Ideological Balance in WE&P

Notes from the EM&J perspective

Please note, in the Mod Hat, the phrase, "as far as I can tell".

You have given me a new consideration.

The reason for my presumption was that we were discussing, in the back room, the closure of another thread according to that standard; I menitioned the Taliban thread specifically in that context, and it was moved, seven hours later, to EM&J. I simply presumed it was moved for that reason, as no comment or advice was included.

Despite the consideration you have raised, however, I feel obliged to note that my decision stands, barring administrative or supermod action. Nonetheless, thank you; I hadn't known there was any other issue under consideration.

At present, it would appear that the thread in question would suffer a similar fate in my jurisdiction, albeit for additional reasons, as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I moved it simply at Gustav's request in the thread- there was no other motive. I should have noted that back in the staff room though (apologies, Tiassa). That's the sort of thing that we should (IMO) work out behind the scenes.

The general discussion exploring whether we're biased as a team, and how we can avoid that is (I think) still useful here. The public discussions about standards are pertinent too IMO, because if we refine and apply higher standards in WE&P, then various ideologies reasonably presented will all get a fair shake, whether or not there is a real or imagined ideological imbalance here. I'd like to return to the premise of the OP, with examples if possible of how moderators are slanting discussions toward the "right", and exploring whether I or any other "liberal" mod should try to counterbalance that. As I've already stated, I think that liberal perspectives are well-represented here, and hold more sway than they do in many societies (especially in the USA). Regardless, I'm not so clear about the inference that WE&P moderators are making highly ideological decisions as a right-wing block. So if Gustave or anyone can point out what I'm missing, I'll be obliged.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hyperwaders, I think the point of the thread was missed. Gustav feels mistreated by superstring01 so he created this thread in an attempt at revenge. When people feel "wronged" (regardless of legitimacy), they often need an outlet to reacquire a sense of "balance / fair play". Sciforums doesn't provide that and the easiest outlet becomes revenge/punishment.

This non-stop trend of behavior may not be influenced in any way other than providing members with a non-destructive outlet to achieve that sense of "balance / fair play". There are paid technical forums that I have subscribed too in the past that provided genuine psychologists that people could talk to. From what I could tell, online therapy not only allowed people to achieve that sense of "balance / fair play", but it also made them more resilient to feeling "wronged" in the first place.

I don't know what kind of solution could be implemented at Sciforums; however, I am reasonably certain that discussing bias won't get you anywhere

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry to represent you wrongly

Not a problem. I'll correct my Mod Hat in a little bit, when the wi-fi I'm using stabilizes. (This post will take longer to actually submit to Sciforums than it took to write it, and probably require multiple attempts. The network typically settles down around midnight.)

Sorry to misrepresent your action; let this be a lesson for me about the dangers of assumption.

 

hype
you just dont move shit around just because somebody requests it. you have to also judge if the move is appropriate. of course i am sure you know this. i will still ask tho, just to make sure.....was the topic of that thread more suited for em&j rather than we&p?

tiassa's closure on technicalities is none of our concern and merely incidental to the move.

sure i will but please...refer back to post#59 where i pose another question regarding a second thread....."Rabbis Fail To Report Chomo". would you indulge with an answer, hype?

excellent
is it more em&j material rather than we&p?

 

Notes on a notion

I would propose that there is another way to read my colleague's statement: He moved it at your request, and "simply" as compared to more complex machiations involving back-room issues considering policy implications.

Certainly, I see the EM&J dimenisions of the Taliban thread, especially lacking any other suggestion by the topic poster. One might, for instance, find political aspects about the idea that this is the first such sentence carried out since the invasion, but what, exactly, are those implications?

Or, more directly, the most obvious implications of the thread, lacking any framing whatsoever by the topic poster, pertain to the ethical and moral boundaries of the standard of justice documented in the article.

In that context, sir, I would suggest Hype's decision was not especially difficult to make; rather, the transfer seems, quite clearly, the obvious logical outcome.

