Stormfront To Black Panthers. Mod Prejudices In Subjective Decisions

Yes in most cases that is true (rule breakers deserve the infraction and usually cause the toxic arguments). Usually after a cooling off period and after I (regrettably) write the mod that infracted me, telling them why I should not have been infracted etc etc...it happens.. that feeling of ’well maybe I was out of line’ comes seeping in from wherever it originates! Invariably I PM the mod and apologize for that message I wrote, and then apologize to the members if I was really out of line. However, there have been instances where I was sure a moderator or a group of like minded mods was stalking me (not on this site). I asked that my account be deleted and went on to greener pastures.

Anyway~

Most message boards being privately owned we can not expect the same freedoms that we are guaranteed in public forums. Lastly when I said that subjectivity is a necessary evil in moderation its nothing personal to the conservative leaning mods or to the liberal friendly mods. It is simply a fact that members must live with and understand its part of being human.

Rev A

 

It really isn't all that hard or subjective for any moderator to determine if a post or OP is flamebaiting. First and foremost we look at it from the perspective of the Mission Statement. Is the post or OP trying to engage in respectful discussion and debate? That isn't the sole criteria but it certainly gives us a clue. From there we actually look to see if an actual political subject is being addressed. Once again, not all that hard to do and if not, and assuming the post is inflamatory, then it meets the criteria of flamebait.

Of course we also have the unwritten rule of moderation which is, "If in doubt do nothing" which often results in no actions being taken and we often take heat for that because members will report a post and then we do nothing because we're not sure of the forum rule violation. From my experiences dealing with Reported Posts the members would issue a lot more infractions and ban more members than the moderators.

Members should remember one important fact. The moderators are members first and foremost and we all, regardless of our political beliefs, welcome good posts from others that hold opposing political beliefs. We're all here to debate with those we disagree with so having good posters with political opinions we oppose is the bread and butter of Political Forum.

 

let's all just be nice!!!

 

I believe it was Rodney King who asked, "Can't we all just get a loan?"

 

Well, you are talking to someone that doesn’t trust authority. You look old enough to remember what the baby boomers mantra was in their youth i.e. 'question authority' ? Ha ha some of the late 60’s things were worth saving, most weren’t. Anyway~ I am not saying that the mods are not fair or trying to do what is fair, just that some judgments are subjective by nature. Ideally you are correct in that flame baiting can be ferreted out, in the majority of cases. However not all mods are cut from the same cloth, and in my opinion an individual can not help but flavor a decision etc with their own personality if even the ‘flavoring’ is just a tiny bit.

In my opinion personal preferences and such happens in jury trials where there are controls and restrictions placed on the Jurors that attempt to eliminate that kind of subjectivity, it happens in personal relationships etc. I simply do not feel that a fantasy moderator (meaning no one at PF etc) with extreme prejudices can be perfectly objective when making judgment calls about a subject that he or she may have very strong life and death entrenched ideas about (In the following I am using an extreme example for clarity).

For example a still bitter (and rightly so) holocaust survivor moderator making a flame bait call on a Nazi supporter, or Neo Nazi. Yes, I am probably in the minority, but the above is the same reasons I do not trust our justice system etc. which theoretically, a juror for example, should be completely objective. I personally think that objectivity is impossible 100% of the time.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree Shiva. And that brings me to your last sentence, civil disagreement is what makes our forum fun and interesting eh?

Rev A

 

It is rather interesting because based upon private conversations between the moderators I don't believe the moderators trust authority either. We constantly address our actions to ensure we don't over-step our authority and in questionable situations we defer to the "if in doubt do nothing" philosophy of enforcement of the Forum Rules.

Of note for those that read my posts as a member I rage againt the abuse of authority constantly in the political arena. I am anything but an "establishment" supporter politically as the abuse of authority which violates the Rights of People by governments is my number one issue.

Politics really don't come into play when we address flamebaiting or other rules enforcement and a single moderator's actions can and have been overturned by the other moderators. Flamebaiting is flamebaiting regardless of the topic. All of our actions are reviewable and members are certainly welcome to address them as well in the Suggestion Box and if an infraction was issued it can be appealed. We really do go out of our way to be fair with the members as it is the members that make up Political Forum and not the moderators. We're really a very small part of the total and our most important contribution is our posts and not our moderation. We really do try hard to set a high example of how to address political topics within the Forum Rules and Guidelines.

