As I’ve suggested before, there is no need to rush. Rushed moderating or decision making has sometimes been the core of problems. And I’m not sure what you mean by rake though. Personally, I often refer back to information I’ve and others have posted. The depth of debate in that section is a valuable resource. There have been times though when topics have been deleted… or at least that’s how it was represented in what seemed to be some form of censorship. But even if only hidden, it is effectively deleted as I gather only moderators will be able to view.
Unlike the other recent “removals” this is not available to the whole forum membership. The section has limited access. As do other sections of SE23.life. Close them to future contributions and you also solve the problem of moderation.
It’s hard but the culture of this forum depends on it.
I love talking about politics and I’d like to do it here but I recognise and respect the decision taken by the moderators.
I’ve watched older local forums suffer serious cultural issues because of political chat. It always ends up being divisive, and results in members pitting themselves against other members.
Gets really ugly in forums where the moderation team is a single unaccountable person - it’s inevitable that their political biases are reflected in the moderation.
Both but general politics more specifically. It had become dominated very few voices and was not welcoming to new posters. It was never a level playing field anyway- the balance of power issue always ruined the potential for non-partisan discussions.
Yes, unfortunately we suffered a fair bit of trolling and personal attacks in this category, which put moderators in a difficult position. If moderators removed offenders from the politics group we’d be accused of politically-motivated moderation. If we left them there, their poor behaviour would continue to repel new posters.
Whilst others badmouthed the category and celebrated people leaving it, as moderators we made an effort to bring more members (of all political persuasions) into the category, and we invited others of opposing political opinions to join the mod team but sadly we didn’t get any uptake.
Moderators should always try to remain neutral in debate particularly in divisive topics like politics or ethical issues. It makes it almost impossible for a moderator to be an active participant as their moderation decisions are inevitably biased by their active participation in the topic. The bias may be unconscious but nevertheless affects the discussion. Like you, I think it was just not working in general politics and in the absence of neutral moderation the closure of general politics was the only practical solution. I think the current moderators should be congratulated for that brave decision.
All human beings have conscious and unconscious political biases. I have always favoured an LBC-style approach to building a mod team. Make no secret of political biases, but ensure you include mods from the whole political spectrum.
The forum software now allows per-category moderation. In practice this means that a category moderator gets access to the review queue, and can see flagged posts and act on them. I’ve not used this feature before but I think this would be an excellent way to trial it.
Together, we’d enforce the General Politics rules:
Discuss the points not the people making them. No ad-hominems.
Avoid straw-man arguments.
Never assume malice. Be respectful at all times
Our mod interventions on flagged posts would be visible to one another so we’d be accountable to each other.
Join the SE26.life politicos mod team. Sincere offer. What do you say?
When I was previously asked to join the moderation team, there were a few issues which informed my decision. But principally, I did not think that neutral moderation and active participation in heated, often emotional debates were compatible. And nor did I think I could easily switch from political animal to neutral moderator when needed. That hasn’t changed since then so on that basis alone I’ll decline your kind offer.
However, there is another principle in play. I enjoy participating in the communities I’m rooted in. For instance the work I do with the Forest Hill Society. I don’t live in Sydenham so have no interest in joining the Sydenham Society. The same axiom pretty much applies to the online communities I participate in. I’m thrilled to be involved with SE23.life but really have no present interest in SE26.life. If you’re looking for political opponents to join you, then there are probably a few former members of this forum who are more local to Sydenham and more suitable for this role.
With the removal of General Politics from SE23.life my main reason to decline the first offer has gone. I have already and continue to offer my services as a moderator here now. I think it’s equally as important to have a variety of viewpoints as moderator on all sorts of community related issues, and given the impending election impact on the local politics board, perhaps now is a good time to join. Besides, friends who moderate other forums (or is it fora) insist many hands make light work.
I agree with your last paragraph but as I became the last mod in politics after Chris removed himself I could have done with assistance. However now politics is no more I find myself doing very very little modding and long may it continue. It’s a pity you didn’t take up the various offers in days gone by.
I was very clear about by reasons then and understood them to be respected. As most of these circumstances has changed I am now available. I did not believe the offers were necessarily time limited or limited to general politics. So ready to go.
That was a little while ago tbf. I think the place has changed a bit since those heady days.
Edit: It is a pity you were not availabile when we really needed you but are now when arguably we don’t But, that’s the problem with work, it gets in the way. I am sure that is why you couldn’t help at the time but my memory is slightly hazy
The closure of General Politics was announced on the same day a call for new moderators was made and I made my interest known shortly afterwards when presumably you needed someone. My offer and questions though went largely ignored or unacknowledged by the moderator team for quite some time, despite a few prompts. There have been a couple of specific calls for moderators in the past. I seem to recall both oakr and armadillo were nominated along with me, with both eventually taking up the call. I would say the general understanding here was the admin/moderator team would welcome volunteers at any time. And most recently Chris gave an open invitation to past moderators to rejoin suggesting that more moderators would be welcome. and no limits existed.
On the Forums even moderators can clash, so I really appreciated Chris’ offer to co-moderate on another site. But these different viewpoints can be valuable when moderating, and essential to make good moderating decisions on difficult issues, as we’ve seen a couple of times in the last few days. You and Chris seem to feel I would be a good moderator of the more contentious groups. I would hope that would make me an even better moderator of the more mundane.