Likewise, the other thread you noted, excepting my enforcement of the topic-post policy, seems quite clearly within the bounds of EM&J. Indeed, to ascribe political dimensions to the topic post as it is would invoke other problematic contexts demanding its closure, and while our friend might justly be viewed as emphatic about certain issues, I am not at this time prepared to accuse him according to those other problematic contexts.

As such, my interpretations are limited, and if one should transfer the thread to EM&J, well, we are already aware of what awaits it. If my colleagues should view the situation differently, and attempt to rescue some frayed strand of utility therein, I can only wish them luck in the endeavor.

 

Tiassa's analysis is (as usual) right on.




Gustav, please don't over-analyze moderator actions here. I've suffered from the same distraction myself, but I'm learning to avoid looking too deep where there might not be anything there. The only over-arching agenda or conspiracy among moderators here is to improve the quality of content.

All of us have personal biases, and all of us have personal conflicts with members and staff at times. But overall, this community does have a certain resilience based on the rules we agree to abide by. None of has time to go into great deliberations over every action by the staff: Moderators hold an imperfect but evolving shared understanding of the rules, and we often act upon that understanding- I'm learning it's best to simply cultivate the best understanding of what we're trying to do as staff here, and then trust my instincts and do.

I'm keenly interested in member input on the concepts we have been soliciting input about: We are in the process as a community now of clarifying our standards of sincerity, intellectual honesty, and good faith in order to increase the quality of content and improve the atmosphere here. I'm sure there will be resistance, and I'm sure there will be mistakes along the way- but I'm interested in positive change here.

I'm not interested in your public critique of the actions of myself or fellow mods. You are welcome to critique anything I do or say here in a PM. You are welcome to my advice and confidence as a friend concerning issues you may have with me or my fellow moderators in private.

But if you attempt to drive public wedges among the staff, you will not be gratified. We're not paid as moderators, but we all know how to behave as professionals. Mind the gap.

 

While Gustav can be a bit of a drama queen and a "divide and conquer" sort, I don't think that he intends to do that in this thread.

There is a perception garnered from specific moderators, even by the less hostile folks like myself, that they do indeed have a over-arching agenda or that their ego weighs far too heavily on their actions. And there is growing concern that those moderators are the ones wanting rule changes to serve this agenda more efficiently. There are moderators that hide behind the current rule set consistently and effectively and it's very disconcerting. Not just in WE&P, but other places as well. It's just more pronounced in WE&P because there are so many hot topics that have the potential to fall to one side or the other.

No one expects moderators to be perfect. I don't even think that Gustav wants that, because he likes chasing cars. But we do expect moderators to be fair and not working in their own self-interest to stroke their egos or punish certain posters unfairly. I would also argue that people who can't handle constructive criticism that may result from their actions/inactions should probably reconsider moderating at all. While not perfect, Tiassa always listens to what people say about his actions and weighs it according to his own perceptions. His ego very rarely rears it's ugly head, and this gives him the advantage of seeming more real, honest and unbiased to the posters at large. Tiassa understands the need for transparency and not creating an "us vs. them" environment at Sciforums. This has always served him well, which is why he continues this behaviour and why it is respected.

There is no wedge being driven, except for the one invented for the purpose of trying to intimidate a poster away from making a valid complaint. Weigh the complaint with whatever brand of salt you wish, but telling a poster to not complain only makes your position more suspect and your intentions less clear.

As for the intellectual dishonesty, sincerity or good faith standards? I think it's all a load of crap. There are no adoptable standards because you cannot know what is in my heart and mind as I post. You cannot read my face, you cannot know my intention. And this is coming from someone who is often misunderstood. You will never be able to effectively set those standards without major issues holding them. It's why we never have had rules on this. Ultimately, it's not your place to make up your mind for me. I'm an intelligent person, who is quite literate and logical to a fault. I don't need nannying, nor do I need protection from those people who are intellectually dishonest, deceitful, ill-intended or even prideful. In order for me to make my judgments, I need the poster to not be censored for these things at the discretion of moderators who may or may not have their own agendas.

