AAM Moderators gone right wing?

[Lemurz]

Having been a member and contibutor to AAM for many years I find the site in recent months has gone very right wing, with administrators censoring good debate.

I would consider myself to be a fair, open minded individual with no particular political views (well maybe a little more right than left) It's fairly obvious most/all of the AAM administrators are right wing, however I find many of their responses offensive and one sided.

Am I just getting old & cranky or does anybody else agree?

 

[ClubMan]

Re: AAM Administrators

Am I just getting old & cranky or does anybody else agree?

I have no idea if you are old and cranky but I certainly don't agree with you.

Having been a member and contibutor to AAM for many years I find the site in recent months has gone very right wing, with administrators censoring good debate.

Can you give some examples (links where possible) of what you consider to be unwarranted or heavy handed censorship or moderation of discussions?

It's fairly obvious most/all of the AAM administrators are right wing, however I find many of their responses offensive and one sided.

I don't think that this is obvious or true at all. Again can you give some examples to back up this accusation with examples/links? In particular where moderators/administrators have habitually been (a) right wing (b) offensive and (c) collectively (?) one sided.

It seems to me that every so often this issue arises when one or more people take exception to some of the moderation decisions and/or contributions from moderators/administrators. Obviously I'm biased here but I honestly don't think that there is anything that warrants complaint on this front most of the time. The odd time mistakes are made in terms of moderating threads but overall I think that we do a relatively good job and most contributors recognise this, are happy to abide by the relevant posting guidelines and help to maintain the high quality of discussions through their contributions. Apart from moderation of threads moderators are ordinary contributors too and are free to express their opinions like anybody else within the constraints of the same posting guidelines that apply to everybody. As it happens, I myself had a post edited by one of the other moderators the other day because I had posted something slightly inappropriate in annoyance. I don't agree that the moderators are mostly or all right wing in their views but even if some or all were then I don't see how that would necessarily be a problem as long as they expressed their views in accordance with the posting guidelines. In particular I don't consider myself right wing but, then again, I don't define myself or my views with reference to any right/left wing political spectrum and hold no specific political allegiances.

 

[podgerodge]

Re: AAM Administrators

Can you give some examples (links where possible) of what you consider to be unwarranted or heavy handed censorship or moderation of discussions?

The Rip off Republic 3 thread's censorship/deletion of comments was heavy handed - the 'nasty' words could have been taken out with the contributors points of view left in. When my wife saw the comments that had been deleted her reaction was "God, they're easily upset aren't they".

In particular where moderators/administrators have habitually been ... (c) collectively (?) one sided.

The deletions and support for them were by people that were involved in the actual debate - and with the same view. I would have been happier had a neutral person made the decisions - one that had not contributed their opinion.

People may have felt "ripped-off" !

 

[ClubMan]

Re: AAM Administrators

OK - that's a single example which, in my opinion, does not support Lemurz's accusations as I explain below.

The Rip off Republic 3 thread's censorship/deletion of comments was heavy handed - the 'nasty' words could have been taken out with the contributors points of view left in. When my wife saw the comments that had been deleted her reaction was "God, they're easily upset aren't they".

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Brendan moderate and eventually close that thread and he was not involved in the discussion much or at all?

The deletions and support for them were by people that were involved in the actual debate - and with the same view. I would have been happier had a neutral person made the decisions - one that had not contributed their opinion.

See above. The fact that some moderators may have similar views on some issues is irrelevant. Also, according to the :

Moderators do not edit posts simply because they disagree with the opinions expressed therein.

Whether people choose to believe this or not this is actually the real situation. Brendan is usually more direct about this and encourages people who don't like the moderation policy around here to look elsewhere for another bulletin board that is more tolerant or permissive. I would never be as blunt as that though...

 

[podgerodge]

Re: AAM Administrators

and he was not involved in the discussion much or at all?

ahhh he DID make about 6 posts giving his opinion!

 

[ClubMan]

Re: AAM Administrators

Fair enough - that's why I said "Correct me if I'm wrong". Anyway, do you honestly believe that Brendan moderates, closes or deletes threads just because he or any other moderator differs with a point of view being expressed?

 

[RainyDay]

Re: AAM Administrators

For the record, I'm definitely on the left-side of the political spectrum.

