Clearing up Vagueness and Consolidation of Forum Rules

[youknowwho]

I personally believe that moderator action can't be always balanced and unbiased. it is impossible, just because we're human beings and that's a human quality. a moderator may consider a post a break of the rules that another moderator would not. so, exactly defining each rule does not do any good. in fact, it would take away the ability to judge based on the situation from the moderator. my point is, the important part to make moderation fair in forums like this, is acknowledging the right of user to appeal the decision, and a working structure which provides the means for that right.

I think the downfall of PF was exactly that. when good moderators retired, and new ones appointed, because of lack of such structure, few moderators went rouge and bullied that place into what it is now.

 

[Zyphlin]

I personally believe that moderator action can't be always balanced and unbiased. it is impossible, just because we're human beings and that's a human quality. a moderator may consider a post a break of the rules that another moderator would not. so, exactly defining each rule does not do any good. in fact, it would take away the ability to judge based on the situation from the moderator. my point is, the important part to make moderation fair in forums like this, is acknowledging the right of user to appeal the decision, and a working structure which provides the means for that right.

I think the downfall of PF was exactly that. when good moderators retired, and new ones appointed, because of lack of such structure, few moderators went rouge and bullied that place into what it is now.

This is actually why we have a number of checks and balances on this forum.

Every single warning and infraction is posted to a forum that is visible to and checked by the entire mod staff, including the PM sent with the action, making sure that no action is taken that isn't publicly known to the other mods.

The same goes for every report. They all go to a forum that every mod can see with mods responding in thread when they respond to an issue based on a report. It is not uncommon in these threads for a mod who thinks they may have a poor reading of a situation, or are unsure of what the best course of action is for any of a number of reasons, to ask for input from others before acting.

At any point that a mod feels another mods actions are incorrect or questionable there is an atmosphere, started from the very top in vauge, of openness and accountability and they can speak their disagreement and start a discussion on the situation between team members.

Additionally we have an automated dispute system where a user can send forth their issues with an action to the universal mod forums and thus make it visible to every single mod, with all disputed issues being discussed and reviewed.

Indeed, it is impossible to remove 100% bias from a human being as even subconsciously the chance is there even if it is able to pushed to a minuscule degree for some reason. Its precisely that reason we have a diverse moderation team that works within a system of a number of checks and balances to assure that no clearly biased or erroneous actions are taken.

 

[Demon of Light]

Indeed, it is impossible to remove 100% bias from a human being as even subconsciously the chance is there even if it is able to pushed to a minuscule degree for some reason. Its precisely that reason we have a diverse moderation team that works within a system of a number of checks and balances to assure that no clearly biased or erroneous actions are taken.

While I would agree that there is general diversity when it comes to the political views of the moderators this is not so much the case on some specific issues. I am sure we could all mention several mods supportive of Israel, but how many can you seriously think of that would be fairly characterized as opposed to Israel? Personally, I cannot think of a single one that could be plausibly described that way. At best one could say there has been a neutral minority with the majority supportive of Israel. Yet, the Middle East Forum is the most strictly moderated. It looks to me like the subject where mods have the least political diversity is also the one where they have the most power.

Do you not think this raises a problem?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

While I would agree that there is general diversity when it comes to the political views of the moderators this is not so much the case on some specific issues. I am sure we could all mention several mods supportive of Israel, but how many can you seriously think of that would be fairly characterized as opposed to Israel? Personally, I cannot think of a single one that could be plausibly described that way. At best one could say there has been a neutral minority with the majority supportive of Israel. Yet, the Middle East Forum is the most strictly moderated. It looks to me like the subject where mods have the least political diversity is also the one where they have the most power.

Do you not think this raises a problem?

I don't think it's a problem if mods are able to separate their political views from their moderation. I would say, pretty consistently, this is the case. And as several mods have said, we have a lot of checks and balances built into the system. For example, often what we will do, if a post is questionable anywhere in the forum, is change the attacks to a different group. For example, if the attack is against conservatives, we would change it to an attack against liberals and examine it. That way, folks from either side of the aisle can look at it more objectively.