 

I think we always have tried to do that, but lacking clarity those efforts have sometimes been misunderstood. It's a not seeing the forest for the trees problem, and by this I'm alluding to the forest of a less-than-sincere member's posts. I don't advocate that we impose some sort of realness-test on every post. I'm offering that we can bring hacks and charlatans and imposters out into the daylight by challenging them on insincere or unsupported theses, only after a pattern of intellectual dishonesty becomes well apparent. This sort of thing has in the past fallen under "trolling" and that has also seemed nebulous. Lately we've been bandying around the term "intellectual dishonesty" in an effort to better define what it is we're trying to winnow out so that we can be more objective, so that the intellectually dishonest will be warned, and so that the rest of us can relax a little. The concept and the definition of terms is at a very prototypical stage, and that is why I and other staff are welcoming public input.

I think that we've always had rules and enforcement related to this, but that these have not been very clear; not scientifically definitive.

If it were the case (I know it is not) that you could not participate here with a minimal quality of contribution, and if it were the case that you could not be encouraged to voluntarily desist from a pattern of making insincere, sub-standard, annoying, or offensive posts- then I would (within my jurisdiction) insist that you make up your mind to either improve your participation here, or cease participating. Ultimately, if you remained incapable of making the choice then you would be warned, suspended, and banned in an escalation of sanctions. Members who respect this community rarely (if ever) experience any sort of moderator intervention.

I don't think you're applying your intelligence and logic sufficiently to the dynamics of a superior online forum, to recognize the importance of maintaining higher standards of behavior. Without the efforts of the staff this public forum would long ago have degenerated into something that smart and interesting people would rarely frequent, if at all.

Bear in mind that the standards that I am advocating would not likely present you with any difficulty whatsoever. By defining our rules, standards, and forum culture more sharply, I expect an environment that will seem far less policed, because more interaction will be taking place between sincere, respectful, intellectual, and honest people who need no nannying.

 

Are you also considering then, the people who contribute nothing to conversations at all, and are using it as a backup for facebook and twitter that might be more appropriate for them? As a social network and not an intelligent discussion platform?

I fear those people are far far more numerous than the ones you are expending great amounts of energy trying to define and oust. They are also far more distracting and irritatingly detrimental to intelligent discussions, wouldn't you agree? There is nothing like a thread being stopped dead in it's tracks because of cutesy little one-line antidotes and quips they believe to be wise and insightful they've read on someone else's blog or some mass media outlet. I'd rather read a well thought out diatribe by someone who is half mad with ego/racism/hatred and may be clouded by that then a simple response by some armchair dolt who regurgitates the mundane. I would rather be challenged to think for myself and form my own conclusions than read mindless chatter.

If it is as you say, and your intentions are to create a superior forum to the one that exists today, the intellectually dishonest are the lowest hanging fruit to a much greater spoilage that exists in the entire orchard. I'd ask you for one Wanderer in trade for 100 of the social rats that are climbing through the walls and sewers here. It's everywhere here, posting innanity in inappropriate places that adds nothing to the conversation and nothing is ever done. We have groups, a PM system and Visitor Boards for stupid banter, and yet it's filling up each and every thread with an ever growing stench of refuse.

I understand trolling, and I think that most people do understand trolling behaviour. Especially the ones who are being "intellectually dishonest". So why not call a spade a spade and just ban them when they are trolling and put them through a ban cycle instead of trying to slap a opinionated label on them in an effort to sway others to your own ideas?

 

That's all very reasonable, and I hope all will consider what you have expressed above. I don't expect some magic rule to herald a garden paradise- but that's useful guidance for some judicious pruning.

