Moderation in the political forum

[Ruby_Red]

I sent a message to moderators this evening about moderators and political views. I have not heard back yet.

I am of the opinion  that the political forum is moderated in a biased way, and quite a bit unprofessionally. And I would like to have some input on that, please. Please also correct me if you think I’m wrong. Thank you.

[Paul]

Hi Ruby_Red,

You sent your most recent message to us less than 15 minutes after posting this thread, and another message 15 minutes earlier. My apologies for the delay, yet as a small team of volunteers spread around the globe, we aren't able to reply that quickly. The root of your question was concerning whether or not LoveShack.org, as an organization or through its volunteers, has/have a political leaning. The answer is no.

It seems, however, that your question may resonate with others. Here's a sampling of quotes from actual messages moderators have received in recent days. I have removed any identifying details that might reveal the identity of those who reached out to us.

You're pro-Trump and censoring pro-Biden posts!

Quote

Your [community] and yours alone has moderators who engage in reprehensible levels of abusive censorship and power-tripping control over members whose posts they personally disagree with because they are Trump supporting members of your community who also happen to be moderators. [...] Your Trump supporting moderators have issued posting restrictions to me [and others] for posting our opinions about Trump.  All of us are anti-Trump/pro-Biden as well as pro-DEMOCRACY.

You're pro-Biden and censoring pro-Trump posts!

Quote

Every single change you get you moderate me.  Am I really that big a threat to your liberal ideals?  This can't possibly be true. The only people even reading the political threads are those interested in politics lol.  

Unreal.  I'll take my participation elsewhere, which is of course what you want so you can continue padding this liberal echo chamber. 

You guys are insane! Get a grip.

You're pro-Trump and censoring pro-Biden posts!

Quote

You're so close-minded. You must be some kind of crazy Trump supporter or something, and I don't even mean that in a harsh way because I'm a trump supporter. But I notice a lot more conservative minded people think that all people need to be a certain way.

You're pro-Biden and censoring pro-Trump posts!

Quote

Your censorship of conservative opinions is pathetic. I have screen shots of it and have forwarded copies of the political discrimination to the DOJ, FTC and FCC. Enjoy the headaches you have coming, you earned it. The US has laws against political discrimination and you clearly are violating them.

Do you realize that Nazi Germany censored the opinions of those they did not agree with? So did Stalin, the Kim dynasty in North Korea and every other totalitarian regime in the US.

Oh and it made me donate yearly maximums to Donald Trump and the RNC. I was on the fence but your childish actions solidified my vote for Donald Trump. Enjoy, I hope you have a good therapist lined up for November third. If you can't handle dissenting opinions on your website, how in the heck will you handle a loss at the ballot box?

It seems that individuals with all sorts of political leanings feel that we're biased against them. We take these concerns seriously, and in reviewing the posts these individuals were referencing, we found these four common traits:

1. Moderators removed or edited posts where the individual who reached out had made disparaging remarks about a group of people or person for having political ideologies other than their own. In short, they posted something that was neither civil nor respectful.
2. Moderators removed or edited posts where the individual who reached out made a political statement in a thread outside of our Political Proselytization & Warmongering forum, the only place where political threads and posts are permitted. In short, they felt they could just say whatever they wanted where and whenever they wanted.
3. Moderators removed or edited posts where the individual who reached out began or responded to a tangential thread of conversation unrelated to the first post/stated subject matter of the thread. In short, they decided what everyone else was talking about was less important than whatever they decided was more important to say.
4. Moderators removed or edited posts where an individual shared misinformation and/or made unsubstantiated claims without proper attribution. In short, they decided to share something here recklessly.

We realize tensions are high, and that people have been very passionate about what they believe in. However, this is not a community where politics may be discussed wherever and whenever one desires, nor is it a community where civility and respect for each other are cast aside for anyone that believes differently from ourselves. This is not a community where a conversation on a particular topic can be derailed by others wanting to raise a different subject, nor is it a vehicle for sharing of misinformation, rumors, and conspiracy theories. These behaviors are not tolerated here. Full stop.

Be nice to each other. Yes, even the person or people who support the very things you believe to be the end of civilization as you know it. Be respectful of your fellow participants. Understand that others have different beliefs than you, that their beliefs have just as much value to them as yours do to you, and that the idea that people have different beliefs is something that should be appreciated. Learn from those who are different than you. Find ways to connect, share, and learn. Engage in conversations of discovery instead of shaming and put downs. Think independently and critically.

