I miss the old Feedback.

Boston

Who on earth could dubes be referring to? Sounds like's she's a bit bitter over all the stick she got due to her disastrous modding of after hours. I'm not surprised a mod of her ilk would want to lock down dissenting opinions seen as shes been on the receiving end of so many.

John Mason

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah, despite the indignant objections to accusations of "mod conspiracy" (there isn't one - really there isn't) the jeering and ganging up that occurred in old Feedback didn't exactly help dispel the notion - but to be fair, it wasn't only mods who were guilty of it.

lol at the "no mod conspiracy" statement

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

seriously do mod's actually think that normal users are complete idiots ??

anyway that is completely off point. i liked the old feedback as "normal user" got a chance to back each other up when clearly mods just back each other up and get to treat the rest of us like the irritation that we apparently are to the smooth running of the site.

feedback, i think should have polls and the whole community gets to vote as to whether the OP is correct or not a decision gets made on the basis of the poll results.

now, mod's feel free to rip my post apart and probably ban me or whatever.

dr.bollocko

irishbird wrote: »

lol at the "no mod conspiracy" statement

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

seriously do mod's actually think that normal users are complete idiots ??

anyway that is completely off point. i liked the old feedback as "normal user" got a chance to back each other up when clearly mods just back each other up and get to treat the rest of us like the irritation that we apparently are to the smooth running of the site.

feedback, i think should have polls and the whole community gets to vote as to whether the OP is correct or not a decision gets made on the basis of the poll results.

now, mod's feel free to rip my post apart and probably ban me or whatever.

Heh. Nice. You're actually asking for a mod to come in and rip apart your bile. So OK. I'll bite.
Most good mods have the posters opinions at heart and their own community in mind rather than covering their asses.
No amount of your cranky LOL LOL LOL mods are mean crap is going to change that.
A poll is a completely arbitrary and abusable system. A smart troll will re-reg to change the stats. Or PM likeminded souls with a grudge against a mod to change the figures. Maybe posters who think a mod is right won't see or vote in a poll. It's a nonsense.
I've seen mods ripped apart on feedback in the "old" days. Sometimes completely unfairly. Sometimes the posting community was in the right. The current system needs change but asking a bunch of users to vote on a decision is possibly the worst idea for a change in feedback I have ever heard. Ever.

Wibbs

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Heh. Nice. You're actually asking for a mod to come in and rip apart your bile. So OK. I'll bite.
Most good mods have the posters opinions at heart and their own community in mind rather than covering their asses.
No amount of your cranky LOL LOL LOL mods are mean crap is going to change that.

+1000 and if Irishbird thinks there's a mod conspiracy she needs to get out more or install the tinfoil hat, because I can categorically guarantee there isn't one. There are some mods I disagree with quite strongly and they disagree with me. Same goes for some users and indeed some admins and long may it continue so long as civility is maintained. I don't care whether I or anyone else is believed on this point or not TBH, but that's been my experience of this site, as a user and a mod.

Talk of mod conspiracy is about as welcome as a boil on jockeys bum and as about as useful to any debate on feedback.

Dudess

I see the getting personal has been resorted to, ironically...

Boston wrote: »

Who on earth could dudess be referring to?

Oh not just you Boston, all the others who liked to gang up too.

Sounds like's she's a bit bitter over all the stick she got due to her disastrous modding of after hours.

Strange that. I remember getting quite a bit of positive feedback when I stopped moderating After Hours (of my own accord) - "fair" and "even-handed" seemed to be the most regularly used words... And that was my intention from day one.
Sure I had my detractors - as have most mods of high-traffic fora.

I'm not surprised a mod of her ilk would want to lock down dissenting opinions seen as shes been on the receiving end of so many.

Ganging up on people who want to make a point reasonably is the exact opposite of dissenting...

irishbird wrote: »

lol at the "no mod conspiracy" statement

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

seriously do mod's actually think that normal users are complete idiots ??

Do you honestly think there is a deliberate strategy among mods to conspire against non mods? If at times it appears mods are singing off the same hymn-sheet, it's because they know where each other is coming from - doesn't mean they like each other.

i liked the old feedback as "normal user" got a chance to back each other up when clearly mods just back each other up and get to treat the rest of us like the irritation that we apparently are to the smooth running of the site.

