare stage and just banning continuing discussion of it. It seems to be working to an extent.


  • #117
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    nesf wrote: »
    Agreed. It wasn't by plan that we ended up with three though. :)

    I think it was 4 mods back then, but I could be wrong, with two mods I think doing most of the heavy lifting. Again, I could be wrong.

    7 is pushing the limits of how large a team can be before wires start getting crossed between mods, I think we'll have to restructure the team a bit when we add the new mods to keep everyone working off the same page.



    Yes and no. Current events threads can run way over 20 pages and still be relevant. Single issue threads do tend to become a mess at that point though, I will agree. I've been stepping in more over the past month on NI threads as a kind of experiment when they get to the trench warfare stage and just banning continuing discussion of it. It seems to be working to an extent.

    I'd certainly agree that 7 Mods would be at the upper limit of how many should be involved. Otherwise it's just going to be crossed wires central, and would make it very hard to keep the message clear.


  • #118
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    later10 wrote: »
    I think scofflaw is a tough debater, but he's an honest debater and he calls people on their possibly dodgy reasoning or conclusions - myself often included. That probably strikes people as condescending, simply because many people rarely like to be removed of their nice comfortable, possibly self serving conclusions.

    I don't think a lot of posters do raise issues with scofflaw, and i don't think they would have grounds to either. Your pursuit of this issue on this thread strikes me as blatant opportunism to release your own personal issues with one moderator.

    Indeed, it's only come to my notice once before, and from the same poster.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056296062&page=5

    As somebody with a prickly and 'less-than-forgiving' nature, it strikes me as highly unlikely such an attitude would have passed me by in the night during my time here.


  • #119
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Dr Galen wrote: »
    I'd certainly agree that 7 Mods would be at the upper limit of how many should be involved. Otherwise it's just going to be crossed wires central, and would make it very hard to keep the message clear.

    I think this is a suitable time to jump in and explain my own personal situation and how it relates to the forum.

    I've been fully AFK for the last two months, and will be semi-AFK (with more AFK than not) for the next 6 weeks. This being away from the computer for most of the 4 month college holiday will probably repeat itself again next year.

    I think this is an issue because, as Dr Galen and nesf say, there is an upper limit on the amount of mods one can really have. I think that when I wasn't AFK I was pretty active, and not afraid to jump in at messy times. Still, my continuing long-term absence has to factor into the equation, especially if one could find alternatives who wouldn't be subject to such absences. I want it to be clear that if it is felt that the mod team would be better off with someone else in my position then I will have no problem standing aside.

    What I can offer is my full services again in 6 weeks time when college proper begins.

    As regards the general debate on quality standards, I have always believed in higher standards and would support moves in that direction.


  • #120
    Jenny Freezing Nectar
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Jenny Freezing Nectar


    I think it's mostly ok other than needing more mods

    There is more AH-level posting, I think, and more quibbling in threads instead of better discussion. I don't know what to say about that though, it's probably just sheer numbers. Not sure what a mod could do about it except the occasional friendly "more meaningful contributions please" - some of which I already saw today.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Sorry. I was saving the world.


    Sceptre and I are actually the same poster ;)


  • #122
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    GuanYin wrote: »
    Sorry. I was saving the world.

    So instead of an explanation we get a one line smart ass remark.
    Sceptre and I are actually the same poster ;)

    Given the past controversy about your account I don't think that was appropriate and is doing sceptre a real disservice.


  • #123
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    gandalf wrote: »
    So instead of an explanation we get a one line smart ass remark.
    Indeed. Regardless of any forum, but especially a very popular and high traffic forum on purely practical terms if nothing else. if a mod isn't around for more than a few months and only breezes in once in a while then they quite simply shouldn't be a mod of that forum. Give the gig to someone else. TBH I'm surprised this point is even up for discussion? It should not be a case that you get tenure and that's it. If it is the case and that this appears to apply to some and not to others which I've seen around here, though thankfully very small in number then more questions need to be asked.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #124
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #125
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Permabear saw that post a while after my reply here.