The Rip off Republic 3 thread's censorship/deletion of comments was heavy handed - the 'nasty' words could have been taken out with the contributors points of view left in. When my wife saw the comments that had been deleted her reaction was "God, they're easily upset aren't they".

The deletions and support for them were by people that were involved in the actual debate - and with the same view. I would have been happier had a neutral person made the decisions - one that had not contributed their opinion.

People may have felt "ripped-off" !

I think this demonstrates some of the challenges of moderation. First of all, let's keep in mind that all moderators are volunteers, and we all have a lot better things to do than pick through posts and decide which words/phrases/clauses are acceptable. If a post goes over the line, it is really unreasonable to expect the mod to spend precious time reworking the post.

 

[CCOVICH]

Re: AAM Administrators

and we all have a lot better things to do than pick through posts and decide which words/phrases/clauses are acceptable.

Really?

Seriously, I don't believe that AAM Administrators or Moderators are right wing at all. People may have started to form this opinon based on the recent 'Rip Off Republic' threads, where Admins/Mods may have appeared right wing (not to me btw) just because they suggested that 'Rip Off Ireland' is a misnomer, and that consumers shouldn't feel ripped off just because they are paying high prices etc.

I think that's a perfectly valid viewpoint, even though I don't always agree with it.

I think that the RoI threads addressed some very emotive issues, which are unlikly to recur anytime in the near future (until the 4th episode thread of course). People (myself included) got worked up, and the focus shifted from issues to personalities, which was unfortunate.

I think that the most valuable aspect of this site is the Q&A, i.e. people asking 'where to invest?' and 'how do I get out of debt?' type questions etc. and getting responses. I think that the Admins/Mods make a fantastic contribution in this regard, and considering that some (most?) are not in the FS industry, it is even more remarkable.

Wrt to debates etc., it's all a matter of personal opinion I guess, and we'll always differ on the issues discussed. I have always held the view that 'if you don't like it, lump it', or stay away from threads where you are likely to get into trouble, and 'stick to the knitting', i.e. asking and answering questions.

That's my €0.02 anyway.

 

[podgerodge]

Re: AAM Administrators

Anyway, do you honestly believe that Brendan moderates, closes or deletes threads just because he or any other moderator differs with a point of view being expressed?

No, in fairness I don't.

 

[ClubMan]

Re: AAM Administrators

No, in fairness I don't.

OK - so do you think that any of the other moderators do/have done?

People may have started to form this opinon based on the recent 'Rip Off Republic' threads, where Admins/Mods may have appeared right wing (not to me btw) just because they suggested that 'Rip Off Ireland' is a misnomer, and that consumers shouldn't feel ripped off just because they are paying high prices etc.

I also assumed that the original post might have been a reference to this sort of situation alright. Maybe Lemurz can confirm or deny that? However I think that the RoI threads might be an example of those who don't toe the emotive and populist line and instead try to dig deeper and root the discussion in facts rather than assumptions and generalisations being accused of some sort of marginal (at either end of the political spectrum) and contrarian viewpoint, often just for the sake of it (e.g. Devil's Advocacy).

It reminded me a little of the brief interview with [broken link removed] in yesterday's Irish Times where he had some interesting things to say about issues that generally meet with canned knee-jerk responses from the media and general public rather than reasoned discussion and debate before arriving at conclusions (e.g. nuclear power and proliferation of nuclear power technology - just look at the way the whole Sellafield issue is "dealt with" in Ireland for example: populist "shut it down" postcard bombardment campaigns with little or now examination of the underlying facts of the issue, renewable energy sources, human assisted reproduction, GMOs/GM foods etc.). My inital reaction was one of surprise at him holding these views which was odd because I don't really know much about him other than seeing him on the telly. I could well imagine some people inferring from his views that he was at one or other end of the political spectrum or was some sort of contrarian. I'm sure that this sort of unreasoned/emotional response drives some peoples' opinions of others in other contexts, including on AAM?

 

[daltonr]

Re: AAM Administrators

I don't want to start this all up again and I'm loathe to even post on this thread, but I have to say your last post sounded a bit patronising. On more than one occasion you used phrases like unreasoned, emotional response, populist line. You drew comparisons with topics where people form unreason knee-jerk views such as on Nulear fuel, etc, etc.