But we certainly agree that it is those of the "opposition" that make Political Forum an enjoyable place to express ourselves. The Forum Rules and Guidelines are solely intended to make that experience a good experience for the members.

Respectfully,
Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

As I have said in this forum that is more true than not.

I have always thought that (above) was your paradigm, or ideal model of reality, it is mine as well. We have differences only in the way methods and details that the authority of big government should or could be tamed.

I have only had two warnings since I have been here and decided not to appeal them because after I had a cool down period I agreed with the Mods actions! Ha ha~ However in other forums I haven't been so lucky, and appealing them was like trying to fight a speeding ticket in court.

Yes I have agreed to the fairness and the quality of the moderation in PF. This forum is the 'most fair' of any forum I have visited or been a member of and most of that is due to the moderation. The only point I was making was that subjectivity will enter into decisions that individual moderators make depending on what the "call" is, by call I mean which rules violation is being ruled upon. I was actually defending this forum from some and I must say this, 'liberals' that were accusing this forum of being a conservative bastion. I was trying to say that nearly ALL forums will have some spin either left or right due to the subjectivity of the moderators AND owner. I meant to relate that most forums are more left spin than right because the left feels put upon, and of course they have more gripes, and thus support more left spin forums. PF is the closest to neutral forum that I have found in ten years of posting.

Rev A

 

I was also a member of another forum before coming here and there the owner was the Chief moderator. I was banned for simply making an accurate statement about the CIA supporting groups that engaged in acts of terrorism and then the "owner/moderator" accused me of lying. I actually had a long PM conversation with the owner/moderator and in the end he determined that he was actually in the wrong. It wasn't an independent appeal process like we have here but the owner/moderator actually publically apologized for his actions (and I didn't ask for it). It worked out well but then the forum closed and I ended up here.

It was my pleasure to actually be a co-author of the Formal Appeal Process we have here. It removes the issuing moderator from the decision process and allows other moderators that were uninvolved to review the post(s) in question and make an unbiased decision.

We also have the fairest possible process related to permanent bans of a member as any moderator can block the permanent banning of a member. I know of no other forum with this level of protection of the members. I was also a co-author of this process and I'm proud of that.

Overall the moderators really do care about the members regardless of the members political beliefs. We love the diversity and merely want to try and keep the discussion civil. I don't know why it's so hard for some people to be civil and respectful when discussing subjects and issues with others. Apparently some might believe that whoever yells loudest wins but that is never really the case.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

Just about any post in this area of the forum, you guys get thanked profusely for the job that you all do.

And it isn't enough.

 

I had one overturned. Fair play to the Mods.

 

It is rewarding but it is amazing how much private abuse we get from disgruntled members when we issue them infractions or ban them because they violate the Forum Rules. We do laugh when we're accused of being politically biased as a "conservative" and a "liberal" both in the same day by two different members. We're obviously anything they oppose in their minds. It takes a pretty thick skin to be a moderator and personally I wouldn't recommend the job to anyone.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

Perhaps 1/3rd of all infractions that are appealed are overturned but most infractions are not appealed because they're clearly deserved.

BTW please review the signature guidelines.........

 

I can cope with that, just about - it's being an Atheist Christian Islamic Jewish-Zionist, all at once, that's giving me an identity crisis!

Seriously, as Shiva says, we do all get that kind of thing quite regularly. It's quite common for people to assume that the reason we have 'picked on' them is that we oppose them politically, not because they actually violated the rules.

I can tell you (although there will no doubt be some who don't believe me, but there's not much I can do about that), though, that we just don't work like that, and every one of the moderators is extremely dedicated to making sure that we do the best job we can, according to the rules and Mission Statement, and in the fairest way possible to the members (ALL of the members, from every 'side'). In fact, it is a privilege to work with such a team of moderators (and advisors, of course!) for that reason. I would have no interest in being part of a forum team (or a forum!) that thought that it was remotely acceptable for moderators (individually or as a group) to deal with members on the basis of their own political biases, rather than on the basis of fair and even rules that were applied equally to everybody (no matter what their political or other persuasion).

