Moderator Bias

Exarch · Apr 28, 2008

i dont think i'm the only one to have experienced this, but there's a disturbing tendency amongst moderator staff to frequently infract those who advocate views opposed by said moderator(s), than those who share the same views as the moderators themselves.

Let's be honest here, there are some things, some 'flames' which even some posters get away with, simply because some moderators will turn a blind eye to it because they may or may not share the same opinions as the infringing poster; but should another poster aggressively advocate views in opposition to the moderators'views, he/she will almost always find themselves with a 'infraction against insulting others/off topic posting' note.
Given that the chances of getting an infraction overturned are about 1/10, receiving such an infraction is pretty much a way of telling the poster to STFU.

i've just returned from a rather refreshing one week suspention due to several infractions for posts anyone else would've gotten away with had they shared the same opinions as the mods in question; but i dont mind-no, i rediscovered things and experienced much during my 'cold turkey' week, such as knitting, converting to scientology, attempting to experiment with drugs, de-converting from scientology and finally, composing this thread.

if you're a moderator; please, try to segregate your personal bias from your moderator duties, otherwise political debate and language in TWC will simply become more and more dilute.

Kiljan Arslan · Apr 28, 2008

Look Exarch you flamed Srwitt get over it.

Exarch · Apr 28, 2008

i accept that
i'm referring to all and any political debates whatsoever actually

Chaigidel · Apr 28, 2008

he is probably right in some small cases, but most times when I get a point I deserve it and only wish I could have gotten away with saying more before im got

i havent seen too many times tho that mods tagged people inappropriately.

Magic Man · Apr 28, 2008

I think theres a bias towards banter.

The tribunal commentary for example, there was some banter going on there this morning; non-moderators. It gets deleted.

Then of course a moderator adds some banter in afterwards, and it doesnt get deleted.

Go figure.

Chaigidel · Apr 28, 2008

yeah that could happen more often than actually tagging people though.

HorseArcher · Apr 28, 2008

I didn't know all the moderators sharing the same view (political, ideological, spiritual etc) , because that's what you tell us here and that's entirely false, almost conspiracy-like.

If not, you could always contact another moderator or administrator.

Again, it's silly to believe that moderators would be a giant collective borg-like creatures with the same ideology, speaking from my admin and moderator experience, almost all moderators have a different take on many things (actually quite diverse, but again, most users never been - and won't be- in the moderator's and staff sub forums, only available to staff and moderators, quite logically) .

Again, if you agree that moderators are different in many things (again, we are talking about non-paid, volunteer TWC members from all backgrounds, who have a clean record) , then this entire thread doesn't make sense at all.

Given that the chances of getting an infraction overturned are about 1/10, receiving such an infraction is pretty much a way of telling the poster to STFU.

That just shows that most of the moderator actions are quite accurate, it would be worrying to see half of the mod-actions overturned, which would be a clear signal, that there is a moderator-problem.

i rediscovered things and experienced much during my 'cold turkey' week, such as knitting, converting to scientology, attempting to experiment with drugs, de-converting from scientology and finally, composing this thread.

I really think you need to take more breaks from TWC if you were doing those, just because you couldn't log on to TWC. I'm not kidding.

LoZz · Apr 28, 2008

you have no idea how difficult it actually is, its only an internet forum but the fact people can appeal makes its hard and insures fairness.

S.P.Q.R. Praetorian · Apr 28, 2008

LoZz said:
you have no idea how difficult it actually is, its only an internet forum but the fact people can appeal makes its hard and insures fairness.

He speaks the truth. Despite what everyone else think moderating a forum is a pain in the ass.

imb39 · Apr 28, 2008

Moderating is a thankless task. Whilst some moderators (I include myself in this) might make mistakes and interpret poorly at times I seriously doubt you get anyone who serially moderates in favour of their own political bias. If that were the case I doubt you'd have me on the same team as, for example, Manstein or Simetrical. We hold different political views on many things. The fact that infractions can be appealed helps to diminish the prospects of this. Looking at the list of Tribunes and other magistrates you also get a wide spectrum of political affiliations there (if affiliation is the right word). This is not a designed occurrence, rather it is a rather predictable product of the fact that we (as in Staff) couldn't care less. If I did care about this, I'd probably purge many from Staff....