You may not have intended it but you seem to be suggesting that those on the other side of the fence on the ROI threads are being mindlessly whipped along on some sort of emotional crusade with nothing to support their views but knee-jerk reactions to percieved problems, that those of you on the more rational side of the fence can see are all in our heads.

Anyone who thinks you are wrong has formed that impression only because of some
"unreasoned/emotional response".

I'm not going to get into another discussion of Rip-Offs it's a dead end topic with no happy ending, but this issue is very important. On another thread right now a simple statement by me that drivers are dying due to driving inappropriately met with a call for clarification of whether I was offering an opinion or if this was a fact. This is getting out of hand. The same guy that once said ALL accidents are due to human error now quibbles over whether or not bad driving kills people at all.

As to the original question I don't believe there's a question of Right and Left. I've never agreed with the labels because the huge majority of people straddle both sides on different issues. Many who claim to be left wing will hold very right-wing views on how a free market should operate. Many who consider themselves right wing will hold very liberal views on issues like abortion, euthenasia, etc.

Those who truly are on one or the other extreme are what we in the middle might call idiots.

For what it's worth on virtually all of the issues listed by Clubman I am in the contrarian camp. I don't know what that makes me other than contrary.
I don't know what the populist view on renewable energy sources is, but I'm in favour of them.

-Rd

 

[ClubMan]

Re: AAM Administrators

I don't want to start this all up again and I'm loathe to even post on this thread, but I have to say your last post sounded a bit patronising. On more than one occasion you used phrases like unreasoned, emotional response, populist line. You drew comparisons with topics where people form unreason knee-jerk views such as on Nulear fuel, etc, etc.

My point was that many people are prone to unreasoned/emotional responses to issues which leads them to conclusions not necessarily supported by the facts. I cited my own initial reaction to Robert Winston's views as reported in the newspaper as an example of just such a reaction not based on any logical reasoning and, as such, possibly fallacious. I just wondered in the same applied in this case of some people jumping to conclusions about some or all moderators motivations or views? I'm not sure how I can be patronising when I am admitting that I am prone to the same tendancies that I was talking about?

You may not have intended it but you seem to be suggesting that those on the other side of the fence on the ROI threads are being mindlessly whipped along on some sort of emotional crusade with nothing to support their views but knee-jerk reactions to percieved problems, that those of you on the more rational side of the fence can see are all in our heads.

Anyone who thinks you are wrong has formed that impression only because of some
"unreasoned/emotional response".

I'm not saying that all people fall into that category but I do believe that many of them do. For example I base this on many arguments I've had with people who started off moaning about RoI and after I had pointed out certain facts to them they agreed with me that things were not as simple as they had initially assumed.

On another thread right now a simple statement by me that drivers are dying due to driving inappropriately met with a call for clarification of whether I was offering an opinion or if this was a fact. This is getting out of hand.

I personally don't think that it's unreasonable to back arguments up with supporting evidence obviously within reason. I haven't been following that thread so I'm not familiar with the ins and outs. As such I'm not sure what it has to do with my comments above?

As to the original question I don't believe there's a question of Right and Left. I've never agreed with the labels because the huge majority of people straddle both sides on different issues. Many who claim to be left wing will hold very right-wing views on how a free market should operate. Many who consider themselves right wing will hold very liberal views on issues like abortion, euthenasia, etc.

Those who truly are on one or the other extreme are what we in the middle might call idiots.

If you don't agree with labels why do you label some people as being in the middle, some on either extreme and some as idiots?

For what it's worth on virtually all of the issues listed by Clubman I am in the contrarian camp. I don't know what that makes me other than contrary.
I don't know what the populist view on renewable energy sources is, but I'm in favour of them.

By contrarian I meant in opposition to the popular or populist opinion on matters. I suspect that most people are in favour of "renewable" energy sources. As it happens Robert Winson's view was that they may be unsustainable and uneconomical in many cases and that the most promising source of cheap energy in the future might be nuclear power. That I would consider as a somewhat contrarian position.

 

[daltonr]

Re: AAM Administrators

I cited my own initial reaction to Robert Winston's views as reported in the newspaper as an example of just such a reaction not based on any logical reasoning and, as such, possibly fallacious.

