I think boards.ie, needs an union.

mysterious

Let's dicuss. It seems that the "helpdesk" role is to "champion" the mods "all the time"

I thought a lovely feedback thread for all the people who contribute to boards should have their freedom of speech, "elaborated"

I can't even post on helpdesk, where a 6 month ban was given to me.

I know mods hate the idea of a union. But we need balance, incase some of you mods have never heard of that word. I thought I would like to point that out.

An organisation to deal with unfairness and issues on a balanced medium. It does seem that alot of mods seem to want to only champion others mods inappropriate behaviour, while obsessisively point out the victims actions more often than not.

Oh and please dont even think about moving this to helpdesk. I'm asking the planet this, as in everyone.;);):)


All the best
Mysterious.

It's going to be an interesting thread.

Rb

Do you really want to dicuss?

Gordon

You aren't banned from Helpdesk. Also, DeV has been thinking about a specific change that actually includes something that I think is very similar to what you are talking about, believe it or not.

Kinetic^

There is a union. It's called the union of mods and admins. We represent the views of all the users out there who do not want to read spam, trollish gibberish or typed diarrhoea.

Mahatma coat

Its a fair point tho, Posters are not allowed to give support on Helpdesk threads, so from the outside it does seem like a Mod Circlejerk.

I find the inconsistencies in the Bannings a bit rich tho in the CT Forum.

some posters get a 6 month ban for takin the bait in a heated debate, other posters just roll in make sarcastic insults and personal attacks and get Infracted and asked please dont do it again, even tho we all know they will.

I suppose it depends on which side you are percieved to be on, one rule for the CT'ers and one far more lenient rule for the sceptics. thats just how it apears to mer at the moment anyway.

orestes

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure how it could be implemented. Who would choose the "representatives" of the boards users? The mods/smods/admins couldn't as we would be seen to have a biased approach.

Could the users be relied on to nominate suitable candidates? Given how big this site is now, and how many communities there are that have little or no interaction with each other (poker is one of the largest and busiest forums on here, but I would imagine there are literally hundreds of users in tere who never use any other part of this site. Their nominations would be for representatives who they feel would best suit their interests, but would those same people represent the best interests of the users of AH, BGRH, comics, fishing, computers, command and conquer, etc.? (I just picked poker as an example btw)

There are thousands of regular users on this site, people who log in and use it every day. For those figures there are a miniscule amount of complaints with how the site is run or giving out about mods, and it tends to be the same people giving out over and over. If a user keeps on getting banned/infracted/warned by mods, maybe the problem is with them, not the modding?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I find the inconsistencies in the Bannings a bit rich tho in the CT Forum.

Yeah, there was for a while alright, but they solved that problem recently with a change-over in the mods there

Nevyn

There is no freedom of speach this is a private website, you have only what freedoms the owners give to you.

Help desk access is for the person starting the thread, the mod they are complainng about
and the smods who are entrusted by the owners of the site to up hold the rules.

If you think that mods are not rules against and do not make mistakes then you either have not been around here long enough or not paying notice.

Nevyn

Mahatma coat did you contact the cmod about it and the smods?

Jonathan

Thaedydal wrote: »

Mahatma coat did you contact the cmod about it and the smods?

CT is a hosted forum.

Mahatma coat

I'm makin an observation in a Feedback thread, nothin more at this point, I just stated my view on the situation mainly to show that Mysterious is not alone in his thoughts.

but I think this highlights why I wouldnt be arsed reporting anything

Orestes wrote:

Yeah, there was for a while alright, but they solved that problem recently with a change-over in the mods there

anything I say wll just be viewed by the Mods as sour grapes etc... and result in more of the above from 'hilarious' posters, so why would I bother

orestes

Jonathan wrote: »

CT is a hosted forum.

No it's not, it's in the rec category

Mahatma coat

No its in SOC.

Jonathan

orestes wrote: »

No it's not, it's in the rec category

Oh. My bad.
Was it not hosted at one stage?

orestes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

No its in SOC.

So it is, my mistake

Jonathan wrote: »

Oh. My bad.
Was it not hosted at one stage?

