Does the political forum need special moderating.

[dogbone]

I think it does. So that's settled then.

It's the choice of MR to have a political and religious forum and particularly anything dealing with religions and their weirdness is always going to be a boiling point topic. Just check out Wikipedia to see how many articles are locked.

I realise that this is a busy forum and the mods don't have time to babysit a subforum but as I said, it's their choice to allow it so there is some responsibility to put in the extra work required.

I was wondering what others, particularly mods think of this.

Maybe just some new clear cut rules like has just been done for soliciting logos in the graphic forum, would suffice. With that in mind perhaps we could discuss appropriate rules, like anyone who disagrees with me is not allow to post, <kidding>

 

[edesignuk]

No.

Anyone wishing to be a part of the Political forums just needs to be a little bit less sensitive to things. All politics does is get peoples feathers ruffled, people shouldn't post in there expecting everything to go their way and for their opinions to be agreed with.

It is what it is, and it's just fine how it is.

The last thing it needs is any political forum regulars being made mods of it, that could only lead to bad things.

 

[WinterMute]

The forum does not require special moderation, it requires the same level of moderation as any other forum.

The Forum was removed from the post counter to stop spamming, and is moderated based on reported posts and the rules for posting set for the entire site.

If anything there is a level of leniency allowed because everyone knows it's a bear pit and most choose not to visit.

Please remember that simply because a post is reported it doesn't automatically mean the mod dealing with the report will delete or edit, they may not agree that a rule has been infringed.

All reported posts are moderated.

 

[dogbone]

...everyone knows it's a bear pit and most choose not to visit.

Yes, of course but that's the point I'm making, it need not be like that. Granted it's nowhere near as bad as it could be but it seems to lower the tone of MR, which is a surprisingly good forum for the amount of traffic.

Maybe it would be an idea for those who participate in it to hammer out their own code of conduct in a published thread, that everyone agrees to? Does that sound like a plan?

 

[Queso]

I don't actually see an issue with how it is. Yeah, posters (including myself) sometimes get carried away on the sarcasm front, but most of the MR community will never see that as they don't go into PRSI. Those of us that do read it all know it's not a garden of roses and occasionally you'll go in there and come away aggrieved, but compared to a lot of web forums that discuss those topics it's very civilised.

 

[arn]

Maybe it would be an idea for those who participate in it to hammer out their own code of conduct in a published thread, that everyone agrees to? Does that sound like a plan?

I don't quite understand what you are asking, and what problem it will solve.

arn

 

[dogbone]

I don't quite understand what you are asking, and what problem it will solve.
arn

OK let me illustrate with an example. I think the most basic rule of any forum is to keep a thread on topic, but generally this would make for a pretty uninteresting place. For most of MR threads do stay on topic and then after the topic is over it becomes more social. Which is good. It's part of what makes this place a nice forum.

But the political/religious forum is sort of on it's own in this regard because most of the participants wish to discuss a particular point that does get very emotional. There's not a lot of socialising going on there, because there's better places.

Being political and emotional, points are often being made that irk some people and the reaction is to derail the topic, deliberately in my opinion. If participants are genuine then their topic is genuine and there is usually a genuine point being made, rightly or wrongly. If someone disagrees it's up to them to argue the point, not to bring up a completely unrelated point which is meant to invalidate the original topic. For example.

A simple and basic example is if someone poses a topic and it is immediately answer with, "why do you always talk about xxx", you see what happens. There's no point reporting that because it's not abuse and it's not against the forum rules but it sets the tone. Others then feel OK about posting similarly imbecilic posts. And that sort of a post *is* imbecilic. This is just a simple and easy to understand example, not the definitive example.

Anyway seeing as this benefits no one I though that perhaps we could all be gentlemanly and (womanly) about it and see if the participants can come to some common agreed 'rules of engagement'.

This may seem silly or impossible but at least it's an attempt to get a hold of the situation. I was just canvassing opinions. But if everyone thinks things are fine as they are then so be it.

EDIT: Or maybe we can all agree on tighter rules for this particular sub forum, for example a post like "why do you always start these sorts of thread" for example be qualified for deletion if reported. And *any* personal abuse even if not bad enough to normally be reported, also be qualified for deletion. This is fair to everyone. I think just keeping personal comments completely *off* this particular sub forum, will help immeasureably. Particularly personal abuse disguised as a sly comment.

 

[iGav]

There shouldn't be any moderating full stop.

The only rules should be. There are no rules.

 

[Lau]

Honestly? I don't venture into the PF that often, but when i do, more often than not I see you, dogbone, steering threads off topic (and then acting injured when they go off topic), trolling, and having petty arguments with people (and again, acting injured when it turns back on you).

 

[Peterkro]

Yes indeed this is very much a pot kettle situation the OP is at least as guilty of the behavior complained about as anyone else.

 

[Blue Velvet]

All I personally ask is that people report stuff in there... by reporting problems, it helps us to keep the place on an even keel. And when I say problems, I mean real problems.

Despite what some might think, reporting posts that contravene overall forum rules doesn't make you a member of the Stasi or some kind of snitch...