I didn't get from your post that you were making that point. You just said you were surprised and "I could well imagine some people inferring from his views that he was at one or other end of the political spectrum or was some sort of contrarian."

I didn't realise you were pointing out a bit of unreasoned thought on your own part. The general thrust of your post seemed to be one of saying other people who toe the populist line on AAM do so out of some sort of unreasoned/emotional response.

Like I said in my post, I'm sure you didn't mean to give that impression, and if I'm the only one who got that Impression then there's nothing lost by clearing it up.

I personally don't think that it's unreasonable to back arguments up with supporting evidence obviously within reason. I haven't been following that thread so I'm not familiar with the ins and outs. As such I'm not sure what it has to do with my comments above?

I don't have a problem with that either. I do have a problem when someone says something we all know to be true, but because it hurts our argument we suggest that it's only an opinion and could the person please find statistics to prove it.
If you disagree with something then say it straight out and put the challenge up to the person to back it up and prove you wrong. Don't use the need for statistics as a means on delaying having to admit to something you know to be true.

There's a subtle difference between trying to clarify the facts and trying to diffuse the effectiveness of another person's argument by quibbling about things you know to be true. It's the difference between polite discussion and a court of law.

And I don't mean to single out Rainyday unfairly in this, he is not the only one who does it and he's far from the worst offender. It's just that in this case he's quibbling over a point that he himself made forcefully in a previous thread. It happens to be a prime example of how annoying and pointless such tactics are.

If you don't agree with labels why do you label some people as being in the middle, some on either extreme and some as idiots?

I said I don't agree with THESE labels (Left and Right) because for the vast majority of peopel they make no sense. A very small group of people hold extreme views which have become known as Right Wing and Left Wing. I don't distinguish between these people, they are both equally wrong and I would use a different label "IDIOTS" to describe them all.

The idea that everyone else can be placed somewhere on the spectrum between Left Wing Views and Right Wing Views also makes little sense. Most people have different Liberal/Conservative tendancies depending on the issue at hand.

I suspect the origins of this thread might be from seeing some so called Right of Center Opinions on specific topics. I don't think that's a valid thing to do because you may be seeing the only topic or one of very few on which that person's views would be considered Right of center.

-Rd

 

[onekeano]

Re: AAM Administrators

" If you disagree with something then say it straight out and put the challenge up to the person to back it up and prove you wrong. Don't use the need for statistics as a means on delaying having to admit to something you know to be true." - have to say I have noticed this creeping in where in Fawlty language "the bleeding obvious" is often challenged as if someone is required to support a thesis by producing reference & supporting material. I don't believe this is what AAM was set up to do.

"There's a subtle difference between trying to clarify the facts and trying to diffuse the effectiveness of another person's argument by quibbling about things you know to be true. It's the difference between polite discussion and a court of law." Fully agree, in the introduction to AAM it is described as a discussion forum - I think the legalistic probing tends to stifle the discussion aspect. This may be an unintentional spin off of trying to get people to be more explicit / precise in their questions / opinions but it can be irritating and I have little doubt that it would put newer contributors off.

It's been a great source of info for myself and numerous colleagues but I would like to ensure that people are free to offer an opinion without thinking that they will be subjected to forensic examination or have to go off googling for reference documentation.

Roy

 

[RainyDay]

Re: AAM Administrators

I don't have a problem with that either. I do have a problem when someone says something we all know to be true, but because it hurts our argument we suggest that it's only an opinion and could the person please find statistics to prove it.
If you disagree with something then say it straight out and put the challenge up to the person to back it up and prove you wrong. Don't use the need for statistics as a means on delaying having to admit to something you know to be true.

There's a subtle difference between trying to clarify the facts and trying to diffuse the effectiveness of another person's argument by quibbling about things you know to be true. It's the difference between polite discussion and a court of law.

And I don't mean to single out Rainyday unfairly in this, he is not the only one who does it and he's far from the worst offender. It's just that in this case he's quibbling over a point that he himself made forcefully in a previous thread. It happens to be a prime example of how annoying and pointless such tactics are.

Hi RD - We're not all out to get you, all of the time. In asking for clarification of whether your comments were facts or opinion, I was doing just that. I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. I was simply exploring the issue. I happen to believe that it's important to distinguish between the two. As I think you well know, when I want to disagree with you, I've no qualms about doing so directly.

