Future of boards.ie debate stuff..

Earthhorse

To be honest with you, more administrators is about the last thing this site needs.

In fact, a few user representatives who are neither mods nor admins would be a nice antidote to the ones we currently have.

Wibbs

Earthhorse wrote: »

To be honest with you, more administrators is about the last thing this site needs.

In fact, a few user representatives who are neither mods nor admins would be a nice antidote to the ones we currently have.

I agree.

dr.bollocko

Earthhorse wrote: »

To be honest with you, more administrators is about the last thing this site needs.

In fact, a few user representatives who are neither mods nor admins would be a nice antidote to the ones we currently have.

Bring back thanks in feedback! That is an excellent idea.

WindSock

Good suggestion. I went to thanks it but couldn't.

dr.bollocko

Boston wrote: »

I've long thought that there should be someone outside of the administrator structure who can post on helpdesk in support of complaints as a user representative. Someone knowledgeable enough to say "actually that ban is harsh, here's examples a -g where said mod acted different. I mean we have commercial representative and political representative, why no user representative.

This has been something concerning me of late also. The need to have an input from a non invested 3rd party. The current helpdesk system is far from perfect but the lads have said it's a bit of a compromise and things are going to change with it. There needs to be a middle ground between old feedback where mods got hounded and new helpdesk which can be an unfriendly place to air a gripe or issue with a ban.
That said I fail to see why you seem to delight in taking pot-shots at others on here. It weakens your arguments. People don't remember your salient points because you parenthesise them with dickish personal statements rather a lot. People tend to note that more than whatever point you're originally trying to make.

Rev. BlueJeans

In fairness to DeV, he has raised the (very constructive IMO) idea of "user representatives" before.

As usual, there's an agenda behind some of the sh1te slinging here, which is a shame, 'cos there's some good ideas coming out of the gunsmoke.

Boston

I don't think I was taking a pot shot at the community managers, and I apologise if my post came across that way. I just don't like the concept of "Managing a community" it has far to many parallels with manipulating a community. The announcements forum is a particular bone of contention with we as you can quiet clearly see all those that support what ever is being announced via the thanks system but you cannot see detractors. I was assured that all feedback on that forum would be made public as soon as the issues where fully digested, however months on and this had proven not to be the case. This tends to make me not trust them as much as I would if there was full transparency, but that isn't have a pot shot.

I can tell you now that the changes they planned to introduce to the feedback system were to;

A) Move Helpdesk to a "Talk to" forum like kompletts. This changes you from a user to a customer and frankly I think its a terrible idea designed to marginalise people with who challenge things. Just feeding them into a big machine.

Remove a users ability to lobby on Feedback. Feedback would become helpdesk in that users could no longer seek general support for anything. While the technical details of how this is to be implemented are still being debated one could imagine a system whereby Earthhorse putting forwards the "User rep idea" would have to start a thread outlining the idea and no one bar administrator would be allowed post in that thread.

I find it interesting that you interpreted the comments by administrators that the current system was imperfect to mean that they were going to increase user freedoms, when the trend over the past few years has been to systematically decrease user freedoms. Currently I'm doing a case study into a moderator, compiling a list of bans, infractions, and passes as they relate to the users being punished. Then examining the trends in this moderators actions to demonstrate the presence of absence of bias. At this point of time this is no medium I could use to convey the results of my little case study. Many users would be affected so helpdesk with its restrictions on posting won't work while feedback is off limits to moderator criticism, valid or otherwise.

As all this related to this thread, I think the correct choice in administrator could stop the rot and provide a "moral compass". There is a serious move on this site towards removing or nullifying anyone who thinking is slightly on the fringes of what what the average accepts. And I'm not talking about me. It's hard to find anyone whose genuinely passionate about boards anymore, anyone who I passionately agree or disagree with. Everything is kinda conventional and characterless. Thats why I suggested people like tallaght01 as an administrator even though he'd ban me in a heart beat, its because he has his strong beliefs and has never shied away from expressing them. I'd rather see people I disagree with run this site, then the meandering lethargic sheep I've seen fill the moderator ranks over the years.

dr.bollocko

Boston wrote: »

I don't think I was taking a pot shot at the community managers, and I apologise if my post came across that way. I just don't like the concept of "Managing a community" it has far to many parallels with manipulating a community.

But you also said:

Being an administrator means you can affect serious change on this site.

Now swap out administrator for community manager and affect serious change for manipulation and you have essentially the same point.

I can tell you now that the changes they planned to introduce to the feedback system were to;

A) Move Helpdesk to a "Talk to" forum like kompletts. This changes you from a user to a customer and frankly I think its a terrible idea designed to marginalise people with who challenge things. Just feeding them into a big machine.