By reporting posts, you help ensure that the PRSI forum survives, because if it becomes too flame-riddled and highly-strung, then its value and possible future may be compromised.

 

[devilot]

... perhaps we could all be gentlemanly and (womanly) about it and see if the participants can come to some common agreed 'rules of engagement'.

This may seem silly or impossible but at least it's an attempt to get a hold of the situation.

*blinks* But er, for the most part? Many of the threads I've read in the PRSI over the course of the last two years are courteous or as you called it "gentle(wo)manly" in conduct. And there are already rules in play. The minimum post requirement is there for a reason. Cuts down on trolling and folks for the most part, are able to read that forum and realize that if you're gonna step in there, be prepared. Have facts. Have "proof." And have a thicker skin.

EDIT: Or maybe we can all agree on tighter rules for this particular sub forum... And *any* personal abuse even if not bad enough to normally be reported, also be qualified for deletion. This is fair to everyone. I think just keeping personal comments completely *off* this particular sub forum, will help immeasurably. Particularly personal abuse disguised as a sly comment.

I don't see that being helpful. Remember, just because people have differing opinions and aren't afraid to say so, does NOT mean that they are personally attacking the other.

Again, if any poster thinks a post is out of line, report it. Just keep in mind what WinterMute said, every single reported post is looked at. May not be addressed the way y'all would like, but none are ignored.

 

[dogbone]

Honestly? I don't venture into the PF that often, but when i do, more often than not I see you, dogbone, steering threads off topic (and then acting injured when they go off topic), trolling, and having petty arguments with people (and again, acting injured when it turns back on you).

*blinks* But er, for the most part? Many of the threads I've read in the PRSI over the course of the last two years are courteous or as you called it "gentle(wo)manly" in conduct.

Look I'm not going to start giving examples.

Yes indeed this is very much a pot kettle situation the OP is at least as guilty of the behavior complained about as anyone else.

You see how difficult it is. Even here two people have to come in and start up the same sort of name calling. Did I ask for special treatment for me did I mention any names, did I exclude myself? Non, non, et non. I asked that *we all* agree together, if possible on some common rules of courtesy. If I am indeed the culprit then you need not be afraid as only I will suffer won't I <insert one of those really really big rolly eyes things here.>

All I personally ask is that people report stuff in there... by reporting problems, it helps us to keep the place on an even keel. And when I say problems, I mean real problems.

BV, good in principle but not in practice. As people can get quite sly as to how they will derail a thread. Let me ask just as an example BV would a post that only makes a personal comment be removed if it was complained about. Because as far as I understand the rules I've read personal comments are verbotten. So a comment that only seeks to make an observation on a person's posting habits, is both off topic and personal. Would a comment like that be removed?

But I'm not looking for specific tighter moderation, that's not going to work, I'm looking for the participants themselves, (hey that included me) to agree publicly what sort of stuff they will not post. Like personal comments, then it won't require a moderator to be innundated with peurile complaints.

But apparently this self evident (to me) attempt at some semblance of normality, is a bad idea, (so far). It's not a matter of who did what in the past, the past is past, why can't we start fresh with some agreed rules of engagement. If we can't agree on any then so be it, but surely it's worth a shot. Maybe even the discussion itself it worthwhile even if it comes to naught.

Your honor, I rest my case.

 

[Lau]

You see how difficult it is. Even here two people have to come in and start up the same sort of name calling. Did I ask for special treatment for me did I mention any names, did I exclude myself?

Thanks for proving my point – you don't need to act so mock injured because someone points something out.

I just think you complaining about trolling and insults is like me complaining that too many threads go off topic because people keep waffling on about random topics. In other words, I hardly think I'm in a position to complain about that, and you're hardly in a position to complain about this.

It seems that an awful lot of threads descend into personal insults when you're part of them, and I don't think you can say that's all down to other posters not conducting themselves properly.

If I am indeed the culprit then you need not be afraid as only I will suffer won't I <insert one of those really really big rolly eyes things here.>

Erm, but that does seem to be the case, as no one else is complaining.

 

[dogbone]

Thanks for proving my point – you don't need to act so mock injured because someone points something out.

Hey BV would this get removed, not a chance, this is an example of the very sly remarks I was referring to, really just trolling, it's nothing more than a personal attack and off topic. 'Act so mock injured' do me a favour.

... and you're hardly in a position to complain about this.

Er rather than complain I'm suggesting an adult solution. But it's a well known cliché that "if you think there's a solution then you're the problem",

It seems that an awful lot of threads descend into personal insults when you're part of them, and I don't think you can say that's all down to other posters not conducting themselves properly.

Do you not see the irony that not only are you now getting personal but here is a thread that I'm a part of that has descended into personal insults but it is you and peterko who started the personal insults. I mean the evidence is right here in the thread. Do I laugh or cry? Laugh.