    However they should not have been kept on as a mod of politics for six months if they were not available especially given the previous posts about mod bandwidth issues here in feedback.


  • #126
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    gandalf wrote: »
    Permabear saw that post a while after my reply here.

    However they should not have been kept on as a mod of politics for six months if they were not available especially given the previous posts about mod bandwidth issues here in feedback.

    What difference does it make if they were kept on or not? Having a name at the bottom of the forum doesn't effect the bandwidth of the mods either way. We add or subtract mods based on how many active mods there are, we just ignore any long term AFK cases.

    Like, before this thread had even started I was checking who was AFK and how long they would be to get a better idea if we were undermanned over the medium term and needed more mods.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Moderating is a care taking role given to those who are active in their role and continue to be useful and helpful as moderators.

    It's also hard-earned and I'm sure you guys in politics have as fevered a mods forum as we have in AH.
    Having mods feck off for 6 months at a time... Well they're seen as just as important a part of the forum as the mod who's in there every day.
    They'd also be completely out of the loop regards rules, posters, private messages and all that stuff.

    If somebody is gone for 6 months remove them. If they come back re-add them if they're needed.

    It's a janitorial concern not a rank bestowed upon one for life.

    my 2c. Now back to lurking.


  • #128
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    dr.bollocko wrote: »
    my 2c. Now back to lurking.
    /opens large newspaper with eyeholes cut in and stands near lurker.

    Also not to keep pushing this too much but generally what sort of timeframe are we looking at for a progress report on moderational conclave, or will any changes be more of a gradual or trial by error nature if they do arise?


  • #129
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    later10 wrote: »
    Also not to keep pushing this too much but generally what sort of timeframe are we looking at for a progress report on moderational conclave, or will any changes be more of a gradual or trial by error nature if they do arise?

    I'll update the thread as I know things to keep people in the loop.

    So far we've agreed we need new mods. We need to knock heads together to think of candidates now. The long part will be getting the Admins to vet our candidates for the roles, that can take quite a while depending on how busy the admins are.


  • #130
    Begob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 121 ✭✭Begob


    nesf wrote: »
    What difference does it make if they were kept on or not?
    It might confuse posters if they pm a mod who is never there.


  • #131
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Begob wrote: »
    It might confuse posters if they pm a mod who is never there.

    Good point.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    nesf wrote: »
    I'll update the thread as I know things to keep people in the loop.

    So far we've agreed we need new mods. We need to knock heads together to think of candidates now. The long part will be getting the Admins to vet our candidates for the roles, that can take quite a while depending on how busy the admins are.

    Hopefully a friendly admin will be reading this thread and the other one, and oblige you guys. I know they are up to their eyes, but seeing as politics is one of the largest fora on the site, I think you should be somewhat prioritised in your requests. :D


  • #133
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    gandalf wrote: »
    So instead of an explanation we get a one line smart ass remark.

    I gave an explanation in the appropriate place. The original post here, that I responded to was a cross post anyway.

    While I understand the perceived issue on moderation, I don't think that my presence in anyway inhibited the actions or appointment of other mods as anyone in that decision making process knew where I was (not specifically, but the vague geographic region).

    Politics is either over-modded or under-modded, over-staffed or under-staffed, or not staffed with the right kind of mods, depending on your viewpoint, the day of the week, the phase of the moon and whether any given persons socks match. It has been that way since I modded there.

    There are more active mods now than a year ago and really it's all about the posters.

    As certain set of posters with a viewpoint will flood in, upset the regulars, there will be cries for moderation, we either ramp up the modding or add more mods, then we eventually ban all the problem posters, or they go away because they feel oppressed. Then we are left with too many mods and they have nothing to do, they over mod and suddenly we are over modding.

    Wash, rinse, repeat.

    We could have 24 politics mods on 1 hours shifts with 24-hour coverage and people would still complain about the moderation. In reality, if people accept that there are others out there with political ideas that will be objectionable or just dumbass to them and learn that the purpose of a discussion group is to put points across to each other and not to win or oust any non-conformists.