We are all volunteers. Our agenda is to cultivate an environment for self-discovery and shared learning. Above all else, please take a moment to remember why we're here.

Best,
Paul

Edited November 11, 2020 by Paul
Spelling correction.

[Ruby_Red]

Ha! 

That makes me feel better. I’m glad I’m not the only one. I really thought for a brief moment that I was the only one. But apparently I am not. However, your political forum, especially the 2020 elections one, is extremely biased. It is not at all well balanced. Sorry to say

 

And like I said in my PM that’s all up to you  - none of my business - but if this is what you wanna do and this is how you want to run your forum then you should state that somewhere publicly. Why? So that people dont waste their time - just my opinion

[Paul]

3 minutes ago, Ruby_Red said:

And like I said in my PM that’s all up to you  - none of my business - but if this is what you wanna do and this is how you want to run your forum then you should state that somewhere publicly. Why? So that people dont waste their time - just my opinion

Here's a link to our Community Guidelines:
https://www.loveshack.org/community-guidelines/

[lana-banana]

My unpopular opinion (do I have any other kind?): get rid of the politics subforum altogether. Get rid of it and make it clear that political discussions or snide comments on political subjects will be deleted. I do not think there is enough shared ground on even fundamental facts to support fruitful political discussions here. It was a valiant effort and mods have done a great job, but I think we could all sleep easier and get along better without it. It's not like there's any shortage of places to talk politics on the internet in 2020.

[Piddy]

I'll just piggy back on Lana's comment on not having enough shared ground on facts.  With these last four years truth and facts have been an issue where they should not have.  And it is impossible to have a reasonable debate if people can't agree on truth and facts. 

There aren't two sets of facts.  There is only one objective truth whether everyone agrees with it or not.  That's why it was great not having to wait to post links anymore using credible media to back up a post.   

I don't think there was any deliberate bias by the moderators.  I have other issues that I won't share publicly.  I won't comment further.  One idea going forward might be to ask for permission to enter the politics forum and participate.

 To make sure they know the rules of engagement beforehand.  That way they understand that engaging someone or challenging their opinion is allowed.  That is the essence of debate.

Example. I do think not enough people knew that you were allowed to use negative connotations / pejoratives on political figures, but not on groups or other individuals even though there was a directive at the top of the Elections page.  So it was very easy to say that group x is crazy instead of group x has some crazy ideas / opinions etc..

Politics by it's very nature involves engagement and to challenge ideas and opinions.  Of course civility should be the standard, but the use of sarcasm or other types of humor shouldn't be considered uncivil for example imo.   

I enjoy politics.  And I've made several friends here because of the politics forum.  I personally would like to see it stay, but again challenging someone on (provable) false claims and comments that simply are not true is not uncivil.  That's my take.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Piddy

[Ruby_Red]

I remember that a certain while ago the moderation was more restrictive in the opposite direction. It always depends on who the moderator is, I suppose. It’s always quite obvious actually. However, I agree - this isn’t a political forum per se, so - it is all good!

[basil67]

I agree Lana.  I feel like the political forum (and even COVID forum by extension) creates so much division here.  Having politics has also lost us some posters who gave great relationship advice but couldn't behave well in the political forums.   That said, I really have no skin in the game because the behaviour in political forums kept me well away. 

 

[d0nnivain]

I did not see any moderation bias. 

I will agree that the posters, especially toward the end, were not supporters of the 45th President but I know I tried to be civil when talking to his fans.   To the extent I failed in that attempt, I apologize.  

If anything, I felt the conservative voices were drowned out, as they are in many media outlets.  There has been a systemic liberal bias in the "news" / information world for a long time.   But at no point did I even sniff at whiff of a Right Wing / conservative slant by LS.  I'd be interested to learn more about any examples.  

[gaius]

The political, current events and other subforums have spawned some really great content over the years. The original Covid thread was probably one of the most intelligent conversations about the virus anywhere on the internet in the early days and several members ended up much better prepared for it had they been if the conversation didn't occur. It would be a pity if that potential was taken away.

