Politics standards

nesf · 12-08-2011 7:32pm

later10 wrote: »

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.

I disagree that standards are something moderators have direct control over. Most of the thinking in this thread I've seen deals with the problem as if it was a static one. Could we retrain the current bunch of posters? Maybe. But this doesn't answer how to deal with a constantly changing group of posters with new posters coming and old ones leaving on a daily basis.

later10 wrote: »

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.

The problem is more the group of new posters presence backing each other up. It's really simple to take a single individual poster who's out of line in a thread and deal with them. It's extremely difficult if it's a large group of posters who are changing the overall tone of the forum. Don't look at it in terms of a single individual joining but a constantly changing group joining. This is what makes it so, so difficult to mod and to change through moderation.

later10 wrote: »

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.

We've always had problems with low level trolls or people who are a problem but never quite step out of line. This is very difficult to police as it's very difficult to do without being biased. There are plenty users who I think the forum would be better off with but I recognise that for quite a few of them it's because I think the positions they hold are annoyingly nonsensical. Should I be removing these people?

The second issue is stupidity breeding stupidity. You get amorphous blobs of posters all singing to the same hymn sheet that is woefully underinformed, biased or otherwise of poor quality. Because they all agree with each other they think their position is worthwhile or correct. I'm at a loss as to what to do with this kind of situation. If I start banning people for having poorly thought out views then I'll have to ban well over half the forum.

Overheal · 12-08-2011 10:09pm

We've always had problems with low level trolls or people who are a problem but never quite step out of line. This is very difficult to police as it's very difficult to do without being biased. There are plenty users who I think the forum would be better off with but I recognise that for quite a few of them it's because I think the positions they hold are annoyingly nonsensical. Should I be removing these people?

Nope. In fact I can think of a couple that have settled in just fine after figuring out how things worked. Even though they have at times polar opposite views to the rest of the forum, they've learned where to leave their shoes when they walk in - the same as everybody else.

GuanYin · 13-08-2011 10:12am

without responding to anyones posts directly I see some huge assumptions are being made. I would say that

1. just because I didn't log in and ban someone doesn't mean I didn't read the forum for 6 months. I have an email account that gives me a summary of reported posts and I skim regularly skim over the forum (mostly after reading a post I felt needed actioning, generally without logging in due to bandwdith issues (the town I was in had a central pump for clean water, internet was, imho, a miracle) and usually long after appropriate action had been taken.... the politics mods are usually on top of things).

2. The idea of things being cyclical kinda contributes to my point that the issues now are the issues of the past. Thus a 6 month sabbatical doesn't actually detract from my point, it may even prove it.

3. There was nothing glib about my second to last post. I haven't consulted with Pol mods before I posted it, but I'm willing to bet that they may well agree with it, especially the longer serving ones. I'm not saying we shouldn't have more Politics mods, I'm saying that given the nature of the common complaints on politics, more mods won't necessarily give the outcome expected.

Politics has never (imho) been moderated unfairly, or badly or wrongly when you step back and look at it objectively. It is, on occasion, moderated slowly but that is a supply and demand issue... politics isn't a continuously high level posting forum. Look at US politics... it was a nightmare befoe the last elections, it will be again as the next elections approach. But in the last year? It has been a sometimes deadzone.

I agree politics needs more mods, but I don't think thats the actual problem that will solve the issues of the posters who are making current complaints .

FlutterinBantam · 16-08-2011 8:30am

nesf wrote: »

I disagree that standards are something moderators have direct control over. Most of the thinking in this thread I've seen deals with the problem as if it was a static one. Could we retrain the current bunch of posters? Maybe. But this doesn't answer how to deal with a constantly changing group of posters with new posters coming and old ones leaving on a daily basis.

The problem is more the group of new posters presence backing each other up. It's really simple to take a single individual poster who's out of line in a thread and deal with them. It's extremely difficult if it's a large group of posters who are changing the overall tone of the forum. Don't look at it in terms of a single individual joining but a constantly changing group joining. This is what makes it so, so difficult to mod and to change through moderation.

We've always had problems with low level trolls or people who are a problem but never quite step out of line. This is very difficult to police as it's very difficult to do without being biased. There are plenty users who I think the forum would be better off with but I recognise that for quite a few of them it's because I think the positions they hold are annoyingly nonsensical. Should I be removing these people?