    Come on people now, smile on your brother.......


  • #134
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Begob wrote: »
    It might confuse posters if they pm a mod who is never there.

    While this is true, it hasn't been an issue.

    As an aside, I still get plenty of PMs asking how to get access to soccer :(:confused:


  • #135
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    GuanYin wrote: »
    Politics is either over-modded or under-modded, over-staffed or under-staffed, or not staffed with the right kind of mods, depending on your viewpoint, the day of the week, the phase of the moon and whether any given persons socks match. It has been that way since I modded there.
    Again with the glib response.

    nesf said 4 posts ago that mods have agreed on a requirement for more mods. So clearly this thread, others like it, and the mods decision, is not some desultory, meandering feeling that's come from nowhere.

    Because of how this issue is being dealt with by the other politics mods, this thread has the potential to be one of those relatively rare things - a feedback thread where the issue is brought to a happy and civilised resolution.

    On the other hand I can't see how long absences from the forum, and then coming onto feedback dismissing or at best downplaying legitimate concerns about moderating quality - when a problem has already been recognised by other politics mods and non mods alike - helps resolve anything.


  • #136
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    GuanYin is not in control of whether the Admins remove her from the mod roster or not. She made her position clear to us at the time, and she has given her reasons for absence, which are very much more than adequate. I don't really see what's to be gained by the kind of comments that are being made.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • #137
    meditraitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,207 ✭✭✭meditraitor


    GuanYin wrote: »
    Politics is either over-modded or under-modded, over-staffed or under-staffed, or not staffed with the right kind of mods, depending on your viewpoint, the day of the week, the phase of the moon and whether any given persons socks match. It has been that way since I modded there.

    .......
    +1

    Thats my impression, if anyone goes away happy from this thread it only means they got their way at the expense of someone else's viewpoint.


  • #138
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    GuanYin is not in control of whether the Admins remove her from the mod roster or not. She made her position clear to us at the time, and she has given her reasons for absence, which are very much more than adequate.
    I agree 100% S, her reasons for absence are indeed well beyond adequate and from my POV GuanYin is not nor should be the issue here. She's merely illustrating a possible issue and she would not be the only one.

    What isn't adequate is why absent mods(or cmods or admins for that matter) on any forum on this site are retained if they're AWOL for months or are mods only in name(some are rarely seen). Never mind mods on high traffic and possibly contentious forums. There are enough users out there who could fulfill the mod position who wouldn't be. It smacks of tenure for favoured users for a start. How many mods would be retained if they announced they'd be AFK for 6 months? On high traffic gateway forums? Few enough I'd warrant.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #139
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    GuanYin is not in control of whether the Admins remove her from the mod roster or not. She made her position clear to us at the time, and she has given her reasons for absence, which are very much more than adequate. I don't really see what's to be gained by the kind of comments that are being made.

    regards,
    Scofflaw
    Without scrolling back over the thread I don't think anyone's particularly bothered about GuanYin being a mod - I didn't even know who she was up until yesterday and it doesn't affect me either way.

    The issue is that it shouldn't be acceptable to portray opinions which appear to be reasonably widely held, and appear to be in the process of being acted upon, as some haphazard rambling - and especially so when that person has not been reading the forum for the past 6 months.


  • #140
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    meditraitor wrote: »
    +1

    Thats my impression, if anyone goes away happy from this thread it only means they got their way at the expense of someone else's viewpoint.
    A debate is not a zero sum game, information can increase, compromise be struck, and both parties can come away with something positive.


  • #141
    meditraitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,207 ✭✭✭meditraitor


    later10 wrote: »
    A debate is not a zero sum game, information can increase, compromise be struck, and both parties can come away with something positive.

    Thats your opinion, but please tell me what has this thread or debate achieved or what info has been circulated?

    Some minor agreements on the use of words like scum and thug?
    Guan Yin was absent with leave?
    The moderations is good-majority?
    The moderation is bad-minority?

    With the exception of Guan yin being away for 6 months its not really anything that wasnt known already!