It was until recently, a few changes were made with the aim of improving the forum a while ago

mysterious

Gordon wrote: »

You aren't banned from Helpdesk. Also, DeV has been thinking about a specific change that actually includes something that I think is very similar to what you are talking about, believe it or not.

I'm delighted sincerely. I think it's something that should be looked at. if anything it will actually do good to the website as a whole.

I'm only concerned that there is a lack of balance on this website towards bullying and mods throwing their wands about, its getting wreckless imo. It seems that members are lower in ranks in every right in the above sense towards the people. You all have to remember, without the people.

Mods and all the super mods, would be nothing. Lets just remember that people.

I'm not here to name names, or pick at anyone or sing songs who is good vs the evil. i'm so sick of that poo. It has gone way beyond my reality in thinking and it's not worth it.

When a situation arises, where some member feels mistreated.
He/she should have a balanced team, of members, longtime users/short times users, mods, Smods, Cmods, Lmods, WMods. You catch my draught on the current topic.

I don't want one colour judging my skin. I want all colours judging the actual situation at hand. This allows greater perceptual and balanced views in order to deal with conflicts. not mod vs peasant.

It's called proper unity, dicernment and order of judgment. It seems that mods like to gang up on a user with their opinions, leaving the user ganged up on. I'm not at all impressed with this behaviour at all. It quite inappropriate in my view. It is not balanced and it's obviously making alot of people unhappy, that including myself.

mysterious

Thaedydal wrote: »

There is no freedom of speach this is a private website, you have only what freedoms the owners give to you.

Help desk access is for the person starting the thread, the mod they are complainng about
and the smods who are entrusted by the owners of the site to up hold the rules.

If you think that mods are not rules against and do not make mistakes then you either have not been around here long enough or not paying notice.

its a private site for the public, without the respect of both sides, there would be nothing.

mysterious

orestes wrote: »

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure how it could be implemented. Who would choose the "representatives" of the boards users? The mods/smods/admins couldn't as we would be seen to have a biased approach.

Could the users be relied on to nominate suitable candidates? Given how big this site is now, and how many communities there are that have little or no interaction with each other (poker is one of the largest and busiest forums on here, but I would imagine there are literally hundreds of users in tere who never use any other part of this site. Their nominations would be for representatives who they feel would best suit their interests, but would those same people represent the best interests of the users of AH, BGRH, comics, fishing, computers, command and conquer, etc.? (I just picked poker as an example btw)

There are thousands of regular users on this site, people who log in and use it every day. For those figures there are a miniscule amount of complaints with how the site is run or giving out about mods, and it tends to be the same people giving out over and over. If a user keeps on getting banned/infracted/warned by mods, maybe the problem is with them, not the modding?



Yeah, there was for a while alright, but they solved that problem recently with a change-over in the mods there

I think the format of bowing to the messiahs of all messiahs over us silly mindless people that we seem to be should be scrapped.

For example,in my last feedback thread on an issue, that was pretty pretty public, was moved to helpdesk. So the mods could gang up on me, and me slipping around my bath.

Not good at all, not good at all.

Its shocking really.
I think its fair to say and make the point.

Of having,
Members, mods, Smods and all the team of boards.ie contributing to the helpdesk forum. I would suggest have a nomination for this union. Having a vote of how many people would volunteer in putting their names forward for the unions

Then we the public decide out of a list of 100members towards the union. The number would depend on the numbers of complaints, this info I would not know. But the approach is more coherent and universal in the approach of dealing with conflict. This helpdesk idea is absurd, the even wording of it makes my blood boil, cus its the exact opposite of what it's meant to be.

But this Mod ganging up on the victim in every case on that forum, is just nuts, a three letter word and thats is that. No other way to describe it.

The current "lets bully the user" cough help desk system in place means, that the user cannot defend his place. Literally I find this astonishing, since we are now in 2009. like.

orestes

mysterious wrote: »

I think the format of bowing to the messiahs of all messiahs over us silly mindless people that we seem to be should be scrapped.

For example,in my last feedback thread on an issue, that was pretty pretty public, was moved to helpdesk. So the mods could gang up on me, and me slipping around my bath.

Not good at all, not good at all.

Its shocking really.
I think its fair to say and make the point.

