Politics in Apolitical Forums

So Poster 1 makes a completely political post in QZ, accusing the ruling BJP party of genocide and election violence. Poster 2 responds with a post saying that the BJP is the victim of election violence by their political opponents. Q: which of these posters attracts attention from two moderators and gets banned from the thread due to introducing politics? A: the one whose political post supported a party compared with “Trumpism”.

In general, poitical potshots in supposedly apolitical forums tend to be moderated - or not - based largely on whether the politics are aligned with those of the moderators.

It’s a natural thing. If you see something political which goes strongly against your own political beliefs, it stands out much starker, and thus seems more political, than when you see something which is aligned with what you yourself believe, which - to the extent that you notice it altogether - comes off more as simply a description of the state of affairs.

This one is simple.

No one flagged Acsenray and so went unnoticed by the modstaff. In my opinion it was an inappropriate post for QZ also. Both posts are good reasons to ban them from the thread and DMC’s reply was appropriately modnoted.

I just flagged Acsenray’s for @Colibri to decide. As it is not my forum and I’m not 100% sure of the rules. But to me it looks inappropriate. It should at least be modnoted.

We keep repeating this and I know you’ve been in threads we’re we’ve said it. Please flag the posts and let us sort it out. There is only one specific poster we’ve asked to flag less posts.

I find this very surprising.

I would think if you’re going to moderate any post, you need to read the posts it was responding to, if only in order to get context. It would appear from your post that this is routinely not done.

I’m not into reporting posts, and am not going to do this. I have no issue with any post being moderated or not moderated. But I do think that if you’re going to moderate things, you should be evenhanded about it, to the extent possible.

It varies and the flags with explanations of what is wrong help greatly.

The Acsenray post looks clearly like one that should have been flagged and then modnoted (at least). But it wasn’t flagged until a few minutes ago.

If you want things to change, it would help if you started using the flag system.

I will say, your second example by running_coach, I would not have modded. That was just a cheap joke well into a thread and not a side-tracking type of post.

If you made a similar minor one liner about Biden, I wouldn’t mod it either. Now if sexist, racist or such, different story.

Since I had already moderated the subsequent posts, I didn’t think another mod note was necessary.

The line wasn’t political because it was about Giuliani. It was because it began “As a Republican …”, which makes it a general shot at Republicans. If someone made a crack at Biden which began “As a Democrat [political caricature]”, that would be something else.

Well I am a IMHO mod and I would not bother modding a one liner at the Democrats expense if wasn’t a distraction to the thread. That example was very minor.

I was going to start a thread thanking Colibri for the clean up in the QZ thread, but I’ll post it here instead.

I’m so tired of posters who can’t resist making political jabs or otherwise being argumentative. It’s detrimental to the board. While posters just pausing to reconsider what they’re posting would be better, I’m appreciative of the moderators trying to keep this board friendly.

When I see political jabs where they don’t belong I don’t respond to them because that’s continuing the inappropriate political discussion. I don’t alert the poster that their jab is not allowed because that’s junior modding. If I did either, I’d expect to get a note at least. I flag the post and otherwise keep my mouth shut or ignore the jab as I post.

Which I agree was entirely warranted. To be fair, I had reported the post (three different ones, actually) and felt like it was going to be allowed to stand unchallenged (and the “Great Whore of Bengal” just really didn’t deserve to go unchallenged). I should have waited longer.

I was once warned for insulting a poster, but it was in response to his insult. I saw no warning to him. Still, I broke a rule. I should have reported his post and not responded in kind. Live and learn.

Moderating is a difficult job just like officiating a game. Moderators have their own styles, just like officials do. It’s up to us to adjust to them, not vice versa. All one can do is ask that they be as consistent as possible from one situation to another and one poster to another.

Is there a reason you can’t, or won’t, follow the proper procedure for reporting a post or thread? It makes no sense to me that you would wish to avoid contacting the moderators directly.

Because creating threads in ATMB is a much more effective approach?

OK, I would like to think we are pretty even-handed. If anything I’ve noticed that we go easier on right leaning posters as their posts do get flagged far more often.

The reason right-leaning posters feel mods come down harder on them is we really do rely on flags more than reading every thread. Probably the one exception to that is ATMB where there aren’t a lot of threads to start.

The board leans left in active posters and thus the flags are more likely against right leaning posts.

I think this is true, and I think it goes a long way to explain why some posts get flagged and others don’t. Then the ones that get flagged are the ones that get modded.

Then IMO you have no standing to complain about supposed bias in moderation, at all.

Unless it is expected that forum moderators read every single post in their forums, which I would find ludicrous.