Part of the reason for that is that many of the active UK APUG members splintered off and formed FADU which had quite an effect on the volume of posts from the UK. I know the reasons why they did this and it's not really pertinent to this forum and the issues discussed in this thread, and if they'd asked Sean he'd have been able to accomadate their requirements.Originally Posted by EOTS
Ian
Yes, facts are very useful in discussions. Making changes because there is a "perceived bias" does not make much sense to me. In my experience "perceived bias" is mostly in the eye of the person who sees it, not in reality. I certainly have not seen any bias on this forum, either directed toward regions or in terms of politics. But not to confuse issues, I highly value the international component of this forum and would welcome good moderators from other parts of the world.
But above all else, keep the stinking political discussions off the forum.
Sandy
For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
[url]https://groups.io/g/carbon
That's all I'm really saying. If we looked at the overall membership, then the fact that all the Moderators are in the US and many on the West Coast then that is a bias however one looks at it. Others read the words biased and percieved bias quite differently rather than a broader diversity and a better representation of the membership in the Moderator team if it included non US members.
Ian
Ian,
I'm very happy with this forum as it is. The UKLF forum is dead! Very few posts and it really should be named "The Ebony Appreciation Society". If you don't own one (no need to use it, just shoot yer gob off about it) they try to make you feel inferior. Half of the UK members seem to spend most of their lives in France for reasons better known to themselves and this strange practise is also a something to brag about. So if you spend a lot of time in France and have an Ebony for decoration you're the ideal UK forum member. Oh, I forgot your UK base (if you bother with one) needs to be north of Stoke on Trent.
Sal, you're not a UK resident so what the heck has a specifically named UK forum got to do with you anyway???
Pete.
I applied to join the UK Large Format Photography over 6 months ago, never had a reply or my membership verified despite several emails to the mods asking what was happening.
Not too disappointed as I like this forum.
Ed,
You need to claim ownership of an Ebony and preferably apply from a French E-Mail address.
Pete.
IanGReally? Have you even looked? What a fantasy. Me and Ralph are in New Mexico (the Southwest), Rick is in Virginia (East Coast), Ken is in Massachusetts (East Coast), The owner who does almost no moderation is on the West Coast, Tom is in Minneapolis (Midwest) and Neil-I don't actually know because it is not actually important to us. He might be in Madagascar.the fact that all the Moderators are in the US and many [moderators] on the West Coast then that is a bias however one looks at it.
And would you please explain what bias has been exhibited towards.........what non-US members? European Cameras? European Film? What? Please give real examples you are talking about when it comes to actual moderation activity. "Broader representation? What the heck are you talking about?
It is truly amazing to me what the moderators get blamed for here. Not getting enough info about Europe or Asia? Make some posts!
What do you think concretely, exactly, would change if there were some non-US moderators.
We have had to ban US members probably 100 to 1 against non-US members. Should we restrict bans to numbers representative with the membership from various parts of the world?
You have been very vague about what difference this would actually make.
The only compelling point you have made is about time difference and thereby having 24 hour moderation.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
(Note: Kirk started typing his short message while I was typing my long one. We are needing the same information to proceed, but I'm taking the far more pedantic approach just to make sure nobody will think my becoming a moderator will save them from my excessive wordiness. I have my image to uphold, after all. Choose which post to respond to, heh.)
Bias does not follow--this is a logical gap you are trying to fill on the basis of assertion only. Sorry, but that isn't good enough. That said, I'm unwilling to refute the value of your perception by making my own assertion, at least not without giving it some fair thought. But the burden of demonstration is on you to reveal what you are perceiving, not on us to prove it does not exist. One can't prove a negative. So, let's think about it, but without depending on assertions alone.
One would hope that the principles of this forum, as embodied in the guidelines, are not nationalistic in scope, other than being English-centered which is unavoidable.