The second issue is stupidity breeding stupidity. You get amorphous blobs of posters all singing to the same hymn sheet that is woefully underinformed, biased or otherwise of poor quality. Because they all agree with each other they think their position is worthwhile or correct. I'm at a loss as to what to do with this kind of situation. If I start banning people for having poorly thought out views then I'll have to ban well over half the forum.

Well put, I always thought there were a group of people determined to keep their views alive in any medium they could.

Nothing really wrong with that but i can see where you are coming with with the 'low level troll' problem.

keep up the good work.

Dr Galen · 16-08-2011 1:37pm

Did I only dream that there were a load of other posts in here?

Scofflaw · 16-08-2011 1:50pm

Dr Galen wrote: »

Did I only dream that there were a load of other posts in here?

No, you're right - several days' worth seem to have disappeared.

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Dr Galen · 16-08-2011 2:32pm

Maybe it was moved to the thread in politics? Maybe we're just getting it mixed up with the politics forum thread?

Equally Puzzled
DrG

K-9 · 16-08-2011 3:08pm

Thought I was mixing them up too but the last post on it is the 13/8.

Permabear · 16-08-2011 6:39pm

This post has been deleted.

K-9 · 16-08-2011 11:35pm

One of the missing posts said mods look at a posters ban history on AH when looking at a posters behaviour. A poster has been banned on politics lately for certain views and is back posting. Considering that poster has received several bans on AH for these views and IIRC is perma banned there for same views, why are they back posting on politics, which supposedly has higher standards?

nesf · 16-08-2011 11:47pm

K-9 wrote: »

One of the missing posts said mods look at a posters ban history on AH when looking at a posters behaviour. A poster has been banned on politics lately for certain views and is back posting. Considering that poster has received several bans on AH for these views and IIRC is perma banned there for same views, why are they back posting on politics, which supposedly has higher standards?

You're forgetting that some people act the muppet a bit on AH but are model citizens on the more serious fora. I can think of a few off-hand that are like this. Just going by their Politics postings you'd never think they'd ever get an infraction or a ban.

K-9 · 16-08-2011 11:53pm

nesf wrote: »

You're forgetting that some people act the muppet a bit on AH but are model citizens on the more serious fora. I can think of a few off-hand that are like this. Just going by their Politics postings you'd never think they'd ever get an infraction or a ban.

Ah yeah, AH is supposed to be a light hearted forum and people can over step.

Say if it's multiple bans for "racist beliefs" and they then post in politics and get another ban for the exact same thing?

Would be a pretty open and shut case for a perma ban? Carrying an agenda from a forum you are banned onto politics?

nesf · 16-08-2011 11:56pm

K-9 wrote: »

Ah yeah, AH is supposed to be a light hearted forum and people can over step.

Say if it's multiple bans for "racist beliefs" and they then post in politics and get another ban for the exact same thing?

Would be a pretty open and shut case for a perma ban? Carrying an agenda from a forum you are banned onto politics?

Yeah, we watch those alright. One of the first things I do when banning or infracting someone is check their User History to see what bans they have and what the bans were for. If I'm infracting for racist comments and I check and see the poster has multiple past bans for racism I'll upgrade the punishment to a ban, generally with a "next time is permanent" if the offence is something we really don't like on the forum (like racism).

FlutterinBantam · 17-08-2011 7:52am

nesf wrote: »

Yeah, we watch those alright. One of the first things I do when banning or infracting someone is check their User History to see what bans they have and what the bans were for. If I'm infracting for racist comments and I check and see the poster has multiple past bans for racism I'll upgrade the punishment to a ban, generally with a "next time is permanent" if the offence is something we really don't like on the forum (like racism).

'Generally' being the operative word;)

easychair · 17-08-2011 8:25am

nesf wrote: »

The second issue is stupidity breeding stupidity. You get amorphous blobs of posters all singing to the same hymn sheet that is woefully underinformed, biased or otherwise of poor quality. Because they all agree with each other they think their position is worthwhile or correct. I'm at a loss as to what to do with this kind of situation. If I start banning people for having poorly thought out views then I'll have to ban well over half the forum.

Isn't that supposed to be the logical development internet sites which offer free access and no test to join and participate other than the ability to open an email account and think of a password?

As they expand and get bigger (which is usually their goal) they attract more and more people of varying intelligence, and the MODS ( who are usually volunteers and also of varying intelligence) become more and more busy trying to maintain the sites integrity from earlier times, the whole tone and feeling to the site changes, and it dumbs down all the time.