Plenty of non mods backed up mods also, irishbird. You're tarring all mods with the same brush, and making it look as if non mods weren't at all complicit when things got ugly around here.

My name is URL

Boston wrote: »

Who on earth could dubes be referring to? Sounds like's she's a bit bitter over all the stick she got due to her disastrous modding of after hours. I'm not surprised a mod of her ilk would want to lock down dissenting opinions seen as shes been on the receiving end of so many.

Maybe the new Feedback system is better after all. If your post is anything to go by the old one would have sucked bigtime

You can always try to be civil, even if you are demeaning somebodies ability

Boston

Dudess wrote: »

Strange that. I remember getting quite a bit of positive feedback when I stopped moderating After Hours

I remember being quiet pleased by that as well.

sceptre

Boston wrote: »

Who on earth could dubes be referring to? Sounds like's she's a bit bitter over all the stick she got due to her disastrous modding of after hours. I'm not surprised a mod of her ilk would want to lock down dissenting opinions seen as shes been on the receiving end of so many.

That's not particularly fair or conducive to a reasoned discussion. Knock it off.

Kinetic^

irishbird wrote: »

lol at the "no mod conspiracy" statement

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

seriously do mod's actually think that normal users are complete idiots ??

anyway that is completely off point. i liked the old feedback as "normal user" got a chance to back each other up when clearly mods just back each other up and get to treat the rest of us like the irritation that we apparently are to the smooth running of the site.

feedback, i think should have polls and the whole community gets to vote as to whether the OP is correct or not a decision gets made on the basis of the poll results.

now, mod's feel free to rip my post apart and probably ban me or whatever.

LOL ol OLo Lol oL Ol OLO L OL OLolOLOoOLOOL OLLOL OLO LOL :rolleyes:

There is not a moderator conspiracy. Just like regular users not all moderators see eye to eye on a lot of things. The one thing that they have in common is that they moderate so a lot of mods can empathise with other mods when they come across difficult users or "complete idiots" as you put it.

Boston

I'm sorry sceptre, I should of course have used vague innuendo.

I didn't like the way some mentally unhinged female moderators used their gender to garner support from the sex starved fan boys on this forum in the past and I'm glad its no longer an option.

I think the assertion by certain admins that the new feedback format was brought in protect the end user is laughable, in truth it was brought in as a result of the fall out when a bunch of card playing moderators got their panties in a bunch, quit and where told off for it by users whom they felt shouldn't have an input. Net result, no feedback is welcome on topics A to F. There is no debate, conversation or discussion here. Unnamed administrator listens but feels no need to act.

Lets examine this "To protect the end user" argument. In the past the end user had a choice, they didn't have to go to feedback they could go to helpdesk. Every single person who started a thread here chose to do so in full knowledge that they had the help desk route open to them. Where are all the users saying "Jee guys, thanks for protecting me from my own stupidity, these new restrictions are great". No where, because they don't exist.

The same people who where previously ripped to pieces are over on helpdesk demaoning the fact that's its just them against the administrators. How can a user get a fair deal when they can't garner support? Sounds familiar no?

Lets examine this "It made it impossible to give real feedback". Wow, the user complainst where blocking out the actually feedback threads. Perhaps you should split it up the forum? Nah, we can only aford to create 20 new forums this month. Seriously, wtf.

Be honest, at some point unamed administrator decided that perhaps it wasn't a great idea to let users like myself have an input when the **** hit the fan. That we weren't conducsive to clam resonlution of problems. Thats the actual reason why if you have a problem with something it has to go in helpdesk.

Not that it would matter anyway, any serious discussion of boards policy would more then likely be simply deleted.

hullaballoo

Boston wrote: »

Lets examine this "To protect the end user" argument. In the past the end user had a choice, they didn't have to go to feedback they could go to helpdesk. Every single person who started a thread here chose to do so in full knowledge that they had the help desk route open to them. Where are all the users saying "Jee guys, thanks for protecting me from my own stupidity, these new restrictions are great". No where, because they don't exist.