Thus, if the moderators are staying true to those principles, there should be no bias. Again, specific examples would help us understand what you are perceiving. Any moderator added to the pool of moderators would be selected in part because of their demonstrated compatibility with those principles. Beyond that, I don't think anybody is concerned where they come from. But if there is a bias, and your desire is to overcome that bias, then you would want somebody specifically incompatible with those principles, as demonstrated by the current mods. Assuming the mods would agree (which is not a given at all), following that advice would require more clear articulation on your part in order to proceed usefully. Otherwise, we might implement your recommendation (a non-U.S. mod) without addressing your concerns (by choosing a non-U.S. mode that is just like the U.S. mods).
Having a moderator in a distant timezone seems useful, but I doubt that is really what you are driving at.
The notion of for-sale posts identifying point of shipping for the item being sold, and the location at which payment is made, seems reasonable to me and we are discussing it. But that was Sal's idea, and I doubt that is what you are talking about.
It is (obviously) true that most of the political discussions are driven by North American members, and thus center on North American controversies. Remember that moderators have only two tools in performing normal actions: They can delete posts, and they can ban users who persist in flouting the rules. Moderators have no control over what is encouraged, except by posting the same sort of encouragement anyone can post, and with the same authority.
Given that the toolbox for moderators is limited, there are therefore two possible errors when making moderation decisions: That posts get deleted and users banned when they should not, posts do not get deleted or users banned when they should. A North American bias might be that political posts from outside North America are not deleted and users not moderated appropriately. But the opposite error is less likely, that non-North Americans have more of an interest in the posts that ARE deleted than North Americans have. All political discussion is prohibited. This is not the place for non-North Americans to find out about North American politics--that is easy to do elsewhere. So, that leaves the only likely error that some non-North American political posts slip by because we North American moderators don't recognize them for what they are. Thinking back, some of those who have been banned for persistently flouting the no-politics rule (or who have left because they could not tolerate the moderation) have not been North Americans, probably in reasonable proportion to the presence of non-North Americans on the site, so I'm not sure this error has much data to support it.
I suspect that the perception of most decisions about moderation have more to do with the political point of view of the perceiver, rather than by where they come from. But given that American politics is not exactly broadly representative of participants from elsewhere, there may be a greater percentage of them whose ox they think has been gored by moderator actions. But, really, the objective of moderation is not to take action on the basis of point of view--political discussion from all points of view is prohibited. As moderators, we strive to transcend our personal points of view.
I can name a couple of examples of the types of subjects that run into this problem. One is gun control, very much in the North American news these days. Most non-North Americans live where gun control exists at a much higher level than in the U.S., and so people from those places might not understand or be sensitive to why the issue is so contentious here. Another is health care, where most non-North Americans don't understand the issue as North Americans might, and again don't recognize the contentiousness of the issue. Thus, they may think that moderator actions are too strong because that contentiousness is not visible to them. I would argue that perhaps those actions aren't strong enough in that case. (My use of these two examples is not a reason to discuss them. Bringing up examples and trying to re-litigate them is not the same thing.)
There is a lot to think about here, but as the moderators debate it, it would help if we could really understand what is driving this perception. If no further clarity is articulated, then I'm not sure what action we could take that would not be riskier than leaving it alone. Mutatis mutandis.
Rick "not willing to change the formula on the basis of broad assertions of perception" Denney
Thank you Rick. Well stated as opposed to my impatient rant. That is why you were such a great candidate for a moderator.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Yes, but I have in other threads alluded to other peoples perceptions of bias based comments in their post. And then you muddle regional bias with bias in terms of thought, (possibly politics), & actions on the forum.
You ask why should we have International non US moderators as well - it'll attract more International members.
There's a very partisan attitude in your replys Kirk. Why are you so against having non US Moderators. RDenney's post misses the point as I'm not talking about bias in the terms he thinks, sorry Rick because I did state clearly I'm talking about regional bias not the bias of individual moderators thoughts.
Is it important, some of us outside the US think so but we'd expect high quality moderators who'd bring their own views to the way the forum's run.
Ity's easy for those in the US to be complacent and you areI am suggesting expanding the moderation maybe by one or two. Maybe some people would like to make suggestions of possible new non US Moderators by PM to Kirk, Ken & Rick.
Ian
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks