I miss the old Feedback.

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