babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Right Leader? Right Thread?
March 14, 2012 - 1:55am
What was with the closing of the thread asking if Topp, Ashton, Cullen, Nash et al would drag the party to the right, while the one about Mulcair was allowed to get to the 100-post point? I didn't see any legitimate reason to close the thread, although you could make a case that maybe the title could have been edited. If we can ask that question about Mulcair, why can't we ask it about the others? If you're really that concerned about the direction of a particular thread, why not say what concerns you as opposed to saying, "this is trolling, thread closed, end of discussion" from On High?
It seems odd that a discussion board would frown on actual "discussion."
I could set my watch to this thread.
A24, I'm sure I don't have to explain to you why HM's thread was closed. Did you think it was asked in good faith? Has the question whether five separate candidates will bring the party to the right been a dominant narrative here on babble or in the mainstream media? Was the thread unique enough that it couldn't be discussed (and in fact has been discussed) in one of the 125 leadership threads, the 10 how-are-you-ranking-your-ballot threads, or any number of the others?
At any rate, I'm sure many will thank me for closing the thread because rather than keep them from "answering" that question, I have furnished them with yet more evidence that Mulcair is endlessly and unfairly persecuted, defamed and maligned on babble.
There you go again CF, wearing it on backhand side of the sleeve. Honestly.
Hopefully one day it will dawn on our moderators that the worst form of obscenity is censorship.
Well, there's allegations of censorship, as a not too subtle form of censorship.
See you later, allegator.
I rather think we should have more obscenity on this site, not less. But I thank nicky for his thoughtful observation.
I had no idea that those who wish to support and proselytize Mulcair's candidacy were so fearful and shackled. I hereby release you to say whatever you wish, with no fear of violent reprisal from me or my band of censorious cronies. Free speech for all!
Wow, the suspension of the Babble Policy has been declared.
In all seriousness, I don't envy the rmoderators their job at the best of times. The NDP leadership race has consumed Babble to almost the exclusion of all else for the last several months. Understandable, although I look forward to Babble having a larger diversity of topics in the months to come.
Glad we've converted you CF. Are you sure Rebecca is on side?
I think CF banned Rebecca in anticipation of her response.
CF has pulled a Babble coup. I hear the borders have been sealed on telephone connections cut.
Ha!
ETA. In all seriousness, I hope that's not a flounce by J22 at post #5. Jacob, as I'm sure you'll agree, of all the acrimony that has past in these 200+ NDP threads, closing a topic opened in bad faith that no one was interested in talking about anyway is pretty weak sauce. I've enjoyed reading your contributions to the leadership threads as one of the more measured voices who (I think?) supports Mulcair. So if it was a goodbye (although I'm not sure), I hope you'll reconsider.
Please. I don't flounce. I was just being silly (allegator, allegation). Honestly, I doubt I'll ever stop coming to babble. I've had times when this place totally pissed me off, but it never stopped me from returning eventually.
And for the record, Ashton is my favourite candidate, in terms of the one I feel warmest toward. Mulcair's who we need in the leader's chair right now, though.
Thank Gaian. Food for thought as always.
@J22 Well, my bad. Trust me to miss a good pun. Glad you're sticking around, though.
I can see the concern about the thread-- it did look like it could be a tit-for tat reaction to the Mulcair question. I share the skepticism about the intentions of the thread.
Problems are:
1) A person might do so just with the desire to seek balance not just to be snotty. They will look similar and there is a fine line between. Only adept mind-reading by moderators could tell the difference in advance of the conversation unfolding. And being snotty -- just a bit is a response it is a rhetorical device expressing an opinion. While it is reasonable to stop extreme flames on the site-- a slightly possible snotty remark should not be out of bounds if it is making a point some might find worth seeing.
2) What might start as a snotty comment may not stay that way. It could also have been an interesting way of looking at the topic raising a question we had not thought of. So even if the intention was to be snotty there was still an opportunity for discussion that got closed off. I can think of lots of interesting questions that could have been raised and discussed in that thread-- like is it inevitable that all or no candidates could bring the party to the right?