Of having,
Members, mods, Smods and all the team of boards.ie contributing to the helpdesk forum. I would suggest have a nomination for this union. Having a vote of how many people would volunteer in putting their names forward for the unions

Then we the public decide out of a list of 100members towards the union. The number would depend on the numbers of complaints, this info I would not know.

But this Mod ganging up on the victim, is just nuts, a three letter word and thats is that.

The current "lets bully the user" cough help desk system in place means, that the user cannot defend his place. Literally I find this astonishing, since we are now in 2009. like.

So, you had an interaction with some mods, started a feedback thread, which was moved to Help Desk (the correct procedure for instances such as those), lost your case, and are calling the system into question? Maybe you were just wrong?

Of course, I do realise that this will fall upon deaf ears, because I am a mod, and therefore will defend my co-mods (despite having been banned several times while I have been a mod, including an smod banning me from a forum I was moderator of the time for stepping out of line).

It's not a matter of mods/smods/admins ganging up on users in Help Desk, some peoples appeals just do not hold weight. 100 people arguing from an invalid standpoint are just as invalid as 1 person arguing from an invalid standpoint.

Shiminay

There is no "ganging up" on Helpdesk - it would be incorrect for the masses to be able to post in there in relation to issues a person is having. The moderators or the forum involved (and *ONLY* those mods) are allowed to post on an issue relating to their forum - if a forum has 5 mods, they may all post, if it only has 1 then you'll only have 1 person posting etc. The SMods *are* this council you're proposing.

If you have an issue, you are free to ask the Admins to allow someone who is directly involved with the issue to join in - it's not that it's an unreasonable system, it's that people refuse to show it respect and/or take 5 minutes to learn how it works (hence the moving of things like ban questions to Helpdesk which is moderated in a different way).

Your idea is not without merit though, but the vast bulk of problems people seem to have on boards would disappear if they simply learned what processes are in place and used them correctly. It shows level headedness and maturity and speaks volumes of the character of the person with an issue. 9 times out of 10 people don't do this and usually end up being overly emotive and denying themselves any possible route of appeal as they break more rules in making their request for a review of something.

We (mods/smods/admins) should not have to take abuse from anyone and simply will not respond to such poor behaviour in any way other than negatively.

I'm not here to shoot your idea down btw - as Gordon said, there's been talk about this sort of thing in the upper echelons. I'm merely adding my €0.02...

mysterious

orestes wrote: »

So, you had an interaction with some mods, started a feedback thread, which was moved to Help Desk (the correct procedure for instances such as those), lost your case, and are calling the system into question? Maybe you were just wrong?

Of course, I do realise that this will fall upon deaf ears, because I am a mod, and therefore will defend my co-mods (despite having been banned several times while I have been a mod, including an smod banning me from a forum I was moderator of the time for stepping out of line).

It's not a matter of mods/smods/admins ganging up on users in Help Desk, some peoples appeals just do not hold weight. 100 people arguing from an invalid standpoint are just as invalid as 1 person arguing from an invalid standpoint.

You've made the point yourself.... you vs me, can we get off it. member vs mods. all mods vs the member. This is not balance, and in your case holds the same water.

I'm saying a help desk should be a union, where it represents a balanced view, the mods can still defend their case, and the victim can defend his her place. but having a overall opinion from all around the table or helpdesk. Not one group defending each vs one person. this is absaloutely ludricous.

Let a body be in the middle, so we can come to dicernment,

Not nelly noo, vs pelly boo. It really it old school.
BTW, you can say and purposely believe I was wrong in my personal case, but I dare you read my emails. There is alot of people out there already asking for this idealogy of a union community to represent the balance on boards. Not just we bow to the mods and always bow even when right.

I think there should be balance, if I can stress this word anymore.
Many people are not seeing it, since every issue is now moved to heldesk, and other adults and witnesses cannot share their views. It seems that the mods defend the other mods, and the victims slipps around the bath. Not balance. sing and dance about it, but it will not change the facts.

Neither will it change the morality of the point. It is not acceptable in handling conflicts. Why do you think companies have unions?

mysterious

Kharn wrote: »

There is no "ganging up" on Helpdesk - it would be incorrect for the masses to be able to post in there in relation to issues a person is having.