Remove a users ability to lobby on Feedback. Feedback would become helpdesk in that users could no longer seek general support for anything. While the technical details of how this is to be implemented are still being debated one could imagine a system whereby Earthhorse putting forwards the "User rep idea" would have to start a thread outlining the idea and no one bar administrator would be allowed post in that thread.

I never heard mention of B. But I think A is similar to what we have now but at least there is a public face there to represent boards. I guess it could be a one stop shop for technical queries. Doesn't solve the problem of user issues with mods or bans or where the site is going as a whole but that's not a problem to be solved too easily either.

I find it interesting that you interpreted the comments by administrators that the current system was imperfect to mean that they were going to increase user freedoms, when the trend over the past few years has been to systematically decrease user freedoms.

I think that you view the move towards helpdesk as a silencing of user freedom. IE on a specific challenge to a specific mod decision not every poster can throw in their 2c. Straight feedback has its benefits and you can learn quickly from it. However a hardcore of posters were using feedback to air a greivance they had with a particular mod at every opportunity. That's still happening in feedback now. That kind of poster or else a big gang up thread helps nobody and just leaves a mod, a volunteer poster after all, to be fed to the lions. It wasn't always what was happening but it happened a lot. Too much. I think it sat unconfortably with many people. HD as it is now doesn't really lend itself the air of fariness as it would have if a poster was able to back up the original posters arguments. That's my take on it. I don't know what the admin take is on it tbh but I'm not really worried that they're just going to silence everything down for the sake of sanitizing boards.

Currently I'm doing a case study into a moderator, compiling a list of bans, infractions, and passes as they relate to the users being punished. Then examining the trends in this moderators actions to demonstrate the presence of absence of bias. At this point of time this is no medium I could use to convey the results of my little case study. Many users would be affected so helpdesk with its restrictions on posting won't work while feedback is off limits to moderator criticism, valid or otherwise.

It strikes me that you're attempting to apply a metric to a person's interaction with an organic community. I don't think fairness comes about from looking at what you did the last time and simply repeating that either. Posters and mods POV's change regularly. The style which they use to post or mod also changes. If you take even one specific example of a specific post that one mod took action on one forum well you'd get many other mods who would have done things very differently. Hell on a different day maybe mod one would have done things differently. If mods were held to a standard or series of metrics to evaluate their modding why in the hell would they bother? After all its not a paying job we have here.

As all this related to this thread, I think the correct choice in administrator could stop the rot and provide a "moral compass". There is a serious move on this site towards removing or nullifying anyone who thinking is slightly on the fringes of what what the average accepts. And I'm not talking about me. It's hard to find anyone whose genuinely passionate about boards anymore, anyone who I passionately agree or disagree with. Everything is kinda conventional and characterless. Thats why I suggested people like tallaght01 as an administrator even though he'd ban me in a heart beat, its because he has his strong beliefs and has never shied away from expressing them. I'd rather see people I disagree with run this site, then the meandering lethargic sheep I've seen fill the moderator ranks over the years.

The way I view it now is that boards is ever changing and some of that will affect how posters feel about it. Look at the number of people who have left us of late, as they have done in the past. I think what we have now are a load of individual discussion communities under the one boards banner. So I know for a fact many people feel passionately about boards as a whole. Others feel passionately about the poker forum or AH or whatever other community that exists within but don't move and post about further than that. Passion for an entire community to my mind is not something that you really need to have to be a good moderator on a single given forum. Passion for the forum is important. And I don't think that there has been a movement towards appointing sheep as mods either. We're here to do what we do for whatever places we mod. I don't think you can take a bunch of individual issues you have with moderators and try and make that into a systematic sanitization of the system. It just doesn't scan. At least not to my mind.

Time Magazine

Boston wrote: »

Edit, there's a world of difference between Dr Bollocko's saying my statements are dickish, and what you said. Hence me objecting to your comment and not his.

I agree there is a world of difference. He made a personal judgment about your posts; I interpreted your posts. I quasi-quoted you, if you will.

I did not call you a dickhead. I said it seems to me that the primary point of your Boards-posts (and by that I mean posts about the running/moderation of boards.ie, as distinct from your posts on boards.ie) is provide a persona of being a dickhead that you don't have in real life. You're not the same person as you are on boards.ie as you are in real life. Just as the boards.ie poster Time Magazine is different to "real life me", Boston is a character. An online persona. There are things you say on this website that you would not say in real life, imho. You say things that could be deemed offensive not because you want to insult people -- I don't for a second think you actually intend to really upset people -- but you say these things as character-development of Boston. Boston is amusing to you. That's fine. But as far as I can see, you're trying to make Boston into a dickhead with these borderline comments and wink-and-nudge remarks. And you do that to amuse yourself. And, as I said, that's fine. I'm pretty sure Pighead doesn't talk in the third-person in real life: he makes his character into a subject of comedic ridicule. (That's not to say that I think Pighead is funny (though I do) -- it's just saying he's trying to create a funny character.) I'm far more laid-back in real life: Time Magazine is a pretty boring economist (which is not to say that I'm boring in real life). These are not insults, they're descriptions of what the posters are trying to achieve themselves. Similarly when I say I think you're trying to create a persona for Boston as a dickhead, it's not actually personally abusing you.