3) If the intention was to be snotty is that really that illegitimate? Is that not a rhetorical way of making a point? Are points put that way (by a crowd that is not necessarily professional) completely unworthy of being heard?
4) Group policing through reaction is more democratic and safer as the situation evolves and it relies on the judgement of many rather than few. It neutralizes personal biases, personal communications preferences and reduces the chance of one person running to conclusions colouring an entire discussion.
5) I am sorry to say but the cost of the more heavy hand of censorship to this site is not in my view being taken into consideration. Sure there is a benefit, or perceived benefit, in cleaning up some threads, nipping stuff in the bud etc. But the cost of this approach by moderation does not seem to be considered adequately. Moderators want to say they are keeping the peace but the bulk of the wars seem to be between the moderators and those who think they are being too heavy handed.
6) Choice, if you accept that the tit-for-tat is a little snotty, and you leave it alone, can you trust others to either go in and indulge it or ignore it and move on? If those who want it discuss and those who don't can easily move around it, how worth it is coming down on it? Again if you consider the costs of the censorship against the cost of just letting it go, you might come to a conclusion that while it was not the nicest thread title it would be better to let it run?
Solutions
We are asked constantly to accept that the moderators here are imperfect and have difficult choices. Let us accept that. But also let's accept that individuals writing here are not necessarily perfect either and gate-keeping looking for perfection in approach and personality and compatibility of making a point will choke off discussion. This is after all a meeting place of different minds. Let them meet-- it is not always pretty. Was the tit for tat thread pretty? Well no. Was it a personal attack? No. Was it trolling? Actually no-- it was making a point that you can choose to agree with or argue and the point had purpose beyond just making someone angry. Perhaps it was not the smoothest, nicest way of making the point but it was a rhetorically trying on for size the argument in the opposite direction which I think strikes most as fair ball. So, solutions. I'll go with community first.
1) The community here I guess needs to recognize there is an unfortunate tendency towards an itchy trigger finger on the closing of threads. If a point can be made without inspiring that trigger finger, then that would be better. The closing of threads doesn't just damage Moderator credibility it hurts the whole site-- if some of those threads were not started that would reduce the damage. People already group police threads when it comes to offensive approaches and nobody should be sheltered from reaction on a site like this because that is the point of being here. The community being responsible is essential to minimize the problem. One thing people here could do is refrain as much as possible from using thread opening to make a point-- use it just for finding places to put conversation.
2) Moderation-- I think some anti-itch cream needs to be applied. The balance between being heavy handed and ignoring stuff has been tilted to heavy handed-- that is why I left this site for the bulk of the last half year. In this new case, the moderator could have gone in the thread and given it a short leash like saying-- if this is just tit for tat it will be closed but if you can make an argument for why we should examine this the other way then fill your boots. For a moderator of a site to decide that it is legitimate to ask a question of one candidate and not the others is unseemly even if the motivation behind the thread was suspect-- and suspect only. There is a possibility it was catty and another that it was balance seeking or making a legitimate point about the original question. To conclude that the moderator is being baited suggests the moderator cannot rise up and be bigger than the baiter-- and unfortunately moderation here does seem to be rather easily baited-- even by accident when the discussion is legitimately worth pursuing. If we have fewer threads opened for the point of making a point then we can indulge the remaining ones.
If the moderation could consider backing off more often and the community itself being as responsible as possible the site would not be so damaged.
I realize one could say I should not be in this thread given my history here. However, I am in it because I care about these issues and would love to see that point better respected.
So when all hell breaks lose then act but when it is something you can ignore ask yourself-- is it really worth it to come in and close a thread? Considering that thread closing is a problem enough that you could say -- I could set my watch then why not take that into account-- was this thread and the perception that caused it worth the preemptive strike of closing a catty thread that might have been ignored and dropped off in a day if it had not been dignified with censorship?