 

well lets look again. it is something that had gone somewhat unnoticed on my part until nirakar raised the issue in the Sciforums Muslim/Arab Bias thread in sf and faced mostly a deafening silence or just plain incomprehension. even then it took me a while to understand the fairly obvious points been made.

the ideological balance i refer to has nothing to do with any particular preference for system of economic or social justice. it is instead an observation of the ideological divide thru the prism of war. we on the left generally lean towards anti-war sentiments while the fundies are happiest war-mongering. there is of course a significant overlap in each of the ideologies in matters of foreign policies as most then tend to be somewhat pragmatic in their outlook. still tho, the conventional disparities b/w the two ideologies hold for the most part

i would now like to reiterate a question. what topics are considered appropriate in world events? would it not be issues with at least some geopolitical considerations and significance? would a topic on the consumption of baguettes in france be suited in WE simply because it is in a foreign country? what would a frenchman think of this particular aspect of his culture being discussed as a "world event" in sciforums? or moving from the hypothetical to the actual...and since it might be fun to get string apoplectic with rage........why would one start a thread titled...

The Curious Case Of The Mullahs And The Mullets

...in we&p? are there any geopolitical considerations in that topic? what are the potential global ramifications of a haircut in iran?

why would some cultural shit be posted in world events?
are there not any other suitable venues in sci?
why do the mods in we&p allow these threads to remain there?

for an answer to those questions i shall quote nirakar as i find his observations fairly apt

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2602984&postcount=89

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2602586&postcount=70

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2602568&postcount=66

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2602575&postcount=67

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2603526&postcount=111

 

good deal. you agree the two threads in question...

*Taliban stone couple to death for adultery in Afghanistan
*Rabbis Fail To Report Chomo

...are not suited for we&p. now what of the threads contained in the last quote by niraka...

*Iran "Adultureress" may be executed
*Iran TV airs 'confession' from woman facing stoning
*Iran To Execute 18-Year-Old On False Charge Of Sodomy

..??

heh
it is an analysis of moderator non-action

 

i would like to state that both i and nirakar (a privately expressed sentiment) are quite firmly against censorship. what i am for however is for threads to be situated in appropriate venues so it can appraised with the proper level of focus and scrutiny.

neither do i hold myself to be a paragon of virtue as far as these matters are concerned

in we&p, in certain threads, there is a demonization of the other by rabidly beating the drums of war under the guise of socioreligious observations and commentary

in other venues, em&j for instance, those same discussions would most likely be given short shrift or held to more exacting standards

 

In addition to the nirakar statements you already linked, I'd point out that many of the most energetic we&p participants do not seem to observe any distinction between a cosmic clash of cultures/civilizations and geopolitics more generally. For somebody of that mindset, there is no such thing as a good-faith, rational policy debate that engages the other side - any forum where the two interact is necessarily a battleground for a zero-sum culture war. And so the scorched earth results.

As for recommendations, I won't go much bolder than your recommendation there that culture-only threads without any direct (geo)political significance (i.e., above and beyond feeding culture-clash ideation) be systematically and proactively removed from we&p. But where? Well, why not create an entire Culture War subforum, and just quarantine all of the nastiness there? In addition to the usual Israel/Palestine, Evil Socialist/Fascist and WoT stuff, we could put the intelligent design, global warming denial, "Hey fucking atheists, prove me wrong!" and abortion activists in there. After a while, the problem posters wouldn't even bother visiting we&p any more, since they'd have a ready forum full of high-grade GRAR to mainline whenever they want.

I realize that there's already a cesspool for similar purposes, but this needs to remain credible enough to its intended users that they don't feel the need to push back into the "serious" fora. Or I dunno - maybe there's no way to do that and still derrogate that kind of posting in this way... Or maybe we need something a bit less stringent than the "formal debates" forum, but more stringent than regular. Some place like the opposite of the Cesspool, wherein good OPs/conversations can be "promoted" to distinguish (and archive) them.

 

I've often vacillated over the World Events / Politics delineation. When I first came here, they were one subforum, and I never understood the necessity of the bisection. Your examples are not the most extremely poorly categorized I've noticed, but I do understand your concern.

I also can appreciate your criticism of my inaction. There are many things I would like to help keep organized around here, but sometimes I barely have time to skim a few threads for disruptive activities, and then indulge in posting something myself. Other times I get caught up in thoughts and posts of my own at the expense of doing my part as a moderator.