Boston

Ah yes but a community manager is a member of staff, a paid employee and as such ultimately an extension of the god head. They don't come up with policy, they don't argue against the god head. They're the trigger men.

The problem with helpdesk being a talk to forum is that 1) it further restricts the scope of helpdesk and 2) It increases the commercialisation of the end user experience.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I think that you view the move towards helpdesk as a silencing of user freedom. IE on a specific challenge to a specific mod decision not every poster can throw in their 2c. Straight feedback has its benefits and you can learn quickly from it. However a hardcore of posters were using feedback to air a greivance they had with a particular mod at every opportunity. That's still happening in feedback now. That kind of poster or else a big gang up thread helps nobody and just leaves a mod, a volunteer poster after all, to be fed to the lions. It wasn't always what was happening but it happened a lot. Too much. I think it sat unconfortably with many people. HD as it is now doesn't really lend itself the air of fariness as it would have if a poster was able to back up the original posters arguments. That's my take on it. I don't know what the admin take is on it tbh but I'm not really worried that they're just going to silence everything down for the sake of sanitizing boards.

Take this thread. I highlighted a post by a moderator which contained personal abuse, highlighted the hypocrisy of allowing such abuse and invited the administrators to split the thread off into a new helpdesk one. The insult was deleted, as was mine calling on administrators for action. Now maybe the moderator will be reprimanded (I doubt it) maybe he won't but whatever happens it will happen behind closed doors to maintain the good image of the collective moderators. What relevance does this have to your point you maybe asking? It was never the users having a go at moderators unfairly which was the problem as these people were quickly put it their place, rather it was all the times a fair accusation was levelled. It was the Helix incident, it was the Poker forum incident, it was the Pighead incident. These were the problem threads as they demonstrated problems in the system publically and generated real debate with merit. The only time I've seen a major change in the forum is when someone has pushed the boundaries of what the powers that be feel comfortable being discussed.

A few months back in response to points raised by myself and others the administrators eased up on locking threads and closing down discussion on this forum with the inevitable influx of cat pictures and general muppetry. The idea was to then point to this and say "See, you need us to control debate, otherwise the muppets take over". They don't care about what excuse is used to control debate, once it's controlled. I refuse to believe that the only way forward are these two extremes, a free for all or rigid protectionism.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

It strikes me that you're attempting to apply a metric to a person's interaction with an organic community. I don't think fairness comes about from looking at what you did the last time and simply repeating that either. Posters and mods POV's change regularly. The style which they use to post or mod also changes. If you take even one specific example of a specific post that one mod took action on one forum well you'd get many other mods who would have done things very differently. Hell on a different day maybe mod one would have done things differently. If mods were held to a standard or series of metrics to evaluate their modding why in the hell would they bother? After all its not a paying job we have here.

Two points:

1. Wouldn't it be great to have this debate though? X mods hands out 2 day infractions and 45% less likely to ban a moderator for personal abuse, Y moderator is 75% more likely to infract a female poster, Z moderator is 90% more likely to ban someone they previously infracted. This discussion would is not allowed on boards.ie LTD. That has nothing to do about protecting users and everything about image. Thats one of the problems with this site becoming a business.
2. Moderators should be and are held to a standard. It has to be flexible, but its there. Spectre, for example, holds himself to a high standard as do the users I recommended to be administrator. If I was a moderator tomorrow I'd personally feel that my diskish comments wheren't appropriate regardless of the forum I posted on. There is a standard, its like porn, undefined but you know it when you see it.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

The way I view it now is that boards is ever changing and some of that will affect how posters feel about it. Look at the number of people who have left us of late, as they have done in the past. I think what we have now are a load of individual discussion communities under the one boards banner. So I know for a fact many people feel passionately about boards as a whole. Others feel passionately about the poker forum or AH or whatever other community that exists within but don't move and post about further than that. Passion for an entire community to my mind is not something that you really need to have to be a good moderator on a single given forum. Passion for the forum is important. And I don't think that there has been a movement towards appointing sheep as mods either. We're here to do what we do for whatever places we mod. I don't think you can take a bunch of individual issues you have with moderators and try and make that into a systematic sanitization of the system. It just doesn't scan. At least not to my mind.

1. I think there a lot of users passionate about their little section of boards and who feel their section is the site. Thats not the same as people being passionate about the site as a whole. The mentality that "my forum is all that matter" has become extremely pre-fluent. A few months ago I raised an issue about a management intervention on a particular forum. I was perfectly polite, there was no politicking and the response I got from the administrators was "Why do you care, you don't even use that forum". Being passionate about this place has become so rare among the jaded masses that when they see it they think "Christ, yer man is weird, we should get him banned".
2. I don't have a problem with any moderators (bar a recent misunderstanding with Silverfish). I have a problem with several users who happen to be moderators. Theres a world of difference. If you look at the moderators who are most vocal about me being a troll/a muppet / a whatever, they'll be moderators of forums I never post in. If you look at the moderators who are vocal about me not being a troll/a muppet a whatever, they'll be moderators of or contributors to forums I regularly use. To imply that my opinion about the moderator class on boards is as a result of infractions / bans, equally does not scan. I am severely disappointed with some of the decisions being made up on high in relation to the moderator class. Week by week I see moderators I respect leave to be replaced by absolute dross, guys who wouldn't have been allowed use this site two years ago. The really scary thing is that more and more I see the management say "His opinion counts because he's a mod".

So I say no. Select your admins from a better calibre of user. Select the Spectres, the oscarbravos, the Seamuss, the tallaght01s, the "tbh"s of boards and give moderators someone with class and decency to aspire towards, someone who doesn't need a standard or series of checks & balances because their own moral compass already surpasses any one we on boards.ie may need. Select the best of us.

Rev. BlueJeans

Excellent post Boston.

dr.bollocko

Boston wrote: »

Ah yes but a community manager is a member of staff, a paid employee and as such ultimately an extension of the god head. They don't come up with policy, they don't argue against the god head. They're the trigger men.

They don't really have a say in boards day to day community stuff as the admins do. Their remit is entirely separate. Most of your average posters wouldn't have a strong opinion on the community managers. They're trying to add revenue streams whilst not upsetting the poster experience which is a tough balance. It's also the best way boards can grow as a community.
Words like "trigger men" adds a sinister edge to your argument that doesn't really add up when you look at what they've done so far with the community.

The problem with helpdesk being a talk to forum is that 1) it further restricts the scope of helpdesk and 2) It increases the commercialisation of the end user experience.

Well you don't know how they are planning on implementing it as yet. I'm interested as to how it's going to go. I think with a lot of tweaking at the start and constructive poster input we could get something that's an improvement. If the people who care about boards post enough indicating what's right and wrong maybe the new system will work before the rules are set in stone as they are now with regards to the feedback / helpdesk system.

Take this thread. I highlighted a post by a moderator which contained personal abuse, highlighted the hypocrisy of allowing such abuse and invited the administrators to split the thread off into a new helpdesk one. The insult was deleted, as was mine calling on administrators for action. Now maybe the moderator will be reprimanded (I doubt it) maybe he won't but whatever happens it will happen behind closed doors to maintain the good image of the collective moderators. What relevance does this have to your point you maybe asking? It was never the users having a go at moderators unfairly which was the problem as these people were quickly put it their place, rather it was all the times a fair accusation was levelled. It was the Helix incident, it was the Poker forum incident, it was the Pighead incident. These were the problem threads as they demonstrated problems in the system publically and generated real debate with merit. The only time I've seen a major change in the forum is when someone has pushed the boundaries of what the powers that be feel comfortable being discussed.

Now we're looking at specifics from your perspective. Say each of those contentious threads we are well aware of. The whole reason they were contentious is because they operated in shades of grey. It wasn't automatically black or white what the best course of action was in any case. Regardless of whether it's a democracy or an autocracy people will have problems with the decisions made there.

A few months back in response to points raised by myself and others the administrators eased up on locking threads and closing down discussion on this forum with the inevitable influx of cat pictures and general muppetry. The idea was to then point to this and say "See, you need us to control debate, otherwise the muppets take over". They don't care about what excuse is used to control debate, once it's controlled. I refuse to believe that the only way forward are these two extremes, a free for all or rigid protectionism.

I don't read any sinister admin action into what happened there. There were a few too many threads locked. Somebody said so and there were less threads locked.
Now onto controlling debate. You're talking about admins that are moderators on a bulletin board site. Surely their function is controlling debate?

Two points:

1. Wouldn't it be great to have this debate though? X mods hands out 2 day infractions and 45% less likely to ban a moderator for personal abuse, Y moderator is 75% more likely to infract a female poster, Z moderator is 90% more likely to ban someone they previously infracted. This discussion would is not allowed on boards.ie LTD. That has nothing to do about protecting users and everything about image. Thats one of the problems with this site becoming a business.
   