None of the admins has said in this thread that the reason for restricting the use of Feedback has anything to do with protecting the end user, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

The changes to feedback have simply been a reversion to the original purpose for the forum. Equally, help desk has reverted to its original purpose. That's because those forums worked best when those purposes were maintained.

Any explanation that goes beyond that is sheer speculation and is unnecessary.

sceptre

Boston wrote: »

I'm sorry sceptre, I should of course have used vague innuendo.

I didn't like the way some mentally unhinged female moderators used their gender to garner support from the sex starved fan boys on this forum in the past and I'm glad its no longer an option.

I could put this in an utterly diplomatic way but that's what I already did so: what a load of cock.

I value opinions from people as they're put and I don't care about their personal vendettas which you appear to have. Maybe dou do, maybe you don't, but any opinion put after a personal attack is coloured by that attack and becomes worth less as a result of that personal attack. And you've taken some personal attacks here, some in a pretty vicious way so put frankly, you should know better, a lot better.

Vague innuendo isn't worth a hill of beans to me. Personal attacks, especially after the fact, add nothing to the universe and are worth less.

Now, you look back on my 15,000 posts (any of you) and you're not likely to see a single instance of me using a line like "what a load of cock" to anyone. That's how much a personal attack is worth to me, precisely nothing. We don't all have to be nicey nicey to each other, that's not the way the universe works unfortunately. but launching an attack on a boards member merely for having an opinion and making it in a personal way? That's part of the reason that feedback didn't work in its previous incarnation. Not all but a factor. Not a factor in changing it but a darned good example of how it sometimes didn't work well. It isn't the Thunderdome. Just because someone else is incapable of being nice to you doesn't give you or anyone else the right to bite someone else on the nose. Walking into a room and opening with "erm, you're an arse, now I want to talk about the policy of how and why we do things" isn't the sort of opener where anyone will bother listening. Now, after labouring it, can anyone claim not to understand that?

Now can we get on with the actual discussion without the sniping?

edit, addendum: I always said when I was modding the Ireland Offline forum as a community forum many moons ago that everyone brought something to the table. Some contributions were worth more and some less but everything constructive was worth something. It's an ethos I still follow. That's why I have no sympathy for personal attacks and rate the contributions based on their constructive nature rather than rating them on the shoe colour of the contributor. Questions are good, answers are better but personal attacks? No thanks, the universe is better off without them. Make a personal attack and I may not even read what comes after in the rest of the post.

Boston

hullaballoo wrote: »

None of the admins has said in this thread that the reason for restricting the use of Feedback has anything to do with protecting the end user, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

Repeated references to old feedback being bad because it allow for single users to be ganged up on or attacked

Devore wrote:

I'm sorry if Feedback isnt as "amusing" for you guys, its not meant to be. Its not and never was meant to be a place where the lions and the christians fought. It should be somewhere people can come and drop a suggestion/feedback/comment without being jumped on and that wasnt it.

hullaballoo wrote: »

The changes to feedback have simply been a reversion to the original purpose for the forum. Equally, help desk has reverted to its original purpose. That's because those forums worked best when those purposes were maintained.

Any explanation that goes beyond that is sheer speculation and is unnecessary.

I think that's a stretch. Especially when you take into account that both forums have fundamentally changed from what was originally intended.

sceptre wrote: »

I could put this in an utterly diplomatic way but that's what I already did so: what a load of cock.

I value opinions from people as they're put and I don't care about their personal vendettas which you appear to have. Maybe dou do, maybe you don't, but any opinion put after a personal attack is coloured by that attack and becomes worth less as a result of that personal attack. And you've taken some personal attacks here, some in a pretty vicious way so put frankly, you should know better, a lot better.

I don't like sniping. If you have a point it should be made directly. Dubes knows better then to try that.

sceptre wrote: »

Now can we get on with the actual discussion without the sniping?

I want to have an open discussion about why to my count a half dozen senior moderators have quit in the last few weeks and the boards policies which lead to it. Can I have that discussion? No is the answer. And it isn't to protect users nor is it because it wouldn't be feedback.