Please allow this discussion rather than censoring here because -- this site needs this talk. And accept that some criticism of moderation is helpful and not some insurgency that needs to be stamped out.
My suggestion again -- why not have some corner of this site where there will be no censorship at least so we don't have this discussion with someone's finger on the trigger?
So in sum: moderation less heavy handed, places we know we can discuss without moderation closing, community more responsible when it comes to thread proliferation and baiting moderators.
My final point on this is recognition that this site has evolved-- it faces more competition from Twitter and other places and so the community is more fragile than ever. In my time away I used Twitter a great deal-- was frustrated by the 140 character limit that does not allow much explanation of point and discussion but the lack of censorship is attractive. Many others have walked and not come back. How many before we just lose the place altogether? I come here because there are a lot of people here with diverse opinions. I don't personally like the moderating style but am here because I want to talk to many people. If the site drives too many away that benefit will be gone and it will fold in on itself.
This is worthy of discussion as there are few places like this on the web and the problem with many is the lack of a critical mass of people-- the very benefit that is being put at risk.
I agree that the moderation could stand some moderation. And Sean gives good reasons why.
Community.
I think there are different understandings of what that means, here.
I hope I was clear also that it is a two-way street though.
Could I have a word with everyone?
There has been absolutely no limitation whatsoever of any kind whatsoever on free-ranging discussion about every single NDP candidate.
If the moderators can't make a decision about how that (or any) discussion should be physically arranged within the appropriate threads and/or forums, what exactly can they decide?
The accusation of "censorship" is ludicrous. Why not just call them child molestors, and get it all out into the open?
I applaud Catchfire's good humour and patience through all this race. Had it been me, I would have shut down the racetrack and the betting windows long ago.
Not much to disagree with there, except that I could've put a little extra latitude to use were it not for pre-emptive self-moderation, for the most part. Power's leniency towards dissent only extends so far.
The mods and I support different candidates, and yes we disagree on occasion, but this mod bashing has just got to stop and it needs to stop now. They are all doing a remarkably good job under quite frankly "pain in the ass" conditions. Please, for goodness sake, leave them be.
We could put the Mods up for sainthood.
I support NorthReport for leader, Unionist for High Suzerain, and Slumberjack for Caucus Whip.
Rebecca West can be the Chief Distiller, so long as I can be her deputy.
ETA And Boom Boom can be Head of the Secret Police
Sounds like the second half of that Carlin joke. Anyways, I'd like the secret police job if Boom Boom isn't up for that type of work.
What's the point? It's not secret any more.
I'll be asking the questions if you don't mind.
I don't think it is unfair to say there are two sides to this or that unnecessary shutting of threads has a cost.
The child molesters comment is over the top since this was not a criticism of the character of the mods here- just a statement in a feedback forum that a lighter touch would be better all round. To say that to question the shutting of threads is akin to calling someone a child molester is frankly an attempt to prevent the very purpose of this part of the site -- to give honest feedback. I don't think there is anything disrespectful in calling the closing of a thread censoring -- it is cutting off a conversation.
I respect you unionist but I don't see why you are so hard on even allowing this discussion to take place. I certainly tried to strike a for fairly moderate ground but either the site is capable of allowing constructive feedback or it isn't. If it isn't please let me know what this part of the site is for-- perhaps I misunderstood it. And please don't suggest that the closing of threads is some new or unusual phenomenon. I think I raised a point in a respectful way especially since I have taken a leave of this place for almost six months because of it. I came back and responded to the point after other people did calmly and clearly with an effort at balance. So suggesting that is like calling the Mods child molesters indicates to me that there is no place for feedback other than agreement and I think the place is poorer for it. I also wanted to make an important point that thread proliferation techniques used rhetorically are part of the problem but I cannot do that without acknowledging the issue of excess on closing as well. Sorry I offended you but I really don't understand why my point is anything but constructive-- even for those who might disagree with it.
I feel the degree of the defensiveness here is unfortunate.