But in a court systems they have witnesses, in helpdesk its seems its like zues defending the ruling clan.

The moderators or the forum involved (and *ONLY* those mods) are allowed to post on an issue relating to their forum - if a forum has 5 mods, they may all post, if it only has 1 then you'll only have 1 person posting etc.

But thats the problem, at any given conflict, it seems that all the mods on that forum stick together to defend each other against the one person. I've had a bagillion emails saying my treatment was harsh and uncalled for, but I cant do nothing about it, the witnesses cant do nothing about it, the masses cant do nothing about it, the people cant give their views.

But aka mod aka mod pushing people in the bath. This is the pattern that is just not acceptable.

If you have an issue, you are free to ask the Admins to allow someone who is directly involved with the issue to join in - it's not that it's an unreasonable system, it's that people refuse to show it respect and/or take 5 minutes to learn how it works (hence the moving of things like ban questions to Helpdesk which is moderated in a different way).

I did, I got let the existing mods deal with it, i also got my feedback thread moved to helpdesk so witnesses and people on C.T forum couldnt contribute.

Gee what a surprise.

So its' modville vs me. Not appropriate in judgment, dicernment and balance. This is not how you deal with conflict. This is not a parent child system. This a union of adults.

Your idea is not without merit though, but the vast bulk of problems people seem to have on boards would disappear if they simply learned what processes are in place and used them correctly.

Of course, and that includes mods, but its seems there is still this iffy unbalance your quite not grasping yet, but I will leave it to you to figure it out, but of course an union would do just that.

It shows level headedness and maturity and speaks volumes of the character of the person with an issue. 9 times out of 10 people don't do this and usually end up being overly emotive and denying themselves any possible route of appeal as they break more rules in making their request for a review of something.

Yes and there is selective busniess here too. Shall we go into this, cus I can go into great detail.

We (mods/smods/admins) should not have to take abuse from anyone and simply will not respond to such poor behaviour in any way other than negatively.

Of course, all I asked was a union. Not a gladiator stlye arena lets get the mods. You should know this is not what I'm asking for.

I'm not here to shoot your idea down btw - as Gordon said, there's been talk about this sort of thing in the upper echelons. I'm merely adding my €0.02...

Thanks.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Posters are not allowed to give support on Helpdesk threads, so from the outside it does seem like a Mod Circlejerk.

The only people allowed to "give support" on Helpdesk threads are those in charge of Helpdesk.

If someone makes a complaint about me - as a mod - I would be given explicit access to that one thread to offer input. If it was another mod of the same forum as me, I could request access, but there is no onus on anyone to give it to me.

The purpose of the forum is to allow transparency for the handling of complaints, whilst at the same time avoiding it being the "court of public opinion (with lolcatz)" that Feedback was previously.

some posters get a 6 month ban for takin the bait in a heated debate,

I realise that this reply is more suited to helpdesk, but I'd just like to clarify why you're wrong.

One poster got warned, then a one week ban, then warned, then a two week ban, then warned, then a one month ban, then warned, then a six month ban....because they consistently showed no intention of listening to the warnings they received, and almost-as-consistently felt the need to argue against the moderation in-thread (which is itself against the charter).

Other posters have been warned, and a few of those have gotten to the one-week ban. Some may even have gotten to the two-week ban stage. Those posters, however, generally seem to show a willingness to listen to the warnings and take them on board...even if its just temporarily. They also do not show a proclivity to argue the moderation in-thread.

As I've said in the forum, if you or anyone else has a problem with how the mods made our decision in that - or in any other - case, then you should take that to Helpdesk, which is the appropriate channel.

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

all mods vs the member. This is not balance,

Helpdesk isn't all mods vs. the member.

There are the panel of "judges" who run Helpdesk, the person making the complaint, and the person or people complained about.

The notion of "witnesses" generally doesn't come into it. The actions are what are being adjudicated. Whether or not someone else thinks you were hard done by doesn't change the actions in question. It is not a "court of public opinion", nor, in my opinion, should it be.