We have to take action over rule violations, of course, because the disruption caused by rule violations is unfair to the rest of the members that aren't violating the rules. We'll never be perfect in our actions, obviously, and will all make mistakes no matter how hard we try not to, but when we do I can assure you that that is what they will be - mistakes, not in any way attempts to be unfair, of 'fairer' to one 'side' over another. That principle applies to every decision we make.

'Flamebait' is not about 'inflammatory opinion' (that seems to be a fairly common misunderstanding). Just because someone feels 'inflamed' by a post or opinion does not make it 'flamebait'. 'Flamebait' is about the way a post (or part of a post) is constructed (deliberately to just wind people up, rather than being any kind contribution to 'respectful debate' on the topic), not about the opinion itself being something that some others don't like or get angry about. 'Inflammatory opinion' is specifically allowed by the Mission Statement - people are free to express their opinions, whatever they may be, and even if others don't like them, as long as they do so in the spirit of 'respectful debate' (as expressed in the Mission Statement). 'Flamebait' is against the rules, because it is against that spirit of 'respectful debate'. It is understanding that fundemental difference that allows moderators to step back and separate themselves from their own opinions to judge whether a post is 'flamebait' or not - knowing that it's nothing at all to do with whether or not they personally feel 'inflamed' by it.

If in doubt (about the application of any rule in any context), as Shiva has said, we will do nothing rather than act in a way that might not be fair to members. Alternatively, we will discuss it as a group and come to a decision that way - this is something we do quite regularly, and it's important to understand that moderators are not 'flying solo' even when we are dealing with things individually. We do work together very closely (and I can assure you that any suggestion that we are somehow a 'split' group, battling and struggling over the forum according to our own ideologies, would be complete nonsense!). The combination of that general team work, and our processes and procedures (including the appeals), is intended to make sure as far as humanly possible that we can't have anyone acting individually in an unfair way, even unintentionally.

Of course, whatever we do we will get a level of complaint, or even abuse, from some (on all 'sides') - that goes with the territory, unfortunately, but it isn't going to stop us trying to do the best and fairest job we possibly can to make this a fair and open forum for everyone (including in our actions over the 'flamebait' rule). Of course, the best way members can help us is in that is to not make posts that violate the rules, and take due note of any moderator actions if they do, so that they don't repeat their own mistakes. Thankfully, we have many members who do that, and all we can do is keep trying to deal with those that don't (in a fair way, that gives them every opportunity to change their ways before having to take, in fairness to other members, the inevitable consequences of their own actions if they decide not to).

 

Before I became active in this thread I thought all forums were the same. I am happy to have received a education into the workings of PF. I knew there was something special about my favorite forum. I too love homogenization, and feel that diversity/variety is the spice of life and enhances forum discussion. It’s difficult to bring together all the aspects the personalities, i.e. the beliefs, religions, not religious, PETA people, a few bigots, one or two Gandhi’s, even the semi trolls etc and light a fuse and hope that the whole thing does not blow up in our faces, but instead exhibit another aspect of a good discussion ; being at least somewhat civil! It is the latter that moderators shine the brightest, thanks to you and the other mods that unselfishly give which seems appro. on this thanksgiving and thanks for sharing the ‘structure and inner workings of PF. I would wish that the mods could be reimbursed for their pain ha~ha and unselfish commitment to make this the exceptional forum of internet forums.

Rev A

 

Good post Cenydd. About the flame-bait actions etc. I have decided that there will be some unintentional bias in any forum, in any moderator decision, and in any jury trial. No matter how sterile and neutral we attempt to make a decision making process, the more subjective the call or judgment the more risk there is for personal bias to enter into that call. So what to do? Live with it and hope that we (the moderators and staff) are doing the best they can, which I feel is a true statement here at PF. On other forums that would be a patently false statement!

Rev A

 

I beleive that I was unfairly infracted once. I was never ever warned.

I was infracted for insinuating that someone was an anti-semite. As if that were anything special on this esteemed site.

I have let it go though, because it isn't worth it.

 

Well, I have had a few passes with the collective mod team on this site, and I have to say that they are fairly even handed in adjudication. In fact, they are for more tolerant than the collective mod teams of many other forums.

I think part of the problem here is that many people approach rules like they are simple black and white issues. Rules almost never work that way. Sure, there are extreme cases where someone overtly and intentionally breaks the rules, and those are easy. Then there is the reality that some debates get passionate and people cross lines inadvertantly. We also have deliberate flame baiters, trolls, and teh simple maladjusted lurking just under the surface of civility.