 

[Zyphlin]

While I would agree that there is general diversity when it comes to the political views of the moderators this is not so much the case on some specific issues. I am sure we could all mention several mods supportive of Israel, but how many can you seriously think of that would be fairly characterized as opposed to Israel? Personally, I cannot think of a single one that could be plausibly described that way. At best one could say there has been a neutral minority with the majority supportive of Israel. Yet, the Middle East Forum is the most strictly moderated. It looks to me like the subject where mods have the least political diversity is also the one where they have the most power.

Do you not think this raises a problem?

Not really.

There's a number of mods that I'd say are not on the pro-israel side of things but generally refrain from getting into Middle East discussions due to the level and style of discourse that goes on in that forum. Additionally there's enough mods that are generally hyper sensitive to possible biased actions and would speak up if they see it happening either consiously or subconsiously. Finally, I've seen every mod we have routinely take action against people on the side they are on and opposite as well. I've never witnessed anything in regards to any mod actions that gives me a reason to believe that any purposeful or unpurposeful bias is impacting their mod duties in any significant way.

So no, I don't really see an issue there. The change in rules in that forum wasn't because of any bias on the part of moderation but entirely because of the hellhole of worthlessness the forum had become.

 

[Schweddy]

Do you not think this raises a problem?

I see the middle east forum as a challenge with high emotions flying about. Unsure one could find another non-sided forum that isn't emotionally charged and values all opinions.

DoL, I do not agree with you about a few things, but I think I am starting to see your frustration. I think I see your point that more mod diversity participation in the ME forum would be a better thing, even if at least for perception. Next time, when we look at potential mod applicants we may need to focus more on middle east political viewpoints, interest, and participation down there.

While we are on the topic, and thank you for some good criticism, what else can you see that needs attention there? It may not seem so, but we are always looking for ways to allow open discussion and freedom of expression while demanding our motto down there. It can be very high emotions and direct confrontations down there, how can we more encourage more civil discourse from your perspective?

 

[Gardener]

Next time, when we look at potential mod applicants we may need to focus more on middle east political viewpoints, interest, and participation down there.

I do not believe that the continuous demonization of one small country should be a trait you look for in a moderator. In fact, such zealotry should eliminate one from consideration.

Seeking out a moderator who is virulently anti Israel just to placate the complainers makes as much sense as looking for a moderator who is in agreement with Fred Phelps just to placate those with similar views in regards to homosexuality. Sure, you are being pressured by a group of people who have been exchanging messages amongst themselves towards that end, but posters opinions should not be what qualifies them to be mods, but their reasonableness, intellectual honesty, fairness, and knowledge of the many various issues they are expected to adjudicate.

Instead of looking for zealots, I think you would do better to find well-rounded moderate people with reasonable views who are not here to advocate anybody's destruction nor apply a signifigant percentage of their efforts here towards agitprop. Setting up a quota system based upon the perceptions of extremists is not a particulary wise course of action IMO.

 

[Demon of Light]

I do not believe that the continuous demonization of one small country should be a trait you look for in a moderator. In fact, such zealotry should eliminate one from consideration.

Seeking out a moderator who is virulently anti Israel just to placate the complainers makes as much sense as looking for a moderator who is in agreement with Fred Phelps just to placate those with similar views in regards to homosexuality. Sure, you are being pressured by a group of people who have been exchanging messages amongst themselves towards that end, but posters opinions should not be what qualifies them to be mods, but their reasonableness, intellectual honesty, fairness, and knowledge of the many various issues they are expected to adjudicate.

Instead of looking for zealots, I think you would do better to find well-rounded moderate people with reasonable views who are not here to advocate anybody's destruction nor apply a signifigant percentage of their efforts here towards agitprop. Setting up a quota system based upon the perceptions of extremists is not a particulary wise course of action IMO.

I would actually agree that political diversity is not a necessity to have objective moderation. However, sometimes a lack of diversity creates problems that may not even be understood as problems since it involves an opinion clashing with that of moderators.