It's been a great source of info for myself and numerous colleagues but I would like to ensure that people are free to offer an opinion without thinking that they will be subjected to forensic examination or have to go off googling for reference documentation.

Hi Roy - As explained above, you are absolutlely free to offer your opinion. It will be valued as opinion. If you have verifiable facts that you wish to throw into the pot, that would have a different value.

If we have a problem about distinguishing between opinion & fact, then we might as well hand over the reins to the late-night local radio chat show hosts.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Re: AAM Administrators

The main purpose of AAM is to ask and answer questions in a helpful and civilized atmosphere which is achieved 99% of the time as has been pointed out.

Discussion and opinion topics should also be conducted in a rational manner. I opposed the incinerator in the Poolbeg about 10 years ago without really thinking about it. A ClubMan-like friend of mine asked why? I explained. He asked why again. I explained again. In fact, there was absolutely no basis for my opposition. It was very irritating to be asked to back up my opinions with good reasons. But its actually a very helpful exercize. It leads to good results.

LeMurz makes a statement:

Having been a member and contibutor to AAM for many years I find the site in recent months has gone very right wing, with administrators censoring good debate.

He makes absolutely no attempt to back it up. He makes no attempt to define what he means by "right wing". This is a stark example of what occasionally happens on Askaboutmoney. This one is unusual in that most people seem to disagree with the assertion and recognize that there is little evidence on the site of any of the moderators´ leanings.

I dont like being labelled "right-wing". I could be offended by it, but I am not because its so obviously stupid. What are the chances that Lemurz will apologize to the moderators? Remote, I think. But hopefully I will be proved wrong.

 

[stuart]

Re: AAM Administrators

In asking for clarification of whether your comments were facts or opinion, I was doing just that

I think this is a fair question to ask

But I do believe that some discussions lately has become too legalistic in their tone. I have nothing against having to support assertions with fact but it seems as posted earlier

"the bleeding obvious" is often challenged

I would not have a go at the mods about this (it is not their fault, irrespective of the title of the thread) but for me I have generally stopped contributing to any non-technical discussions

Having your post quoted and analysed line by line is a waste of time for me

stuart@buyingtolet.ie

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Re: AAM Moderators gone right wing

with administrators censoring good debate.

This accusation is made from time to time, and whenever ClubMan or anyone else asks for just one example, where an opinion was moderated for any reason other than the style of the posting, no example is provided.

I would suggest that, if anything, we operate in the other direction. When I see a posting which is not civilized or in compliance with the Posting Guidelines, I edit it or delete it. If its expressing an opinion which is contrary to mine, I have to ask myself if there is any risk that I am editing this because I disagree with the viewpoint. If there is any doubt, I tend to leave it.

But of course the problem is that when we leave something which is offensive, someone else responds negatively to the post and next thing we have World War III on our hands. This is very difficult to sort out without offending people and being accused of censorship.

But as I would point out to Lemurz, if we have become too right wing or heavy handed, there is no obligation on him to continue contributing to Askaboutmoney. He will be able to express himself much more freely on p45.net and boards.ie where, except on the Irish Skeptics Society board, he will be able to make all sorts of generalizations and accusations, without being asked to justify himself.

 

[ClubMan]

Re: AAM Administrators

I didn't get from your post that you were making that point. You just said you were surprised and "I could well imagine some people inferring from his views that he was at one or other end of the political spectrum or was some sort of contrarian."

My point was that I am not immune to this foible even if I generally endeavour to try and think independently and reach my own conclusions based on the evidence available to me.

I didn't realise you were pointing out a bit of unreasoned thought on your own part. The general thrust of your post seemed to be one of saying other people who toe the populist line on AAM do so out of some sort of unreasoned/emotional response.

Not just on AAM - I think that very many (not all) people who toe populist lines on matters do so without thinking too much about the underlying facts/evidence. I do so myself when supporting my football team every week but I try to make that the only time that I engage in the mob mentality even thought it's quite enjoyable to be swept along by raw emotion without thinking too much.

I don't have a problem with that either. I do have a problem when someone says something we all know to be true, but because it hurts our argument we suggest that it's only an opinion and could the person please find statistics to prove it.