I have to say I love boards stats. I like to see as much of it as I can. It is interesting to measure something on a scale that we can all relate to. However to do this as you are looking at is not possible. For example, say a moderator posts personal abuse. 4 mods ignore it. 1 mod infracts or bans. Did the 4 mods ignore it because he's a mod or because they didn't see it? Did they not act because they were replying to say, a spammer or a gimmick racist poster on a deleted / locked thread? Was it really personal abuse? How do you measure personal abuse? For example you said what I said wasn't personal abuse but what Time Magazine said was because of a semantic difference in how the posts were made. How do you measure on a scale what that semantic difference is and when it is right to act and when it is not? It's not actually that straight forward when you look at the reality of what you're suggesting.
Now take the example of measuring potential sexism. Take any forum on boards. It will not have a gender divide that even approaches 50/50. it would be pretty easy to take a particular mod for a particular forum for a particular month and indicate by cold hard figures that they are working with a gender bias. It's just too open to abuse and too simple to indicate a bias where there isn't one. Do the tLL mods ban more women than men? Probably. Does AH ban more men than women? Probably. Also it's not like there is an indication of gender coming from the poster. We don't have to tell anyone on here our gender and so often you are surprised to find x poster is male or female.
Now look at user history. You say measure if a mod is more likely to act on a poster with a history of problems with their forum. Surely that is just intuitive? Somebody has been banned in the past and returns unrepentant to do the same stuff. Surely the next ban should be longer? The PM should be more in depth stating what's wrong? If a poster is unrepentant in misbehaviour despite mod action they are not doing anything good for the community.

• Moderators should be and are held to a standard. It has to be flexible, but its there. Spectre, for example, holds himself to a high standard as do the users I recommended to be administrator. If I was a moderator tomorrow I'd personally feel that my diskish comments wheren't appropriate regardless of the forum I posted on. There is a standard, its like porn, undefined but you know it when you see it.

1. I think there a lot of users passionate about their little section of boards and who feel their section is the site. Thats not the same as people being passionate about the site as a whole. The mentality that "my forum is all that matter" has become extremely pre-fluent. A few months ago I raised an issue about a management intervention on a particular forum. I was perfectly polite, there was no politicking and the response I got from the administrators was "Why do you care, you don't even use that forum". Being passionate about this place has become so rare among the jaded masses that when they see it they think "Christ, yer man is weird, we should get him banned".
2. I don't have a problem with any moderators (bar a recent misunderstanding with Silverfish). I have a problem with several users who happen to be moderators. Theres a world of difference. If you look at the moderators who are most vocal about me being a troll/a muppet / a whatever, they'll be moderators of forums I never post in. If you look at the moderators who are vocal about me not being a troll/a muppet a whatever, they'll be moderators of or contributors to forums I regularly use. To imply that my opinion about the moderator class on boards is as a result of infractions / bans, equally does not scan. I am severely disappointed with some of the decisions being made up on high in relation to the moderator class. Week by week I see moderators I respect leave to be replaced by absolute dross, guys who wouldn't have been allowed use this site two years ago. The really scary thing is that more and more I see the management say "His opinion counts because he's a mod".

On point one you are looking at one specific incident. As the OP and not getting everything you wanted from the thread you will automatically have a sour taste left because of it. Perhaps if other eyes than yours look at the thread they will have a different perspective on it than you do. Was your opinion entirely dismissed because somebody said "what business is it of yours?" I haven't seen any examples of that. They might be there but I've never seen them.
On point two I have seen the admins admonish mods publically and indicate they have a problem with mod actions.
Right now we do not really have a system in place that really gets feedback that can indicate a bad mod to the cat mod or admins. But this is not any worse of a problem right now than it was 2 years ago. Your cold hard metrics won't work in the real world because you can't sit behind a mod to see exactly what it is he or she did. The old feedback system doesn't work because it's too open to personal opinion. IE if you dislike a mod that's banned you you'll automatically read one of their posts in a different tone than another mod. Also you can't see what a mod might be doing behind the scenes to keep a forum going. All you have is your experience of them which you can't measure or corral into a better argument. And even with the argument you can be damn sure loads of people will disagree and there is still no certainty in the matter.

So I say no. Select your admins from a better calibre of user. Select the Spectres, the oscarbravos, the Seamuss, the tallaght01s, the "tbh"s of boards and give moderators someone with class and decency to aspire towards, someone who doesn't need a standard or series of checks & balances because their own moral compass already surpasses any one we on boards.ie may need. Select the best of us.

But surely this is what has been happening? Surely the admins we have now are selected because they have that certain calibre? Like them or not they are all there because of what they have done in the past. In one way or another every admin has earned that position or they wouldn't be there. Now your perception of any admin or how you thought they handled a certain situation will colour your view of them. But you are not the average poster.
You are not the voice of the boards posters. You are but one voice amidst a spectrum of opinions about everything from which admin they perceive is the best to how they feel a particular situation was handled.