Two big problems right now with the political forum are

a) infrequent moderation. It used to be if a thread started going off the rails all a mod had to do was post a directive and usually the thread got back on track. Now with the approval process taking 8, 12, 24+ hours threads can derail completely before anyone even checks in. Problems that should have taken a two line post warning end up devolving into multiple page total cleanups, which then spiral into moderated threads. One problem cascades into another, bigger issue

And 2) communication. A lot of the guidelines Paul linked are subjective terms, especially civility and respect. Some things are obvious but the nuances are different to everyone. You draw firm lines about what you can and can't say to people, then communicate that clearly. Infractions now usually come with almost no explanation so it's no surprise people are just assuming bias or that they're being picked on. 

Fix those two problems and the political forum will be a lot closer to getting back to it's former glory.

[Piddy]

I’m reminded of the person who complained about the price of lobster.  The fish monger says to the person.  Is anyone forcing you to buy lobster?

No one is forced to go into a forum, let alone participate in one.  There are directives all over this place not to talk politics outside of the politics forum.

There’s several forums I have no interest in.  Therefore I don’t go in them.  I would never advocate getting rid of a forum simply because I have no interest in that subject or because some can’t control themselves.

I have issues with the politics forum.  And I’ve made my concerns known to Paul.  Basically I’m not in favor of aggressive and inconsistent moderating.

I believe that’s what happened recently.  I’ve been on other politics forums and this one here is quite tame.

I do agree with gaius in that civility is subjective.  Consistency is what was missing.  I also agree with gaius in that just a friendly reminder warning in general in a thread would go along way if the thread gets off the rails.

Thats the most I’ve agreed with gaius in like ever. 😁

I hope training was the problem.  Everyone makes mistakes.  Hopefully that gets better and all the moderators can get on the same page.  Consistency is the key.

 

  

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Piddy

[basil67]

I don't agree that civility is subjective.  I get pinged perhaps twice a year, and each time I think "yeah, OK - that's fair.  I will continue working at being more thoughtful in how I post"

If this forum was treated as a discussion forum, it would be more civil.  I'm talking about people really listening to each other.    However, too many treat this as a debate forum.... and the whole point of a debate is to smack down the opposition for a win.   And when we start smacking down the opposition, civility goes out the window. 

[Lisa]

Hi guys, new moderator here.   Yes, sometimes questionable posts get missed by moderators and are left in place.  This is because we're a small team of volunteers doing this in our spare time.  It simply isn't possible to review all posts in all threads.   If you see a post which you believe is in breach of ToS, please report it for review.  

[Piddy]

11 hours ago, Lisa said:

Hi guys, new moderator here.   Yes, sometimes questionable posts get missed by moderators and are left in place.  This is because we're a small team of volunteers doing this in our spare time.  It simply isn't possible to review all posts in all threads.   If you see a post which you believe is in breach of ToS, please report it for review.  

I don’t think the issue was posts getting thru that shouldn’t have.  The issue was too many posts were never approved that should have been.  

Example.  A post was taken down of mine for calling a candidate a pathological liar with a link from a credible news outlet showing over 20,000 lies.

I was told that may start a flame war.  But if the moderator had looked at Paul’s directive at the top of the thread saying calling a candidate “evil” was within the rules.

So my post using a negative connotation against a candidate should not have been taken down.

So again,  the issue wasn’t that the moderating was lax.  It was that it was too aggressive and inconsistent.

Hopefully things will improve going forward as the new moderators get up to speed.

[Wiseman2]

23 minutes ago, Piddy said:

The issue was too many posts were never approved that should have been.  

 

Aren't the political forums on auto-moderate?

 

[Piddy]

7 minutes ago, Wiseman2 said:

Aren't the political forums on auto-moderate?

 

Not that I know of.   

[Prudence V]

I think moderation has improved dramatically since the “old days”, when any view that was at all critical of US foreign or domestic policy was removed and members stuck on the naughty step. These days, there’s acknowledgment that this is an international forum and we don’t all drink the same Kool Aid, so will have diverse views - and that that can be a good thing. 
 

The past few years in international politics have been incredibly polarising, to the extent that, as @Piddy stated, there isn’t even agreement anymore over facts. I struggle to accept the extent to which facts - for which plenty of evidence and proof exists, like that the world is round - are now contested, and conspiracy theories held in the same regard as fact, in some quarters.... but here we are. 
 