As to the bias towards other moderators within threads and, shall we say, chit chat, well that's a possibility. I'd like to think it was not endemic but if there are any irregularities it is important that they are reported to, say, an Admin or Senior Moderator who can say things privately if it is warranted. Now people might take umbrage with the idea of this being done privately but we are dealing with volunteers who do a fantastic job, by and large and deserve the chance to take part in frank and open discussions without being constantly scrutanised by others.

Shaun · Apr 28, 2008

Exarch said:
i dont think i'm the only one to have experienced this, but there's a disturbing tendency amongst moderator staff to frequently infract those who advocate views opposed by said moderator(s), than those who share the same views as the moderators themselves.

Let's be honest here, there are some things, some 'flames' which even some posters get away with, simply because some moderators will turn a blind eye to it because they may or may not share the same opinions as the infringing poster; but should another poster aggressively advocate views in opposition to the moderators'views, he/she will almost always find themselves with a 'infraction against insulting others/off topic posting' note.
Given that the chances of getting an infraction overturned are about 1/10, receiving such an infraction is pretty much a way of telling the poster to STFU.

i've just returned from a rather refreshing one week suspention due to several infractions for posts anyone else would've gotten away with had they shared the same opinions as the mods in question; but i dont mind-no, i rediscovered things and experienced much during my 'cold turkey' week, such as knitting, converting to scientology, attempting to experiment with drugs, de-converting from scientology and finally, composing this thread.

if you're a moderator; please, try to segregate your personal bias from your moderator duties, otherwise political debate and language in TWC will simply become more and more dilute.

Rubbish. The moderators here will not persecute you for your political beliefs, especially as there is a good dose of left- and right-wing moderators here - and even some totally neutral. In fact, when I was a moderator I certainly infracted people who shared my political beliefs, but posted it in a way which broke the rules.

May I remind you that we have a tribunal here which is public. Use this if you feel you were unjustly infracted.

S.P.Q.R. Praetorian · Apr 28, 2008

imb and Shaun are correct. There is no personal belief "bias" when they moderate.

Quite honestly I would like to see how many of you would hold down as a moderator. It may seem fun having all those "cool toys" like banning, but it IS a pain in the arse. You never really get anywhere. A lot of it is repitition such as banning alts that YOU have to wait for and take the initiation to moderate, therefore eating up time you would want to spend posting in the forums.

RZZZA · Apr 28, 2008

I've been moderated by people i consider "friends", I've never noticed any personal, political, religious or ideological bias in any of the moderators.

and I know what bias looks like, I just left a forum where i could get away with more than most because I was good friends with the moderator.

Mods here arent like that, I've been moderated at TWC before by what i considered friends, its never anything personal.

scottishranger · Apr 28, 2008

What Magic said about banter might be true. We are all human after all, we like to spam just as much as the next guy.

Miraj · Apr 28, 2008

They unjustly infract Excharch and expect us to say 'God bless Moderators'?? No no no no! God DAMN Moderators!!! That's in the bible!!!

Icefrisco · Apr 28, 2008

Exarch, do you have any real proof of moderators being biased against you?

Pontifex Maximus · Apr 28, 2008

I have been contacted three times by moderators involving my posts in the past four months and all of them have been different moderators. I don't think there is much bias towards me, but it may exist towards some posters that are constantly spamming I would think.

(note: I'm not accusing anyone here of constantly spamming)

Denny Crane! · Apr 28, 2008

Yeah if you constantly spam you can assume there will be a certain amount of bias against you since we frown on spam here.

(dammit there is the conspiracy blown open)

As for bias well I'd be infracting people left right and center since there are relatively few people who I agree with and in terms of topicality that includes most of the moderators underneath me, I am biased against about 99% of the board.

S.P.Q.R. Praetorian · Apr 28, 2008

Miraj said:
They unjustly infract Excharch and expect us to say 'God bless Moderators'?? No no no no! God DAMN Moderators!!! That's in the bible!!!

Give me a break, that is tiring. :thumbsdow

Seneca said:
I am biased against about 99% of the board.

Yeah, and so is the rest of us.