And what is the very contentious premise of this thread that warranted such personal attacks? That's right I suggested that we all get together and formulate some agreed rules of engagement. Is that really worth getting your knickers bunched? Seems like a pretty fair suggestion. And as I said, if, as you suggest it would only affect me then why don't you jump at the opportunity to make me suffer for my own suggestion? I would venture to say the answer is obvious.

 

[Peterkro]

If you think pointing out that you are as guilty of the behavior described as anyone is a personal attack methinks you're being a trifle sensitive (and far be it for me to say in a sly way).

 

[Blue Velvet]

Let me tell you something about how the moderating here works...

All of us are volunteers, taking time from our working and personal lives when we can to help this site out. Behind the scenes here, there's a lot of housekeeping, maintenance and development work going on. It's a little more than deleting posts... and we give this time freely to you, all of you, to make this place what it is.

In the scheme of things, given that the site's purpose is Apple-related discussion and community-building around that idea, the PRSI forum is a mere off-shoot that was initially introduced to filter off political content from the community forum, a purpose it serves quite well.

But... any requests to pay special attention or spend valuable volunteer's time to consider policies suited to that forum, is not a realistic use of limited and precious resources given some of the other challenges we face.

Furthermore, the regular participants in that forum, while naturally having a vested interest, are still not those responsible for creating or finalising policy. That is the moderators and administrators task, and one which we are reluctant to pay extra attention to, given the tone of many of our responses as you've seen in this thread. Appeals to specific moderators are also likely to fall on deaf ears.

So my view is this: everyone knows what it's like in there. If you don't like it, don't participate. Find somewhere else to discuss these issues that suits your moral code of conduct.

 

[devilot]

Hey BV would this get removed, not a chance, this is an example of the very sly remarks I was referring to, really just trolling, it's nothing more than a personal attack and off topic.

If you'll kindly note, MR has more than one moderator. BV is but one. And a busy one at that. If you'll also kindly note, quite a few mods (and even the site owner himself, arn, has chimed in and read your thread.

As for that being a personal "attack?" I don't see it as such. I hope you can realize that because someone addresses another person directly, does not equate an attack.

I'd like to re-iterate:

Remember, just because people have differing opinions and aren't afraid to say so, does NOT mean that they are personally attacking the other.

 

[dogbone]

BV,

I've already alluded to the work the mods do and thus it was my intention that the regulars on the political forum get together to agree to some ground rules precisely to give the overworked mods a break.

But I hear you when you say, if you don't like it then leave that forum. A perfectly reasonable thing to say. My intentions were good and I tried my best, which is all one can really do. But I there is a solution that is perfectly satisfactory to me, and that is to block anyone who gets personal and I hope this is reciprocated. Thanks for taking the time to listen.

As for that being a personal "attack?" I don't see it as such. I hope you can realize that because someone addresses another person directly, does not equate an attack.

...but when i do, more often than not I see you, dogbone, steering threads off topic..., trolling, and having petty arguments with people

Fair enough. I must be arguing with myself, what a troll I am.

OK Let's leave it at that then, I'm sure the reader can work it out.

 

[DoFoT9]

The only rules should be. There are no rules.

how can that be a rule then if theer are no rules??? haha gotcha there1!

 

[Blue Velvet]

I've already alluded to the work the mods do and thus it was my intention that the regulars on the political forum get together to agree to some ground rules precisely to give the overworked mods a break.

You used the phrase 'special moderating' in the title of this thread, which is why we're not going to do it... and I don't want anyone to take this personally, but to use a well-worn phrase: we're not going to put the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

We're just as unlikely to enable them either... as it would still need mod and admin attention.

Right, I've given this thread enough of my lunch-break. I had better get back to my paid job, the one that pays the rent. Cheers.

 

[iGav]

how can that be a rule then if theer are no rules???

Because you have to establish that there are no rules before you can actually have no rules.

 

[dogbone]

You used the phrase 'special moderating' in the title of this thread...

Yes I did, I tend to forget to put questions marks in thread titles. I sort of formulated the better solution of a pow wow with the regulars, but it was not to be. But that's cool.

You do this in your lunchbreak?!

how can that be a rule then if theer are no rules??? haha gotcha there1!

It's a good gotcha, can also be used to prove the only thing than can really be called Truth, that which nobody can deny. ie, yourself. You can't deny you exist, it's the same logic.

 

[DoFoT9]

Because you have to establish that there are no rules before you can actually have no rules.

then that means there is a rule

 

[Compile 'em all]

Not to Hijack the thread or anything but there is a minor annoyance I have with moderated/reported posts. I noticed a couple of times that there were complete posts that just disappeared from a thread...just like that. No notice, nothing. I saw this first hand in the iPhone forum, there was some thread about the iPhone in Europe and Belgium. People started taking the thread off topic, arguing whether Brussels is the capital of Europe. People were not noticing that their posts were disappearing and continued derailing the thread. Eventually the thread was closed. Which kinda sucked because I was interested in the topic of the thread.

It would have been better if these people were notified in some way that what they were doing was wrong. This could have been done by editing their post and putting in something like Post deleted for so and so reason (in the post area, not just in the edit_reason). This way the offender as well as posters on the same thread will notice it.

Thanks