It's been about 2 years since I replied to somebody that used list tags.

Wibbs

Boston wrote: »

The only time I've see a major change in the forum is when someone has pushed the boundaries of what the powers that be feel comfortable being discussed.

I would tend to agree with you tbh. IMHO Boards has become more messy, not less messy in the last year and I really don't believe it's down to more traffic. In the drive for a better structure it's taken too much of the corporate vibe and it's become less efficient. Most corporations are actually quite inefficient. I do think many parts of the structure need to be looked at.

This is not against the commercialisation of the site either. I'm a capitalist in the sense that to make this place better it requires finance to do so. If the leccy bill doesn't get paid, no matter how many users are here, it's game over. I've no issue with that and I do think that this course can be charted between vested interests and genuine dialogue and actual communities. It just can't be done with old fashioned thinking. If this is the "new media" and not just hubristic vapourware then new ways of doing things will need to be addressed and invented.

Again IMHO one of the things that does irritate/concern me about this site is the over reverence towards modsand admins, the hierarchy and cliques, real and perceived. It's an oft heard complaint I've heard from lurkers of this site and a reason they don't nor would sign up(and a reason I suspect many post a few times and bugger off too). A case of too many chiefs not enough indians. These are not always fight the powah types either(as is too often the easy answer) and it's not a complaint against the moderation in general which from what I've seen is pretty consistent on a forum by forum basis. It can be improved of course, but amazing considering the breadth of communities here and the fact that people are invested enugh to do that for free. Basically the mod and admin fanboi schtick is getting to be old hat. Especially when you consider the number of them compared to the number of consistent regular posters who generate the vast majority of the site content,

Thinking back on my +1 with regard to user reps, Im re thinking that or at least it points out to me that that's another part of the problem right there. If this site requires user reps, it's failing. The mods of forums are failing and the admins are failing. I'm a user first and foremost. A member of whichever communities will have me. End of. I post far more as a (longwinded)user than I ever have as a mod in any of the places I happen to be a mod of. I'm a user that happens to have extra responsibilities to help the community I'm part of. End of. I'm not special, I'm not any better or worse than 90% of the people who make up the various communities. IMHO if any mod thinks they're more than that, then they need to get a life or get their head read. Ditto for admins. Users come first or should come first, regardless of the the "title" under their usernames. Ditto for the communities that those users are a part of. As a mod I and other mods should be the user reps. I'm a user that also has access to an extra voice for other users. Even simple stuff like people PMing me and other PI mods to delete posts and threads they made. Or if say the forum(s) were changed from on high in a way that impacted the community. Damn right, I and others will register our feelings about that and rightfully so.

Wouldn't it be great to have this debate though? X mods hands out 2 day infractions and 45% less likely to ban a moderator for personal abuse, Y moderator is 75% more likely to infract a female poster, Z moderator is 90% more likely to ban someone they previously infracted. This discussion would is not allowed on boards.ie LTD

I agree. Dunno how you would do that though TBH. The amount of helpdesk/feedback threads generated by a mod might be a start. If mods get a few reported posts that would concern me anyway if I was getting them(ditto with helpdesk threads). The problem is...well... arseholes. People who want to cause trouble and some forums simply have more than others. EG dr bollocko, tbh and tallaght01 etc, better mods than me have had more helpdesk threads than me(I think I've had one maybe two since the get go?). Same goes for bans. PI generates an helluva lot of infractions, bans etc than other forums. That's the prob right there. It would have to be on a case by case basis. That said if tomorrow I started getting HD/FB threads and reported posts from a cross section of other users I would step down.

As for the communities themselves? Feedback needs to be improved. It also needs to be modded. It's mostly as simple as that. I'd also suggest having it modded by more non admins too. Actually ditto for helpdesk. As this them and us BS goes both ways(Communities need to nurtured in other ways too. The dropping of the sitewide beers was a monumental fcuk up of a decision IMHO. The excuses of security and insurance simply don't cut it. They're excuses and very easily overcome excuses. Every niteclub in the land does it every saturday night. This community kicked off in both the e world and the real world, it needs to get back to that in every way. Without the communites growing there, it will barely grow here beyond a certain point).

TL;DR? Users first, regardless of title. If your hubris gets too much, then step down. Feedback needs to become actual feedback, with more user input in it's direction and modding. Ditto with helpdesk. More transparency from and for all users of the site. Mods and admins too.

I think there a lot of users passionate about their little section of boards and who feel their section is the site. Thats not the same as people being passionate about the site as a whole. The mentality that "my forum is all that matter" has become extremely pre-fluent.