I havent detected bias here either by mods or admins.

gigagaia · Apr 28, 2008

Seneca said:
I am biased against about 99% of the board.

A siggable quote if I ever saw one

(sorry)

Exarch · Apr 28, 2008

HorseArcher said:
I didn't know all the moderators sharing the same view (political, ideological, spiritual etc) , because that's what you tell us here and that's entirely false, almost conspiracy-like.

If not, you could always contact another moderator or administrator.

Again, it's silly to believe that moderators would be a giant collective borg-like creatures with the same ideology, speaking from my admin and moderator experience, almost all moderators have a different take on many things (actually quite diverse, but again, most users never been - and won't be- in the moderator's and staff sub forums, only available to staff and moderators, quite logically) .

sorry, i should've made myself clearer; moderator personal bias is the issue i'm getting at; for example u might have a moderator with serbian sympathies who might police an anti-serbian poster more stringently than s/he would otherwise.

Again, if you agree that moderators are different in many things (again, we are talking about non-paid, volunteer TWC members from all backgrounds, who have a clean record) , then this entire thread doesn't make sense at all.

those who can, do.

That just shows that most of the moderator actions are quite accurate, it would be worrying to see half of the mod-actions overturned, which would be a clear signal, that there is a moderator-problem.

but what of the others who get the benefit of having a moderator who happens to share the same views as they do? i guarantee u, in such a situation, they will not be infracted/policed as much as someone who shares the same views as those of the moderator.

I really think you need to take more breaks from TWC if you were doing those, just because you couldn't log on to TWC. I'm not kidding

i was being facetious; me joining scientology? :laughter:

pannonian · Apr 28, 2008

Exarch said:
but what of the others who get the benefit of having a moderator who happens to share the same views as they do? i guarantee u, in such a situation, they will not be infracted/policed as much as someone who shares the same views as those of the moderator.

Somewhere in Q&S, you'll find that Miraj has been warned in the past for insulting a Stormfront member. As the moderator who issued the warning, I can tell you that I very much sympathised with Miraj's sentiments. But the way he expressed them was against the ToS, so he got infracted. There have been many other occasions when the moderator shared the poster's views, but handed out infractions because the way they were expressed was against the ToS, or when moderators have been utterly exasperated with a poster, but argued against an infraction because their post was within the ToS. In fact, it is standard policy when a moderator deems themselves involved in a thread to ask another moderator to look at the thread instead. This is to avoid even the appearance of bias.

TBH, there probably are biases of some kind among all the moderators. This is only to be expected, as we are only human. However, as people have noted, this is hard to quantify, and we do take steps to try and iron them out. Don't expect perfection, but have some patience with us, and tell us where we go wrong so we can improve.

Garbarsardar · Apr 28, 2008

Exarch said:
sorry, i should've made myself clearer; moderator personal bias is the issue i'm getting at; for example u might have a moderator with serbian sympathies who might police an anti-serbian poster more stringently than s/he would otherwise.

Yes, moderators are biased. Bias in inherent in human beings since we are not automatons.

Now find me a website that has better safeguards to ensure that the normal, inherent bias of individuals does not affect the members.

You can appeal to the moderator who warned you.
Should that fail you can appeal to a Senior Moderator.
Should that fail you can appeal to the CoM.
Should that fail you can appeal to the Tribunal.
Should that fail because it is a case of policy (or at the same time) you can open a thread here.
Should you believe this was not addressed and you are a citizen you can initiate a vote of no confidence to the CoM.

I have received an infraction for calling someone a "nazi thug". Do you believe that I received that from a nazi moderator?

Denny Crane! · Apr 28, 2008

VoNC? Don't put ideas in their heads Garb!

On a serious note, a lot of people unhappy with infractions but not many appeals to the CoM. A lot of the time I'll probably deny them but I can think of at least two recent examples where I overturned warnings and notes.

Kiljan Arslan · Apr 28, 2008

If the mods were really biased I'd be on a six month suspension.

The10thLegion · Apr 28, 2008

Moderating is hard work i would presume.
Moderating in my own forums are hard enough without people yelling at me for banning them. I doubt anyone would be a moderator like that if they seemed biased. Im currently content with the moderating here

Pontifex Maximus · Apr 28, 2008

Seneca said:
VoNC? Don't put ideas in their heads Garb!