Dudess

Boston wrote: »

I don't like sniping.

Yet you've resorted to it here - on three separate posts.

If you have a point it should be made directly. Dudess knows better then to try that.

Boston, that comment which you feel was a dig at you specifically was not. It was directed at all of those who singled out reasonable Feedback thread-starters. Sure, you tended to be the main ringleader, but you weren't alone by a long shot.

Boston

I resent the implication that I was the ring leader in any bullying of users. I've never tempered my posts in accordance with what is popular.

Lafortezza

Boston wrote: »

I think the assertion by certain admins that the new feedback format was brought in protect the end user is laughable, in truth it was brought in as a result of the fall out when a bunch of card playing moderators got their panties in a bunch, quit and where told off for it by users whom they felt shouldn't have an input.

The poker forum drama probably did result in the changing of Feedback, probably because the discussion got very heated over who was at fault, who was wrong etc etc.

But the angry free-for-all probably did help find a solution, abuse and shouting aside. So for all the criticism the poker mods got at that time, I thought the feedback threads about the issues were a good thing.

Maybe the problem with Helpdesk is that nobody but the admins and the mods in question can give opinions about an particular issue. If you feel you have been aggrieved in whatever way, it's nice to have support from your community of posters from the forums you frequent, instead of just the scary admins.

Boston

Venting is helpful. The airing of grievances and blood letting is important.

LuckyLloyd

Boston wrote: »

I think the assertion by certain admins that the new feedback format was brought in protect the end user is laughable, in truth it was brought in as a result of the fall out when a bunch of card playing moderators got their panties in a bunch, quit and where told off for it by users whom they felt shouldn't have an input. Net result, no feedback is welcome on topics A to F. There is no debate, conversation or discussion here. Unnamed administrator listens but feels no need to act.

The nature of feedback had already been changed before that incident.

Boston

It was moving that way certainly, but things took on a quicker pace.

AckwelFoley

..a small word on the mod conspiracy thing...

Mods are users, ive "known" many of the moderators here before they were made moderators and i personally dont see any change in their behaviour, atleast toward my good self. Im not too bothered by what ever other politics thats involved.. its the internet... but what i do know is that mods get banned from forums too and repremanded for being an ass hat now and again, however it is rare enough due to the face that most moderators acheive their position due to their understanding of the rules and the etiquette of the various foura on top of the other qualities required for the specific area they are involved

5starpool

Boston wrote: »

It was moving that way certainly, but things took on a quicker pace.

You must be happy knowing that you helped speed it up then. Well done.

Ste05

tallaght01 wrote: »

It wasn't really the community, though. It was about 30 regulars who would respond. To the vast majority of boards users, I would imagine, it was just a few punters getting their jollies by slagging off kids.

+1

This really was the main problem with the old Feedback IMO. As has been said above, it had a Thunderdome type environment. That really is not how any forum or community should deal with Feedback, beit a small specialised site, a huge site or even a Ltd company. IMO it's a very good development for boards.ie. The forum is growing up and maturing if people want a site where you can go mental on a newbie or whatever then there are plenty of sites out there. IMO all those "free for alls" did, was create (and concrete existing) divides within the overall site, it wasn't helpful or conducive to community development.

Boston wrote: »

Venting is helpful. The airing of grievances and blood letting is important.

The airing of grievances is absolutely necessary, not so much venting, it might be helpful for individuals who have no other release, but doing so publicly, IMO, is not helpful to the overall resolution of a genuine grievances.

If it's not a genuine grievance or is plainly stupid/ niave then those people are either (a) new to forums or (b) trolls. If (a), they should be told so in a respectful manner and not made a spectacle of, and if (b) not be fed. Therefore the "blood letting" is 100% never a positive thing IMO. If people want to see "Blood letting" Thunderdome is there for them.

Blowfish

Boston wrote: »

I want to have an open discussion about why to my count a half dozen senior moderators have quit in the last few weeks and the boards policies which lead to it. Can I have that discussion? No is the answer. And it isn't to protect users nor is it because it wouldn't be feedback.

In fairness, you'd need to direct that question towards the half dozen themselves. I don't think the other mods/admins could (or should) speak on their behalf.