In fact, rules can be used as weapons, and often are by some posters, who enter into debates with the intent to cause others to break rules for reporting, something I term debate by mod where the goal is to bring the mods into a debate to eliminate a voice in an arguement. These guys are out there.

Having been on both sides of the moderation issue, bot as reported and reporter, I will generally say that the people who are selected to be mods on this forum and about as high quality as you can get. It is no easy environment to moderate this forum, and those who do for this forum do a sound job of balancing between allowing free form debate and removing malign influences when they arise.

Do they always get it perfect? Of course, even very good people are still not perfect. Over time though, in the preponderance, they get far more right then wrong.

If you doubt that, visit another debate forum. See the result of 'moderation' on those sites.

BTW - for the record, the moderation team specifically addresses bias the way any organization does, by selecting people from a diverse body of people to ensure that as many different points of view are represented as possible. What binds them is the rules of the forum. Their duty is not to anything else on this forum.

 

In one forum, I basically got banned because a mod got really really upset that I mentioned Israel in a thread about threats against Iran. In another forum, I got banned because a mod was "breathing down my neck" while followers of Israel were requesting a ban and expressing personal attacks. In another forum, I got banned because a mod changed my posts to make it seem as if such was justified. In another forum, I got banned because I was challenging the personal attacks made by followers of Israel. In another forum, I got banned for having the reputation of challenging personal attacks. In another forum, I got banned for being critical of Israel.

It basically boils down to either the forum wanting to have a certain political leaning, or a new mod who wants to enforce such. Generally, the forums that I got banned from later became inactive and one of them even wrote an apology.

I tend to argue according to how I see the situation, even if the majority sees things differently, and it is Holocaust abuse to claim that I "rail against the Jewish state"

Oh, I follow the rules. It's my political arguments that some people fear and their only rebuttal against such is the censor ban.

I think that one can appeal an issue without needing to know which moderator was involved.

I would be all for transparency if revenge and security issues were not a concern.

 

Mod/Admins will always have dogs in every fight,and will make calls on what is best for forum/board unity & Mod/Admin unity .

 

There is one overriding factor in our decisions and it is contained in this one sentence from the Political Forum Mission Statement:

All of the Forum Rules are basically founded on this one statement and it is a powerful statement. If members simply restrained themselves to engaging in "vigorous respectful debate" there would be no personal attacks/insults, no flamebaiting, no trolling and no reason for any moderators.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

Ha ha (oops!) I am sorry to hear that Liebe, my friend! I haven't read the thread but that is where that subjectivity comes in. I could go back and pick out a hundred replies that skirt or break the forum rules. Some times it happens that subjective crosses the line to bias in moderated actions, which is ethically and sometimes morally wrong! But mods being human it happens, sometimes intentionally IMO. I have actually quit some forums when certain opinionated people made moderator, because I knew their bias would emerge in decision making.

Rev A

 

Calling a member an anti-semite would certainly qualify as being a personal insult/attack of a member and would be worthy of an infraction. If an infraction is unjustified then the member should Appeal it as not only does it address whether the Forum Rule was violated but also assists the moderators in making better determinations when issuing infractions in the future. We do learn from our mistakes.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

Really, how so?

How about explaining how that is the case, yet obvious flame bait which CAUSES that description to be apt to not be a violation of the rules?

And further explain how a particular troll (we all know who it is) who tries to derail every thread misusing the term is allowed to do so?

Talk about imbalanced moderation

 

I cannot see how being called an anti-semite is worthy of an infraction but being called a neo-zionist, amongst others, isn't. Let's just say that this where the subjectivity comes in.

 

In the past, as a result of the Holocaust, the anti-Semite accusation had a powerful impact in combatting racism in Europe and the US. When it was spoken, people listened and acted. Today, however, the term is often unfortunately used to insult people who don't hate Semites, where one attempts to misuse and abuse the good intent and purpose of the European Guilt Complex for the wrong cause. This is what makes it an insult, since it attempts to trick people into strongly opposing people for the wrong reason.

Neo-zionist, on the otherhand, generally describes a member of a political movement which is criticized for being engaged in controversial activities beyond Israeli borders, that tends to use the anti-Semite card as a tool for territorial expansion and thereby discredits the powerful influence the anti-Semite accusation used to have.