    These threads pop up now and again, usually as a result of conflict among the top level posters and not as some would have you believe that the quality of politics has fallen!
    Not once have I seen proof of this......

    My opinion is that the level of crap or unsavioury threads and posts increases with traffic not time,

    In the end the Politics fora will continue to be one of the most intersteing and well moderated fora on Boards,


    Let me put it to you this way,

    Imagine if the coterie of posters who are for restricting access to politics to hardcore poiltickers and "quality contributions" gets its way?
    Your left with a core group of over informed sophists who just wax lyrical and have intellectual willy measuring contests, The politics fora would die very quickly......

    Even the elite would get bored because they wouldnt have anyone like myself to educate as to the horrors of socialism/libertarianism/conservatism/arseism?

    Can you imagine the thread about Isreal without Blaaforrafa/flutter and wes/nodin?
    Some people groan when they see another one of them, we all know whats going to happen but I guarantee you one thing, if you do actually read these thread you will more than likely learn something you didnt know before from both sides, even though (imho) there is at least 2 who would not make it into an elite politico forum, with strick rules on contribution quality!


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    meditraitor wrote: »
    Thats your opinion, but please tell me what has this thread or debate achieved or what info has been circulated?
    The mods have said they have agreed they need new mods, for one thing. While I don't think that's actually the answer, most people do. So nobody is really winning at somebody else's expense, there seems to be agreement.

    I presume there will also be some additional information as to what way the forum is to go in terms of quantity v quality.
    These threads pop up now and again, usually as a result of conflict among the top level posters and not as some would have you believe that the quality of politics has fallen!
    Read the OP, this thread, or southsiderosie's or other discussions clearly didn't pop up as a dick size contest, it's quite clearly about the state of the forum.
    Imagine if the coterie of posters who are for restricting access to politics to hardcore poiltickers and "quality contributions" gets its way?
    Is anyone actually still favouring this? It was thrown into the mix but I don't know who is arguing for it.


  • #143
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    meditraitor wrote: »
    These threads pop up now and again, usually as a result of conflict among the top level posters and not as some would have you believe that the quality of politics has fallen!
    Not once have I seen proof of this......

    My opinion is that the level of crap or unsavioury threads and posts increases with traffic not time,

    It's got nothing to do with something against another top level poster.

    The problem was an increase in traffic but not enough mods about to deal with it plus posters not reporting posts.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #144
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    later10 wrote: »
    Without scrolling back over the thread I don't think anyone's particularly bothered about GuanYin being a mod - I didn't even know who she was up until yesterday and it doesn't affect me either way.

    The issue is that it shouldn't be acceptable to portray opinions which appear to be reasonably widely held, and appear to be in the process of being acted upon, as some haphazard rambling - and especially so when that person has not been reading the forum for the past 6 months.

    I'm not sure the absence is really relevant to the remarks she made, though - the politics forum is cyclical in the way described (as a couple of the mods have pointed out elsewhere) - and the fact that one can accurately describe the symptoms of the current issue without having read the forum for 6 months only reinforces the accuracy of the remarks.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #145
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #146
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,053 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    These threads pop up now and again, usually as a result of conflict among the top level posters and not as some would have you believe that the quality of politics has fallen!
    What is a Top-Level poster?


  • #147
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #148
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I'm not sure the absence is really relevant to the remarks she made, though - the politics forum is cyclical in the way described (as a couple of the mods have pointed out elsewhere)
    I don't know if it's cyclical or not, or whether it is something to do with the Summer holidays, the gypsies, alignment of the stars, or moderating quality.

    However, there is a big difference between saying the problem exists, and is cyclical, and saying the complaining is cyclical, as though the latter is not based on a fundamental, valid reason - which is what I read from GuanYin's post.
    GuanYin wrote: »
    Politics is either over-modded or under-modded, over-staffed or under-staffed, or not staffed with the right kind of mods, depending on your viewpoint, the day of the week, the phase of the moon and whether any given persons socks match. It has been that way since I modded there.