I agree, but that's to be expected too I think. Different forums have different communities and needs and expectations. TBH is going to mod long term illness in a slightly different way to other forums he's involved in. Same basic idea with different variables. There are posts in tLL that I wouldn't even register that I would get twitchy about in PI. Plus if someone is deeply involved in the community then they're going to be passionate about it and thank god for that. In a way as this site grows the individuals forums will be all that matters for many. I think that may not be such an issue if the structure is built correctly.

Why do you care, you don't even use that forum". Being passionate about this place has become so rare among the jaded masses that when they see it they think "Christ, yer man is weird, we should get him banned".

I get that actually. I rarely went into the poker forum, but when that kicked off I did take sides as such, mostly cos I was interested in how lines were drawn when the chips were down(regardless of rights and wrongs). I was interested what passed for a site policy or structure or as it turned out a headless chicken policy. Very informative it was too. It told me at the time what might go down if other communities had an issue. People stepping down and how that's been received has also been informative too. actually what has surprised me on a personal level the most abot this place is how passionate I did become about it. If you had told me that 5 years ago I would have suggested you see a physic. I would have quite honestly thought places like this were a refuge for soically inept nerd types. Mostly from pure ignorance on my part of course.

My ramblin 20 cents anyway.

Wibbs

PS

If you look at the moderators who are most vocal about me being a , they'll be moderators of forums I never post in. If you look at the moderators who are vocal about me not being a troll/a muppet a whatever, they'll be moderators of or contributors to forums I regularly use.

Well I would be one who would be more vocal about calling you a troll/a muppet/a whatever(deleted as applicable, I prefer a whatever) and I do fit your description to a point. The only diff may be that I actually respect and like you as a poster in general. Have thanked and been impressed by many of your posts over the time I've been here.

OK in the interests of transparency, I'll set out my problem with you. It's mostly not actually a problem with you. That's the thing. Yes I do think you feel boards is changing in a way you don't like and cool. That debate is defo needed and I do agree with some of what you say. However I do feel you seek to specifically single out and name particular mods trying to rile them. To basically stir shíte tm in a somewhat bullying manner.

TBH other than reading and enjoying many of your posts, it wasn't until the poker stuff kicked off that I noted you beyond that. My objection at that time was the distinct impression(shared by others) that you were given a freer reign from certain quarters to take a potshot at the poker supporters and to act as their mouthpiece. That was my issue. As I say not with you as such. In the end I figured it was either somewhat true, or it was simply bad panicked modding from newbie admins charged with modding feedback at the time. Or a little from column a and a little from column b.

To add to the column a;

I can tell you now that the changes they planned to introduce to the feedback system were to;

In this example and others you have appeared to be too well informed of what is going on "behind closed doors". Both in the mod forum and even what admins are planning. That raised my hackles. Again if people "on high" agree with you they should have the spine to admit that, or if they're telling you about various goings on then they should have the spine admit that too. Better yet, step down as you're simply not trustworthy.

If however none of the above is true, then I would be left with the impression that you are stirring shíte based on you own clever guesswork. To what end I dunno. I would give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's because you do have a passion for this site, but I would respectfully suggest it might be better directed to a better end.

They're my reasons anyway.

Rev. BlueJeans

I think this is a very interesting discussion, I'd suggest that if topic integrity must be maintained (?) then these posts should be split into a new thread to allow this to continue.

Better stuff is coming to the fore now than we've seen in quite a while.

Boston

They are trigger men. They are there to get the community to swallow whatever il duce wants. I have looked at what they've done with the community and if you scratch below the surface its not that pretty. They are the PR people who dress **** up as roses.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Well you don't know how they are planning on implementing it as yet. I'm interested as to how it's going to go. I think with a lot of tweaking at the start and constructive poster input we could get something that's an improvement. If the people who care about boards post enough indicating what's right and wrong maybe the new system will work before the rules are set in stone as they are now with regards to the feedback / helpdesk system.

I guess I don't believe in feedback any more. I guess I've lost faith in a lot of the management and as such see things in the most cynical light. When I see a problem with something, I'll point it out once and if ignored I'll stick it with needles to get it to run through the fields to demonstrate how bad that problem might be. Cause I don't care how I get those asleep at the wheel to act, once they do.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Now we're looking at specifics from your perspective. Say each of those contentious threads we are well aware of. The whole reason they were contentious is because they operated in shades of grey. It wasn't automatically black or white what the best course of action was in any case. Regardless of whether it's a democracy or an autocracy people will have problems with the decisions made there.

