OT improvement suggestions

[Richard Cribb]

I'd be inclined to call myself at least vaguely socialist, though perhaps you're looking for a bit more commitment than that. You won't ever catch me moderating OT though.

Bold by me.
This thread is about the OT and its moderators, so even if you perhaps qualify as a socialist (methinks you like New Labour too much, though) you are not included among the people in question. Unfortunately, I must add.

However, I'd agree that the political makeup of the moderators, as a group, seems to me to reflect more or less the political makeup of the site's posters (ie, more to the right); but that is simply my probably imperfect impression.

I already stated something similar.
However, it is more less and less more. I have no objection to a massive majority of regressives, since this is indeed a fair reflection of the political views among the members, but I want my side to be represented, if only by one humble person.

 

[sirdanilot]

Why are we discussing the political backgrounds of a bunch of moderators on a civilization fan site?

It really doesn't matter. We should be discussing what the thread is about, namely OT improvement suggestions.

I say that we need less polls and more deep discussion. Funny spam shouldn't be closed on sight.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Why are we discussing the political backgrounds of a bunch of moderators on a civilization fan site?

For the last time; because a large part of the OT section is about politics.

It really doesn't matter. We should be discussing what the thread is about, namely OT improvement suggestions.

Like it or not, but some of us, including yours truly, think it matters.
And actually improvement may also include moderators and how they are picked out. Or do you think those matters are beyond criticism?

 

[.Shane.]

I would say most of the mods are fine, but as repeatedly stated I think it wouldn't hurt with a bit more political diversity among them. So adding one would be nice.

I think the lack of diversity comes more from the small # of mods who routinely police it.

The 2 most active mods, seems to me, are IglooDude and Whomp. ID skews a bit libertarian and whomp is pretty right down the middle (from an American perspective).

Maybe the real problem (so much as there is one, which I'm not convinced there is) is we need a couple more mods who are reasonably active and focused on that forum?

 

[Mise]

I honestly don't believe that the mods on this site are biased towards or against any particular political leaning, so regardless of their personal bias, I think they do a pretty good job of not letting it get in the way of fair moderating.

Which is a marvel in itself, tbh.

 

[Plotinus]

This thread is about the OT and its moderators, so even if you perhaps qualify as a socialist (methinks you like New Labour too much, though) you are not included among the people in question. Unfortunately, I must add.

Fair enough, although I must point out that moderators do discuss many decisions in the moderator area, so even mods from other parts of the site get some feedback or say in what goes on in other parts. In theory at least!

(I was wondering if you'd mention New Labour. That's a discussion I'm sure we can fruitfully have another time!)

I honestly don't believe that the mods on this site are biased towards or against any particular political leaning, so regardless of their personal bias, I think they do a pretty good job of not letting it get in the way of fair moderating.

One thing I would like to point out is that having a political position is not the same thing as bias; it's simply having an opinion. What you are trying to say is that the moderators' personal opinions do not lead them to have bias at all. Which I hope is true, although I believe luceafarul is right to at least some degree to insist that one can never really de-politicise oneself even at such times.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I think the lack of diversity comes more from the small # of mods who routinely police it.

And I think it comes more from them representing just one part of the political spectre.

ID skews a bit libertarian and whomp is pretty right down the middle (from an American perspective).

Sorry, .Shane, but now you are losing me.
Despite that you sometimes have an annoying tendency to be patronizing, and despite some not too brilliant things you said about communism, you are one of the posters here I respect the most for maturity, civility and sheer intelligence. But this I find not to be very impressive.
Despite that this forum has a majority of North Americans, it is still an international one. Which means I will not accept any political revisionism as "American" perspective, but stick to the text book. And even if there might be some controversy about exactly where to draw the line between left and right, Whomp qualifies neatly as being rather far on the right side (You yourself would probably fit better in the middle). But obviously I can't go into detail on discussing a forum member.
Also I am not sure about the correctness of such a statement. There is after all quite a few socialists and communist in the USA as well, even if they are marginalized due to socio-economic realities.

Maybe the real problem (so much as there is one, which I'm not convinced there is) is we need a couple more mods who are reasonably active and focused on that forum?

I don't think so.