...I must wiki this

On a serious note, a lot of people unhappy with infractions but not many appeals to the CoM. A lot of the time I'll probably deny them but I can think of at least two recent examples where I overturned warnings and notes.

The reason people get unhappy is because they are given an infraction usually at a bad time. Usually an infraction is a result of a heated turned flamey (and thus disruptive), and both subjects will already be riled up. Adding an infraction (in the short term) in the middle of a debate in which one is usually quite emotional would be like trying to fight a fire with petrol. Of course after the person has settled down, everything would be fine. There is no doubt that once a poster returns to his or her senses that the infraction will serve as a wakeup call and encourage the poster to refrain from engaging in discussions like that in the future. So they do work, but in the short term serve to further infuriate an already angry person.

Scorch · Apr 28, 2008

pannonian said:
Somewhere in Q&S, you'll find that Miraj has been warned in the past for insulting a Stormfront member. As the moderator who issued the warning, I can tell you that I very much sympathised with Miraj's sentiments. But the way he expressed them was against the ToS, so he got infracted. There have been many other occasions when the moderator shared the poster's views, but handed out infractions because the way they were expressed was against the ToS, or when moderators have been utterly exasperated with a poster, but argued against an infraction because their post was within the ToS. In fact, it is standard policy when a moderator deems themselves involved in a thread to ask another moderator to look at the thread instead. This is to avoid even the appearance of bias.

TBH, there probably are biases of some kind among all the moderators. This is only to be expected, as we are only human. However, as people have noted, this is hard to quantify, and we do take steps to try and iron them out. Don't expect perfection, but have some patience with us, and tell us where we go wrong so we can improve.

As Pannonian points out, we do our best to avoid bias. If there is an issue that is emotional and touchy for a moderator in particular, we'll try to avoid it and let other moderators take care of it. We're all human, after all.

At the same time, I disagree with your view that bias is a rampant problem in the moderator ranks at the moment. You were given a warning because your post was in breach of the ToS, not because of your political leanings. If you think that, in your case, Manstein favours srwitt, then you obviously haven't looked in the Tribunal lately.

We are human, and always will be. Having said that, I'm confident that our team of moderators are able to separate their political beliefs and leanings from their moderating when it is necessary, and judge by the only thing that is applicable (regardless of political affiliation) - that is, the ToS.

Farnan · Apr 28, 2008

Actually I gave an infraction to a member once, then sent another PM saying I agreed with what he said I just had to warn him.

Scorch · Apr 28, 2008

Farnan said:
Actually I gave an infraction to a member once, then sent another PM saying I agreed with what he said I just had to warn him.

I think it was me that gave the warning to Garb for calling a member a 'nazi thug'. I once also had to give a note to a user that made a very, very good (and very long) post that I agreed with almost entirely because he included a flame in the last sentence. As I said, it's the ToS by which we judge.

Moderator Bias

Moderator Bias

Indefinitely Banned

They call it a Royale with cheese.

Indefinitely Banned

They call it a Royale with cheese.

Indefinitely Banned

They call it a Royale with cheese.

I mean, funny like I'm a clown? I amuse you?

who are you?

We'll always have Paris.

I'm having an old friend for dinner.

It was Beauty killed the Beast.

We'll always have Paris.

Good morning, Vietnam!

In Memory of Calvin

Indefinitely Banned

A martini. Shaken, not stirred.

Indefinitely Banned

Veni, vidi, vici: I came, I saw, I conquered.

We'll always have Paris.

They call me Mr Tibbs!

Indefinitely Banned

Eat Meat Whale Meat

Et Slot i et slot

Veni, vidi, vici: I came, I saw, I conquered.

They call it a Royale with cheese.

Have a good day!

Indefinitely Banned

One of Giga's Ladies

Saviors of the Japanese

One of Giga's Ladies

Join the Total War Center!

Wiki Links

Rome on TWC Wiki

Total War Center on the Wiki

Total War Series on TWC Wiki

Modding Information on TWC Wiki

Medieval II on TWC Wiki

Thread Statistics

Site Polls

Axis & Allies

Battleship

Checkers

Chess

Clue

Go

Monopoly

Risk

Stratego

Other