As someone who lives in more than one country (neither being the US) I enjoy the politics forum, despite its heavy US bias, as it gives me a window onto views and perspectives I wouldn’t otherwise have. I would miss it if it were to go. 

[Libby1]

2 hours ago, Prudence V said:

As someone who lives in more than one country (neither being the US) I enjoy the politics forum, despite its heavy US bias, as it gives me a window onto views and perspectives I wouldn’t otherwise have. I would miss it if it were to go. 

Same here.   I'd say that a few years ago, the political section was moderated in an overly restrictive and heavy handed way which inhibited discussion...but it's more relaxed now.   People understandably get very passionate about politics and social justice issues, and I think sometimes they'll give themselves permission to communicate with others in an inflammatory way with the rationale that it's somehow necessary to do that in order to make their point.  Although I'd say there are probably more Democrats than Republicans actively posting on the political forum, there's enough of a mix of views that if people are being censored or banned, their political leanings probably aren't the reason.  More likely they've clashed with another forum user

Looking at some of the messages Paul quoted from above...using words like "pathetic" and phrases like "get a grip" is rarely going to go down well with the person they're directed against, and on a site that places strong emphasis on civility I would expect anybody who communicates like that to run foul of moderation sooner or later.  Not because they hold a particular political view, but because the tone falls short of the standard of civility required. 

The problem with social media and forums is that we don't get the benefit of hearing somebody's voice or seeing their body language - so our assessment of them is based purely on the written word.  A few of my friends get into terrible scraps with people on Facebook (usually over politics).  I've one friend in particular who has lost a number of friends over the past few years because of these fights.  The thing is, face to face she's absolutely lovely...but the way she communicates in writing is a bit unfortunate.  Sometimes when we're in conversation she'll say something that is outrageously blunt but nonetheless easy to brush off because of the good humoured manner in which she says it.  But if you imagine the same thing written down on a forum or on Facebook, it would be pretty shocking and destined to result in a row.  

 

[Elissa]

On 11/11/2020 at 7:30 AM, Ruby_Red said:

However, your political forum, especially the 2020 elections one, is extremely biased. It is not at all well balanced. Sorry to say

Hi all! 

To add to what has already been mentioned and to try and put things in perspective with regards moderation bias, the primary focus for all of us really was (and is) exclusively to moderate all posts with the terms of service in mind. For the US thread in particular, this has meant reviewing all the links embedded in the posts, fact-checking, ensuring posts ticked the civility and respect box and had a clear and obvious link to the primary topic, ie the US elections specifically. As you can imagine, this is a very time-consuming process, especially for a small group of volunteers (not all of us US-based) with full time jobs and other commitments.

In the couple of weeks leading to the elections, the number of posts increased dramatically, and with that the number of posts flagged to us for review and / or various others complaints, so we made the pragmatic decision to put the thread on moderation queue for time efficiency, during what was a very volatile time. 

This doesn't mean no mistakes were made (we are human!) but please be all reassured that there is no secret plot to suppress the views of participants of any political persuasion.

 

 

[Wiseman2]

5 minutes ago, Elissa said:

  put the thread on moderation queue for time efficiency, 

 

On 11/13/2020 at 6:53 AM, Piddy said:

Not that I know of.   

 The auto moderation message was somewhere on the thread.

[Ruby_Red]

On 11/13/2020 at 6:43 AM, Wiseman2 said:

Aren't the political forums on auto-moderate?

 

Meh, I’d rather hash it out directly, instead of flagging people. A debate can’t happen, if posts are removed. Sure, conspiracy theorists (just to name one example) usually don’t provide valuable input, but that can be addressed in public, no? If somebody gets their news and info from social media, and conspiracy websites, that should be quite obvious, and it’s easily “debunk-able”.

[Wiseman2]

1 hour ago, Ruby_Red said:

I’d rather hash it out directly, instead of flagging people

Auto moderate means they are stalled up until they are approved by moderation, not flagged, removed, etc.

[Ruby_Red]

4 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

Auto moderate means they are stalled up until they are approved by moderation, not flagged, removed, etc.

Yes, the problem with this is that, if posts don’t get approved within a reasonable time period, the discussion gets interrupted. Posts disappear or they’re not in the right order.