I honestly don't believe that the mods on this site are biased towards or against any particular political leaning, so regardless of their personal bias, I think they do a pretty good job of not letting it get in the way of fair moderating.

What I find a tad amusing is that one non-socialist after another is checking in and stating that there is not a problem that socialists do not have any representative among the moderators.
Could it be that you people have difficulties seeing this problem because it is not really a concern of yours?

Fair enough, although I must point out that moderators do discuss many decisions in the moderator area, so even mods from other parts of the site get some feedback or say in what goes on in other parts. In theory at least!

That is a fair argument, but since you clearly stated your disinterest in OT in general, I could hardly expect you to be to keen in such a discussion, could I?
I also pointed out that I very rarely take any issue to the mods nowadays. I just find that to be a waste of time.

(I was wondering if you'd mention New Labour. That's a discussion I'm sure we can fruitfully have another time!)

Any time, friend.

One thing I would like to point out is that having a political position is not the same thing as bias; it's simply having an opinion. What you are trying to say is that the moderators' personal opinions do not lead them to have bias at all. Which I hope is true, although I believe luceafarul is right to at least some degree to insist that one can never really de-politicise oneself even at such times.

"Unfortunately I am always right". Bert Brecht.

 

[IglooDame]

I would say most of the mods are fine, but as repeatedly stated I think it wouldn't hurt with a bit more political diversity among them. So adding one would be nice.

If you'd care to PM me with specific examples where you feel that mod representation from your end of the political spectrum might have changed the result of something, I'd certainly like to see them. I (and my own sense is that all the mods do) take great pains to leave their politics aside when determining whether something is a troll, flame, or what have you. If there is still an inherent bias, it is almost certainly unintentional, and perhaps specifics could help us examine and do away with a blind spot.

 

[Mise]

One thing I would like to point out is that having a political position is not the same thing as bias; it's simply having an opinion. What you are trying to say is that the moderators' personal opinions do not lead them to have bias at all. Which I hope is true, although I believe luceafarul is right to at least some degree to insist that one can never really de-politicise oneself even at such times.

Well it seems you got what I was saying anyway, but yeah you're right that bias is different from simply having an opinion.

To make it more clear, I think that pretty much all moderator decisions in OT are judged against forum rules, and not against the political persuasion of the poster. I can only think of one example that goes against this, but obviously I can't say it here

What I find a tad amusing is that one non-socialist after another is checking in and stating that there is not a problem that socialists do not have any representative among the moderators.
Could it be that you people have difficulties seeing this problem because it is not really a concern of yours?

Or could it be that your own bias precludes you from seeing the issue objectively?

 

[Oruc]

We'll need a fascist moderator also, Al_Da_Great needs more representation.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

If only we could have a moderator who had no political opinions...

 

[Richard Cribb]

If you'd care to PM me with specific examples where you feel that mod representation from your end of the political spectrum might have changed the result of something, I'd certainly like to see them.

Very well, I will see what I can do when I have time and inclination.

I (and my own sense is that all the mods do) take great pains to leave their politics aside when determining whether something is a troll, flame, or what have you.

I am perfectly sure that you are doing this, but I am not so sure about a couple of others. Anyway that is not my point.

If there is still an inherent bias, it is almost certainly unintentional, and perhaps specifics could help us examine and do away with a blind spot.

I think there is an inherent bias yes, and I am not questioning people's motives for that, that is how the socializing process of society works. But just because of this, I think that including somebody with another perspective would be of benefit.

Or could it be that your own bias precludes you from seeing the issue objectively?

Yes that must be it.
So the fact that I, on a forum section where most topics are of a political nature, want moderator representation also for the radical members, which I find to be a quite obvious democratic principle, makes me less objective than say you?
In that case, just keep your objectivity. I certainly don't want any of it.

We'll need a fascist moderator also, Al_Da_Great needs more representation.

Must. resist. urge. to. troll.
If fascists are allowed to be members and post their fascist opinions, and if there is a substantial amount of members who are fascists, yes then they should also have representation, obviously.

If only we could have a moderator who had no political opinions...

I don't think a dead person would be a good moderator.

 

[Oruc]

Must. resist. urge. to. troll.
If fascists are allowed to be members and post their fascist opinions, and if there is a substantial amount of members who are fascists, yes then they should also have representation, obviously.

why write that your resisting why not just resist? wouldn't that save time?