I can think of some cases where an issue may involve more than one user, and all involved members would like to be able to put their case, and I would imagine that in such a case, the Helpdesk admins would allow those users their say.

seamus

mysterious, your entire argument is flawed because you seem to be under the impression that boards is "ruled" by some form of hierarchy. That's an understandable conclusion to come to, but it's wrong.

As has been said, we are looking at reforming the whole process of complaints. Though Helpdesk generally works very well and as Kharn says, most of the time it's simple a misunderstanding (or a refusal to understand) which has resulted in the ban/infraction/warning being applied.

I did, I got let the existing mods deal with it, i also got my feedback thread moved to helpdesk so witnesses and people on C.T forum couldnt contribute.

Your thread got moved to feedback because it wasn't feedback. The "masses" on whom you so depend would probably have annihilated you and drowned out any possible chance you had to make a reasonable appeal. This is the primary reason why e don't allow appeals in feedback - because the people who aren't involed,t he "witnesses", tend to just create a whole pile of noise and make the whole thing unmanageable and the appealant doesn't get a fair crack of the whip.

Helpdesk is effectively a 3-party system - you, the mod and an impartial judge. As opposed to you, 35 mods and 50 people running up, throwing a kick in and running away.

The Recliner

I can never understand why people don't get Helpdesk

If you present your case in a calm and rational manner and don't start abusing or arguing with people then in a lot of cases bans are lessened or overturned (people seem to focus on the cases that are upheld and ignore the number of cases where both sides walk out happy)

Hell people get released from Prison for taking the time to realise that the site is not out to get them that if they show a bit of respect to other poster that they will get along just fine

The current Helpdesk system works, the current Feedback system works (I do really really miss the old Feedback though, every now and again I think it would be no harm to let Boards loose in a Fight Da Powah thread)

That is not to say that they could be improved and become more balanced but that will happen in time, processes will be refined, tweaked etc

Sparks

I'd love to see how you'd organise a meeting for this union, how you'd do voting, and so forth (you could do the meetings and voting online I suppose, I hear they've a lot of e-voting machines going cheap at the moment...)

hullaballoo

OP:

Courts system: rules, evidence and judiciary.

Boards.ie: rules, evidence and judiciary. And we're more open about it.

meditraitor

mysterious wrote: »

Let's dicuss. It seems that the "helpdesk" role is to "champion" the mods "all the time"

I thought a lovely feedback thread for all the people who contribute to boards should have their freedom of speech, "elaborated"

I can't even post on helpdesk, where a 6 month ban was given to me.

I know mods hate the idea of a union. But we need balance, incase some of you mods have never heard of that word. I thought I would like to point that out.

An organisation to deal with unfairness and issues on a balanced medium. It does seem that alot of mods seem to want to only champion others mods inappropriate behaviour, while obsessisively point out the victims actions more often than not.

Oh and please dont even think about moving this to helpdesk. I'm asking the planet this, as in everyone.;);):)


All the best
Mysterious.

It's going to be an interesting thread.

Feedback serves this function.

Even though I used to really enjoy the whole mod ganging up on unfortunate user situation it is obvious to anyone who lurks that this has changed and no longer is the case.

PS i f ing hate unions

Doctor DooM

mysterious wrote: »

e.

I know mods hate the idea of a union.

As a small aside, I must have missed when you pmed every single mod and asked them how they'd feel about some form of union for users because I know you don't have a clue how I'd feel about it.

Assumption makes an ass and all that.

It's happy medium tbh. When these threads used to go to feedback so everyone could pile in it was waaay worse than helpdesk was. A happy medium somehow perhaps.

6th

mysterious wrote: »

the mods can still defend their case, and the victim can defend his her place.

See there is the problem there, you see anyone who isnt a mod as a victim.

Forgetting anyone else on the forum in question, have you broken the rules of the forum on more than one occassion?

faceman

A union? The last time I checked, boards.ie was a (really good) website?

If you have an issue with a post you report it or notify a mod.
If you have an issue with what a mod does you PM him/her.
If you still arent happy you can contact an S-Mod or start a helpdesk thread.
If an admin needs to make a decision, an admin will.

At what point does the union come in?? What happens if the union arent happy, does the posting community go on strike? given that mods are posters too, do mods go on strike?

What if people arent happy with the union?