Rb

orestes wrote: »

The end of old feedback was the end of boards, in so many ways.

I agree, which I'm sure comes as no surprise.

It's also sad that Tom/DeVore is putting on this show of "everythings ok!" in terms of the state of the community.

Boston

5starpool wrote: »

You must be happy knowing that you helped speed it up then. Well done.

I try.

Btw, I still watch the poker forum.

Blowfish wrote: »

In fairness, you'd need to direct that question towards the half dozen themselves. I don't think the other mods/admins could (or should) speak on their behalf.

Its a policy disagreement. Theres certainly merit in a discussion.

bitter lemon

Blowfish wrote: »

In fairness, you'd need to direct that question towards the half dozen themselves. I don't think the other mods/admins could (or should) speak on their behalf.

There were a number of posts asking the admins. Watty was censored.

Enough accounts wasted on this.

Admins have DELETE. Why have they deleted various points? Did they not fit the big picture?

Long live Hagar.

xxx

I have the google cache btw

Ste05

Boston wrote: »

Btw, I still watch the poker forum.

Cool, are you becoming interested in the game or just finding the general Poker community isn't as bad as you first thought??

5starpool

Boston wrote: »

I try.

Btw, I still watch the poker forum.

You still "watch" it? lol.

I'm sure the good citizens of Gotham City are sleeping easier in their beds knowing that.

Boston

Ste05 wrote: »

Cool, are you becoming interested in the game or just finding the general Poker community isn't as bad as you first thought??

Never had a problem with the community. They where very helpful when BNC threatened to knife me. I'm not interesting in rehashing the issues.

5starpool wrote: »

You still "watch" it? lol.

I'm sure the good citizens of Gotham City are sleeping easier in their beds knowing that.

lol. Just saying.

Boston

bitter lemon wrote: »

My other posts on that matter were deleted

You realise I'm the one reporting you? I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that we're on the same side, but you're incorrect.

Steve

bitter lemon wrote: »

They were to.

Night all.

Bye..

orestes

Boston wrote: »

I want to have an open discussion about why to my count a half dozen senior moderators have quit in the last few weeks and the boards policies which lead to it. Can I have that discussion? No is the answer. And it isn't to protect users nor is it because it wouldn't be feedback.

There's no such thing as a senior mod, all mods are the same: mods in their own forums, users everywhere else. Mods stand down all the time for a variety of reasons so it's kinda hard to have a general discussion about why several have stood down, they all have their own reasons I'd imagine

LuckyLloyd

Boston wrote: »

Btw, I still watch the poker forum.

Boston

orestes wrote: »

There's no such thing as a senior mod, all mods are the same: mods in their own forums, users everywhere else. Mods stand down all the time for a variety of reasons so it's kinda hard to have a general discussion about why several have stood down, they all have their own reasons I'd imagine

0_o. Ok, sure. nothing to see here, move along.

Boston

The poker mods are bullying me, LuckyLloyd is their ring leader. I demand someone protect me from an argument I clearly started.

Attica

Steve

Boston wrote: »

The poker mods are bullying me, LuckyLloyd is their ring leader. I demand someone protect me from an argument I clearly started.

Attica

If you've something to say then be a man and say it... where do you think trolling is going to get you besides annoying an admin into locking this?

If you truly believe the community deserves a voice then stop acting the maggot and let their opinion be heard.

If not then kindly refrain from posting and let the grown-ups discuss things.

Boston

The grown ups who are posting pictures and calling me batman?

Maybe I'm part of the conspiracy to derail the thread thus proving the corrupt nature of the system.

Anyway, oh sage "voice of the community" I've had my say and have little more to add until someone is kinda enough to challenge a point or two.

The Recliner

Boston wrote: »

The poker mods are bullying me, LuckyLloyd is their ring leader. I demand someone protect me from an argument I clearly started.

Attica

I thought you liked Old School Feedback

Surely that is the type of thing you want and expect

Boston

Actually I seriously doubt there was any concerted effort by the poker moderators to gang up and bully me. The idea that LuckyLloyd is the ringleader of a group who are consciously conspiring to have a go is ridicules beyond belief. That I would want or need an admin is protect me from this gentle ribbing is equally ridiculous and that you, for even a second, could believe that was the case only highlights how protectionist boards.ie has become.