But when are things obviously true? RoI is a blindingly obvious "reality" to many people even though when challenged they fail to come up with evidence or convincing arguments that this is the case. Prompting such an examination of the evidence through challenging peoples' arguments cannot be dismissed as mere semantics or nit-picking as sometimes happens. It is all part and parcel of the cut and thrust of discussion.

If you disagree with something then say it straight out and put the challenge up to the person to back it up and prove you wrong.

As RainyDay says sometimes it's not a case of agreeing or disagreeing but one of trying to tease out the matter through examination of the unerlying facts and evidence. I can't see how fact based discussion can be seen as a burden or an inconvenience by some people. Do they think that we'd be better off just all spouting the prejudices and assumptions that we each assume to be true without testing these against the facts?

There's a subtle difference between trying to clarify the facts and trying to diffuse the effectiveness of another person's argument by quibbling about things you know to be true. It's the difference between polite discussion and a court of law.

I don't think that things have gotten out of hand and become impolite too much over the years on AAM.

I suspect the origins of this thread might be from seeing some so called Right of Center Opinions on specific topics. I don't think that's a valid thing to do because you may be seeing the only topic or one of very few on which that person's views would be considered Right of center.

The problem is that we're all still trying to second guess Lemurz's (and others'?) opinions on this and reasons for objecting to some of the moderation on the board and, as Brendan has pointed out, no evidence has been presented to support these agruments so far. For example I genuinely have absolutely no idea what recent comments by me or others anybody could reasonably term "right wing" so if somebody (preferable Lemurz) can enlighten me then I'd be very interested. Of course somebody may now accuse me of trying to deflect the discussion by actually asking for facts/evidence but there you go...

 

[daltonr]

Hi RD - We're not all out to get you, all of the time. In asking for clarification of whether your comments were facts or opinion, I was doing just that. I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. I was simply exploring the issue. I happen to believe that it's important to distinguish between the two. As I think you well know, when I want to disagree with you, I've no qualms about doing so directly.

I'm sorry Rainyday, I don't buy it. I agree noone is out to get me. But on that other thread you are still quibbling about the bleeding obvious. I don't buy the "Exploring the topic" line. I can understand you wanting to explore Ronan's statistics, I'm interested in that too as I've mentioned, but why exactly do you want to explore whether or not driver behaviour causes accidents? What does it add to the discussion to continue quibbling about the bleeding obvious?

Even when I wasted my time quoting you figures you characterised a conclusion I drew as quesswork. Again bleeding obvious stuff, but I had to yet again go and get you further statistics. All to show that innapropriate driving in bad conditions causes some deaths.

Personally when someone makes a statement that I know to be exagerated or false I just call them on it. When you made comments about kids getting shot in US schools, I didn't waste all our time asking you to get statistics to back it up. I corrected your error. Thread moved on.

If you think that all you are doing is exploring issues then I suggest you have a good long think about whether your style of exploring does more harm than good. Apart from yourself and Clubman and to a lesser extend Brendan, there's very little support for that style.

There is also a double standard at play here.
The following from Clubman:

I didn't realise that by expressing an preference I would be the subject of a scientific vivisection style laboratory study. I must bear that in mind next time I express an opinion in one of these threads.

Why would Clubman have been surprised to have his OPINION queried????
If you read the thread I wasn't even challenging the validity of the opinion, I was curious about the source of it. I accepted that it was a perfectly valid opinion about something that was obviously subjective.
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=104707&postcount=40


This issue is a relatively new phenomenon, it is far more prevelent now than it was 2 to 3 years ago. In fact I can pretty much pinpoint the time when it changed from being an occasional and usually well targeted trait of Clubman's to being an overused annoyance for everyone. It was around the time of Clubman's return after his brief time away. I'm not trying to personalise this or blame anyone, I'm just trying to give a timeline that we can all relate to.

I don't think that things have gotten out of hand and become impolite too much over the years on AAM.

Actually I think the subtle prodding described above done, on a consistent basis, particularly in situation where it is clearly unnecessary IS IMPOLITE and has a far more damaging effect than an occasional heated discussion.

But that's just an OPINION. Whether or not It's right can only be determined by finding out what AAM posters think. Hopefully this thread miht give us an answer.

-Rd