But anyway we have like 2 communists by your line of thinking they don't deserve their own special Moderator who will defend them and take their side.
The Mods we have now are fine when we start putting quota's for so many coloured's or white guys it gets silly. As long as we have enough to cover the busy timezones were fine.

 

[ainwood]

But anyway we have like 2 communists by your line of thinking they don't deserve their own special Moderator who will defend them and take their side.

Its ironic that people think that having moderators who have wider political opinions will decrease bias.

The answer is NOT to have biased moderators who happen to share 'your' opinions. The answer is to have non-biased moderators (or simply objective ones).

 

[Oruc]

Its ironic that people think that having moderators who have wider political opinions will decrease bias.

The answer is NOT to have biased moderators who happen to share 'your' opinions. The answer is to have non-biased moderators (or simply objective ones).

Ja! How the hell would we find out what percentage of people are what political denomination? and keep it upto date? we'd be chopping and changing who's a mod all the time. Its a very silly idea

 

[Mise]

Yes that must be it.
So the fact that I, on a forum section where most topics are of a political nature, want moderator representation also for the radical members, which I find to be a quite obvious democratic principle, makes me less objective than say you?

So you're saying that you are capable of objectivity, but that moderators are not? (1)

Great, then I guess we should just let you decide when a moderator is acting objectively or not. (2)

In case you didn't realise, (1) makes you a hypocrite (or at least incredibly arrogant), and (2) kinda goes against the whole "obvious democratic principle" thing... But a clever guy like you probably did realise that I'm sure.

 

[lutzj]

We could split it up:

News Stories subforum
Meaningless Jabber subforum
Debate subforum
etc.

 

[Richard Cribb]

So you're saying that you are capable of objectivity, but that moderators are not? (1)

No.

Great, then I guess we should just let you decide when a moderator is acting objectively or not. (2)

Great, then you can relate to what I am really saying, and perhaps save some time to give you the opportunity to work on improving your sarcasms.

In case you didn't realise, (1) makes you a hypocrite (or at least incredibly arrogant), and (2) kinda goes against the whole "obvious democratic principle" thing... But a clever guy like you probably did realise that I'm sure.

And I am sure that a clever guy like you will eventually realise that I never claimed such a thing.
Now feel free to comment on what I actually said.

 

[North King]

Having evolved in my political positions since joining CFC, I've posted in OT as an outright Communist, Democratic Socialist, and currently what I consider to be a moderate. I have never noticed anything even vaguely resembling bias. Luceafarul, where are you getting this from?

 

[Mise]

Now feel free to comment on what I actually said.

This is what you actually said:

makes me less objective than say you?

Now, apparently, you consider yourself at least as objective as me. Or at least, you consider me at least as biased as you. Presumably, you would extend that to moderators on the site.

This can mean a number of things.

Either you consider yourself to be biased, to the extent that you would be incapable of separating moderation decisions from your own political bias. This leads to two objections, the first is that, if you're incapable of separating bias from moderation decisions, then how could you possibly see the issue objectively? Which is what I said here:

Or could it be that your own bias precludes you from seeing the issue objectively?

The second objection is that, just because you are incapable of objectivity doesn't mean that moderators are too. Again, as I said, sheer arrogance.

Or perhaps you consider yourself objective enough to judge actions on their own merit, and not take into account political persuasions of the posters involved. And, presumably, since you don't consider moderators any more or less biased than you, then surely moderators can equally judge actions on their own merit, ignoring political bias.

But since you do seem to have a problem with the moderators (and it seems you're alone in this respect -- I thought that might interest you given your profound respect for democratic principles), one can only conclude that you don't consider moderators capable of objectivity. Which is what I said here:

So you're saying that you are capable of objectivity, but that moderators are not?

So, as you can see, every single thing that I have said is a direct objection to each of your possible underlying motives (and I use the term "motives" to mean what motivates you as a person, rather than what reason you have for wanting more mods).

Maybe you'd like to tell me which of those options you'd fall under? (A hint: You can escape being arrogant by accepting that you are more objective than the moderators on this site, and providing examples/reasons/proof that you are more objective than the mods.)