Sometimes a sarcastic put down places things in just the right context. I personally find it preferable to a lengthy piece of pros.

The Recliner

Boston wrote: »

That I would want or need an admin is protect me from this gentle ribbing is equally ridiculous and that you, for even a second, could believe that was the case only highlights how protectionist boards.ie has become.

I didn't for one second think you were serious so you can store that protectionist remark up for some other time where you might get the chance to wheel it out again

Mr. Presentable

Feedback is fine as it is. The old "Classic" feedback was ruined by immature lolcat posting and the like. Just because someone has a misjudged grievance should not permit mockery. A mature response is more likely in the current system, and this is a huge improvement.

tbh

feedback used to be fun, I guess, but there was always a cadre of posters - mods and non-mods, who couldn't keep on the right side of the invisible line. So what you got was bullsh1t and bullying, and normal grievances drowned out in a sea of lolcats. The people who could respect the ethos of feedback were punished for the actions of the people who couldn't. And to be fair, boards is a better, if slightly more sterile place for it. imo.

I guess it's ironic that people are always calling for less moderation, and yet the two unmoderated forums, feedback and the thunderdome, have been watered down, by request, so much that they are miles removed from their original intended function.

Boston

As usual Tbh hits the point home. It probably is better then it was but it is more sterile, the feedback system has floated from one extreme to the other. From a real hands off "this is the one place where everyone gets a say" to a system were by threads are now locked as a matter of course. Surely there's room for some compromise?

Piste

irishbird wrote: »

anyway that is completely off point. i liked the old feedback as "normal user" got a chance to back each other up when clearly mods just back each other up and get to treat the rest of us like the irritation that we apparently are to the smooth running of the site.

I totally agree with having Feedback as user-led, but have to tell you you're cmpletely wrong if you think mods back each other up all the time. Funnily enough, the only time you'll see a unanimous mod consensus is when we all agree that we never agree. The reason mods are so keen to point out that we don't spend our time giving each other metaphorical reach arounds is because on the mod forum there are always disagreements between mods. So please get the idea that mods ALWAYS agree with each otherjust because they're mods, out of your head.

Back to the point of having feedback as user-led, Boston hit the nail on the head when he said the best thing about old feedback was that users got to decide whether mod decisions or larger boards issues and policies were right or wrong. This is terrily important if we want to keep boards user-led. At the moment if a user has a problem with moderation they'll post a thread which will usually be answered by an admin and locked as the admin feels they have adequately answered the query/sorted the issue. Often the user then feels hard done by as they weren't given a proper chance to fight their corner. I much prefered the old system whereby users would debate whether the OP was in the wrong or not, sort of a "trial by your peers" type situation instead of one person making a snap decision.

I also think users need to get over this "us and them" mentality they have. Mods don't suddenly become dicks just because they're mods. If I posted a complaint about being treated unfairly in a forum I'd be as frustrated as any other user if my complaint was brushed aside without giving me time to fight my corner, however satisfactory the admin thinks they have dealt with the problem.


TLDR: There is no mod conspiracy. Feedback should be user-led instead of decisions being taken by an admin or admin team.

Dudess

Boston wrote: »

From a real hands off "this is the one place where everyone gets a say" to a system were by threads are now locked as a matter of course. Surely there's room for some compromise?

That's exactly what I said in my first point here - I just don't know whether it's workable though.

Jazzy

its all about control

Dav

Boston has been banned from Feedback for a month for his abuse of Dudess and for trolling.

Sherifu

That's unfortunate.

Jazzy

i think you have just proved his point

orestes

Jazzy wrote: »

i think you have just proved his point

Not really. I agree with Boston and his general thoughts about feedback that he has put forth in this thread but personally abusing someone and taking cheap snipes at their modding is completely uncalled for. Using him being banned for that to try to claim he is being silenced on feedback is completely manipulating the facts to try and make them fit a pre-concieved agenda imo.