It's not an easy balance to strike, and if the site is being run for the profit of a few, and those few still expect the mods to run and monitor the site free of charge...well, it can't be easy.

nesf · 19-08-2011 2:15am

Status update:

Names given to the Admins for review. Could take a while as Admins are quite busy. Happened a while back but I forgot to post this!

Looking at appointing 3 new mods. Won't know the exact number until the Admins have gotten back to us and we've asked people.

later12 · 19-08-2011 4:14pm

okay but on the issue of the standards, has anything been decided?

you can have all the mods in the world but it doesn't make a difference if they're happy to let the present situation persist.

These threads are not being started because people want more moderators, as far as I can see they want more effective moderation. I'm not sure more mods is the answer at all - much less the only answer.

nesf · 19-08-2011 5:38pm

later10 wrote: »

okay but on the issue of the standards, has anything been decided?

you can have all the mods in the world but it doesn't make a difference if they're happy to let the present situation persist.

These threads are not being started because people want more moderators, as far as I can see they want more effective moderation. I'm not sure more mods is the answer at all - much less the only answer.

Current thinking is add new mods and see what difference having more hands on board makes and then revisit the issue if necessary.

Edit: Part of issue is, I think, that users don't know the current rules well enough and aren't reporting reportable posts. e.g. people aren't challenging for references and leaving sources unquestioned. There's nothing the mods can do about this if people aren't pursuing it themselves. All we can do is try to educate people in this respect. We made some effort with that, explaining what is and what is not actionable in the feedback thread in the Politics forum.

Permabear · 19-08-2011 6:35pm

This post has been deleted.

nesf · 19-08-2011 6:53pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think that's a fair point. One issue at the moment is how much we have to spell things out for people. I'd much rather have a charter that just said "Don't be a dick" and leave it at that but people don't understand that their behaviour dicklike or they refuse to believe they are doing anything wrong.

later12 · 20-08-2011 2:13am

Ok so where are we at the moment? This is my understanding, feel free to correct

K9, southsiderosie, permabear, gandalf and myself (as well as other registered users) feel there is a problem on the politics forum
Users raising concerns about both posting standards and activity of current moderator team
Most moderators tend to agree there is an issue with mod numbers, in process of appointing more mods
Mods seem to feel standards have slipped because users not reporting adequately.
Some users feel that moderators' inactions are confusing what is and is not 'reportable'
Some mods appear to feel that alienating the overall user base could be a problem if the forum should become more strict.
Issue of posting standards will be revisited if the increased mod numbers don't improve the standard

Is that a fair representation of where we are? I'm afraid I may be misrepresenting the politics mods posts here because only 2 of them are actively contributing throughout this thread and the general feedback thread that was on politics.

For the other politics mods, it's really hard to get any idea what they are thinking about specific issues. Apart from tending to suggest there is no problem with moderator presence, they don't tend to be here, or in politics, for the discussion.

meditraitor · 20-08-2011 8:17am

Here is my understanding of the issue's, of course I'm wrong because with such a disparate group of posters how could I be so arrogant as to think I would speak for any group.

(a)A small but verbose group of posters all have different idea's of where the politics forum should be going depending on their own agenda

(b)They all have different reasons but have honed in on moderation and posting standard because as a loosely alined group(similiar to the tea party) they need something to keep them together

(zzzz)If they get their way then there will be a quick cleanout of non graduate/ah esk folk posters in the politics forum followed by a week or two of long boring threads,

Then the real problems will be addressed, this is the fun bit.

1. certain mods will be pushed out by the new majority(population/poster diminished)
2. political views cemented and direction addressed
3. sophist unworkable fantasy politics takes over
4. forum dies
5. new posters drift back
6. some sort of political crisis
7. new posters fight over direction and around we go again

if there is a shift towards deep and meaningful political posting what makes any of you think that you can contribute anything useful? if you are that serious about politics and have a genuine fresh outlook why do you think boards is the place.
I haven't seen any potential great minds or serious original debate, mostly its dick waving and traffic warden stuff....... this author says, this politcal analysts said, this philosopher professed which is all fine with me but to think that because you are more read than another gives you better insight is beyond ridiculous.