For some time I've not prioritized close attention to which side of the World Events or Politics line threads should fall under, and whether all threads are properly situated. Generally, think of W.E. as Current World Events: That is, a running collaborative commentary on the significant events of our times. I generally think of Politics as (ideally) the place where we explore the memes, ideologies, movements, and societies shaping our times.

That there is so much overlap (as between WE&P and economics, ethics, macropsychology, etc.) is another excuse or rationalization for why I don't busy myself very much with ensuring that all threads are in the right bin. I think the best I can do at the moment (I don't have much more time this evening for Sf) is to just encourage all contributors interested in good order here to take some time to think before creating a new thread -along with presenting a unique and interesting topic for discussion- think on the most fitting stage in the Sciforums multiplex for presenting it.

Another thought that has crossed my mind when starting a new thread and selecting where to post it here is the varying regulars in various subfora. I don't think that's the right thing to do. I would encourage members to try and post in straightforward accordance with the subforum titles, and if seeking the interaction of certain members not frequenting the appropriate subforum as much, to invite them over with PMs, rather than posting where they may hang out most often. Sometimes the various forums seem to me something like cliques, rather than the objective categories of general subjects that is the intention. I know that I don't mingle enough myself around the breadth of Sciforums, to broaden my thinking and posting as much as I could be doing.

Back to the World Events / Politics dichotomy, I think it's sometimes like most prominent ones- like the Left/Right Liberal/Conservative ones: When we get too hung up on categorizing things we sometimes fail to just approach ideas at face value.

Anyway, without making any promises I'll try and be more attentive to the tapestry of threads here, and make some changes when it seems they will add some clarity here. I'll add this too:

Be careful what requests you make of me as a moderator: If the request seems rather routine, like "Please move this thread over here" I am likely to do it, and without as much consideration as I might give something with more potential for controversy in my estimation, such as requests involving the correction of an errant or offensive contributor. I welcome constructive requests, and if I can develop a working rapport with you or other members here, where complying with your requests rarely causes difficulties, and where complying with your requests produces good results, then I will be keen to comply with requests from members who have demonstrated good judgement with some faith in that good judgement. In other words, I'll be happy to lend my moderating powers to any constructive people (and of course take glorious credit for all the good deeds done) so long as you don't get me into trouble. Most of the time, I don't actually like trouble.

 

/chuckle

really? are you sure you are not writhing in embarrassment over the fact that i chose to make said "criticism" in public?

classic!

 

Most of the stuff posted as "World Events" seems like straightforward Politics, Religion or Ethics.

Perhaps, all world events threads should have an opening post explaining why it is a world event.

Surely there are world events outside the above three realms?

 

Someone mentioned Warheads / Peaceniks as another dichotomy in our demographics here, and I am inclined to agree that this is probably more descriptive than Left v. Right. I think our WE&Ping here, and the outside world we reflect on are very much all about this conflict. It's my hope and belief that warmakers are discrediting themselves by their works, and that more constructive people than the destroyers are going to prevail in human evolution.

I really do believe that we are in an evolutionary process to survive our violent and barbaric genes and memes, and that the agents of fear and destruction who still hold so much sway must be decisively defeated in the war for human conscience and consiousness, and that this war of ideas is essential to our maximum survival, and that of all Earth species.

We all must choose our own ground to make a stand. I personally think of WE&P as the applied-science lab of EM&J, psychology; I spend more time WE&Ping because it seems to me that that's where the rubber meets the road. But wherever we're drawn the most important thing to me is that we never cease to develop our fighting skills, and that we consciously prepare for our lives' rarest and most defining opportunities to really make a difference. Get ready: Learn to tell your story well, and know all the while that even in dark cafes and online backwaters, ripples of thought are spanning considerable time and space from every corner, and the total resonance for good or ill will decide nothing less than the trajectory and fate of the human odyssey.

...or maybe I'm so off topic that I should just shut up. Someone call a moderator.