    There are more active mods now than a year ago and really it's all about the posters.
    [...]

    We could have 24 politics mods on 1 hours shifts with 24-hour coverage and people would still complain about the moderation. ..

    I don't see how someone who hasn't been following the forum in the past six months can have his or her suggestion that the problem is not with the moderators, or moderating standards, taken very seriously.


  • #149
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Just skimming through southsiderosie's thread there, and came across this. Can any of the mods say whether this was discussed between themselves last March, and maybe give an outline, very generally, of what was decided?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71449926&postcount=62


  • #150
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    later10 wrote: »
    I don't know if it's cyclical or not, or whether it is something to do with the Summer holidays, the gypsies, alignment of the stars, or moderating quality.

    However, there is a big difference between saying the problem exists, and is cyclical, and saying the complaining is cyclical, as though the latter is not based on a fundamental, valid reason - which is what I read from GuanYin's post.

    It's very hard to prove (or more very messy to prove) that the problem is cyclical but it's a view held by more than one mod on the forum. Since we directly see when reported posts spike or not, I'd be inclined to say that we've some idea about this.

    The problem is twofold, we have the news cycle issue, which is an issue on many forums, where some news item causes an influx of posters and problems happen because these posters aren't used to the rules. That's problem A, it's well documented and well complained about by moderators of AH, Politics and other general fora that see it a lot.

    The second problem is a longer term cycle due to general interest level in the forum topic. We are currently in a high interest phase of Politics, the average person opines a lot. During the boom we were in a low interest phase because basically most people were content with their lives and how the country was run. More people = more noise = much, much more difficult to moderate. I'd say we have an exponential rather than linear relationship between problems and user number. Forums in mathematical terms tend towards chaotic behaviour depending on the degrees of freedom in them, in simple terms, the more different groups and posters involved the more scope there is for wide variations in behaviour on the forum.

    This is what I think from moderating the forum. I could be wrong of course but I think it makes intuitive sense at the very least.
    later10 wrote: »
    I don't see how someone who hasn't been following the forum in the past six months can have his or her suggestion that the problem is not with the moderators, or moderating standards, taken very seriously.

    Well, the issues that were there six months ago are what's being complained about now. I'd go further and say we've been having these problems for several years at this stage. So while I accept your point I'd also think that GuanYin's input is still somewhat relevant to what's going on.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    nesf wrote: »
    It's very hard to prove (or more very messy to prove) that the problem is cyclical but it's a view held by more than one mod on the forum.
    Indeed, but cyclical which? Cyclical problems with posting standards or cyclical baseless complaints? The latter is not something the moderators can reasonably hope to quell, but the former very much is.
    The problem is twofold, we have the news cycle issue, which is an issue on many forums, where some news item causes an influx of posters and problems happen because these posters aren't used to the rules. That's problem A, it's well documented and well complained about by moderators of AH, Politics and other general fora that see it a lot.
    Indeed as a new poster who only joined this thing on the emergence of the Irish bailout crisis, I understand that to some extent.

    But the problem with these posters isn't necessarily their first foray into the politics camp with posts that don't meet the standard - it's their repeated visits where they build on this behaviour, and that's possibly down to a lack of sanctions.
    I'd say we have an exponential rather than linear relationship between problems and user number. Forums in mathematical terms tend towards chaotic behaviour depending on the degrees of freedom in them, in simple terms, the more different groups and posters involved the more scope there is for wide variations in behaviour on the forum.
    Yes I think that opinion is justified, if one watches the dynamics between posters on the forum.

    But it would be interesting to see how the incidence of infractions and bans altered during this rapid opening up of the forum. Although its incidence would not necessarily need to trace user numbers, one would imagine that it should be thereabouts, or higher, if forum standards were applied consistently, given the contagion effect of poor posting quality.

    That contagion effect is a serious enough issue, because looking at the forum it's possible that a reasonably large number posters are only there because unless they insult a user or really blatantly troll, they can wing it under the radar and get away with a persistent AH style of commenting.


Advertisement