Serious note, give the new mods a chance to clean up dodge then fine tune,

have nice weekend folks, I'm of to try to teach my 2 year old how to swim, happy days;)

nesf · 20-08-2011 2:30pm

later10 wrote: »

Ok so where are we at the moment? This is my understanding, feel free to correct

K9, southsiderosie, permabear, gandalf and myself (as well as other registered users) feel there is a problem on the politics forum

Users raising concerns about both posting standards and activity of current moderator team

Most moderators tend to agree there is an issue with mod numbers, in process of appointing more mods

Mods seem to feel standards have slipped because users not reporting adequately.

Some users feel that moderators' inactions are confusing what is and is not 'reportable'

Some mods appear to feel that alienating the overall user base could be a problem if the forum should become more strict.

Issue of posting standards will be revisited if the increased mod numbers don't improve the standard

Is that a fair representation of where we are? I'm afraid I may be misrepresenting the politics mods posts here because only 2 of them are actively contributing throughout this thread and the general feedback thread that was on politics.

For the other politics mods, it's really hard to get any idea what they are thinking about specific issues. Apart from tending to suggest there is no problem with moderator presence, they don't tend to be here, or in politics, for the discussion.

I'd add:

A minority of vocal posters have raised a problem and none are what I'd consider regular users of the forum. (I don't mean this is a bad or negative way)
Most of the mods of the forum have been quiet. That means they either agree with the vocal mods or aren't reading the thread. I'd go with the former but I could be wrong.
One mod feels part of the problem is the rules not being generally known so new posters especially don't know what they can expect from debate.
The whole issue of posting standards and how to improve them hasn't been properly dealt with outside of hand waving and "make the charter stricter". The mods are still waiting on some concrete suggestions for rule changes that could be implemented.

later12 · 20-08-2011 7:05pm

I give up. 12 pages on and you don't think you have read any concrete suggestions? The charter is plenty strict by the way, I'm not sure how many more ways there are to ask mods to enforce it. This thread is not going to resolve anything so I'm bowing out of this discussion at this point, mods really need to make a decision and stick to it.

nesf · 20-08-2011 7:14pm

later10 wrote: »

I give up. 12 pages on and you don't think you have read any concrete suggestions? The charter is plenty strict by the way, I'm not sure how many more ways there are to ask mods to enforce it. This thread is not going to resolve anything so I'm bowing out of this discussion at this point, mods really need to make a decision and stick to it.

We have made a decision, add more mods and see what happens.

Nodin · 20-08-2011 10:05pm

nesf wrote: »

, add more mods and see what happens.

Sure we know the answer to that.

K-9 · 20-08-2011 10:17pm

nesf wrote: »

I'd add:
A minority of vocal posters have raised a problem and none are what I'd consider regular users of the forum. (I don't mean this is a bad or negative way)

Most of the mods of the forum have been quiet. That means they either agree with the vocal mods or aren't reading the thread. I'd go with the former but I could be wrong.

One mod feels part of the problem is the rules not being generally known so new posters especially don't know what they can expect from debate.

The whole issue of posting standards and how to improve them hasn't been properly dealt with outside of hand waving and "make the charter stricter". The mods are still waiting on some concrete suggestions for rule changes that could be implemented.

Well AH offers the same standard of threads in many cases now.

The issues of posting standards has been addressed for me.

More mods which obviously is a result of feedback and posters to report more.

Issues regarding posting standards have been met by Mods saying the DRP restricts them. Fair enough.

nesf · 20-08-2011 10:35pm

K-9 wrote: »

Issues regarding posting standards have been met by Mods saying the DRP restricts them. Fair enough.

To be clear that is only an issue with low level trolling and low level soapboxing. More blatant stuff we can deal with without problems, the issues are when they go unreported and similar.

gandalf · 20-08-2011 11:37pm

Sigh why should the users report posts when the moderators in place cannot even agree which way they enforce the rules that are in place. Maybe that is why people are not reporting posts any longer.

There is not point throwing more moderators at the forum if you all cannot agree how you apply the rules which from this thread and the one that sprouted up in the politics forums is pretty obvious. It seems that you are all letting the DRP process and the grief it might cause rule your moderating decisions.

As for not being in your active poster pigeon hole, you're right I hardly ever post in politics any more because the place is on the whole is not a good place to have an intelligent discussion any longer. It seems this is how you and the others mods who have engaged here and the ever so silent admins want it so at this stage I will leave you to it.

Permabear · 22-08-2011 2:53pm

This post has been deleted.

Politics standards

Comments