I've no problem with contentious, contentious is sometimes good. The point I was trying to make is that none of these threads would exist today. Contentious topics are closed or moved to a space where there is only white and black / right or wrong and that is the administrator's call. When the administrators eased off locking threads, it wasn't gentle. They stopped moderating the noise, the garbage, they never stopped moderating the contentious stuff. This was done to establish the idea that you have a choice, controlled debate with garbage or without garbage.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I have to say I love boards stats. I like to see as much of it as I can. It is interesting to measure something on a scale that we can all relate to. However to do this as you are looking at is not possible. For example, say a moderator posts personal abuse. 4 mods ignore it. 1 mod infracts or bans. Did the 4 mods ignore it because he's a mod or because they didn't see it? Did they not act because they were replying to say, a spammer or a gimmick racist poster on a deleted / locked thread? Was it really personal abuse? How do you measure personal abuse? For example you said what I said wasn't personal abuse but what Time Magazine said was because of a semantic difference in how the posts were made. How do you measure on a scale what that semantic difference is and when it is right to act and when it is not? It's not actually that straight forward when you look at the reality of what you're suggesting.

Now take the example of measuring potential sexism. Take any forum on boards. It will not have a gender divide that even approaches 50/50. it would be pretty easy to take a particular mod for a particular forum for a particular month and indicate by cold hard figures that they are working with a gender bias. It's just too open to abuse and too simple to indicate a bias where there isn't one. Do the tLL mods ban more women than men? Probably. Does AH ban more men than women? Probably. Also it's not like there is an indication of gender coming from the poster. We don't have to tell anyone on here our gender and so often you are surprised to find x poster is male or female.

Now look at user history. You say measure if a mod is more likely to act on a poster with a history of problems with their forum. Surely that is just intuitive? Somebody has been banned in the past and returns unrepentant to do the same stuff. Surely the next ban should be longer? The PM should be more in depth stating what's wrong? If a poster is unrepentant in misbehaviour despite mod action they are not doing anything good for the community.

These are all valid criticism, not lost on me, and you would be free to point them out were I free to point out mine. But I'm not and therefore it follows you're not. For what it's worth I agree with you, there is no hard and fast of it, which makes a mockery of such claims when an administrator ignores the personal abuse of one user and bans another for a month citing that the rule is black and white and the same for all. Even demonstrating that true consistency is impossible as you assert would go a long way towards mediating some of the backwards thinking I've seen of late.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

On point one you are looking at one specific incident. As the OP and not getting everything you wanted from the thread you will automatically have a sour taste left because of it. Perhaps if other eyes than yours look at the thread they will have a different perspective on it than you do. Was your opinion entirely dismissed because somebody said "what business is it of yours?" I haven't seen any examples of that. They might be there but I've never seen them.

Look here for yourself. I never heard anything back from the administrators after the last post. The implication was clear in the replies I received.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Right now we do not really have a system in place that really gets feedback that can indicate a bad mod to the cat mod or admins. But this is not any worse of a problem right now than it was 2 years ago. Your cold hard metrics won't work in the real world because you can't sit behind a mod to see exactly what it is he or she did. The old feedback system doesn't work because it's too open to personal opinion. IE if you dislike a mod that's banned you you'll automatically read one of their posts in a different tone than another mod. Also you can't see what a mod might be doing behind the scenes to keep a forum going. All you have is your experience of them which you can't measure or coral into a better argument. And even with the argument you can be damn sure loads of people will disagree and there is still no certainty in the matter.

While its all well and good administrator taking moderators to task, last time I said a moderator was unfit I was threatened with a perma site ban. The time before that I received a temp site ban, not an infraction, not a forum ban, a straight up site ban. If I start a thread tomorrow saying "dr.bollocko is too harsh and should be removed as AH moderator", I will be permanently site banned after nine and half years, gone. Why? To protect you and others from hearing an opinion you disagree with and being challenged to step up and do so publically. You say the old feedback forum failed because it was too open to personal opinion but whatever are you going to use? Few people can be completely rational. Just because people will disagree with your opinion, just because it will cause disharmony and isn't conductive to good governance, isn't reason enough to stop people voicing their opinions.

I never claimed to be the voice of the people, or to represent anyone but myself. Others have tried and failed in the past to attribute more status to me then I have. That said I don't believe that my voice is equal the voice of the silent majority. If they do not care enough to have an opinion then their lack of one should not detract from mine.

I take little issue with the current administrative team. This thread isn't about them. Its about the new team which will surely come in the next few months. The users selected to be administrators less then a year ago painted a particular story, those who have left since paint another and the ones who join tomorrow or the day after will give something different again.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

WIbbs I'll reply to this post but not the other since its off-topic. I'm not ignoring it, I've taken it on board, but there's a time and a place for everything.

Wibbs wrote: »

I would tend to agree with you tbh. IMHO Boards has become more messy, not less messy in the last year and I really don't believe it's down to more traffic. In the drive for a better structure it's taken too much of the corporate vibe and it's become less efficient. Most corporations are actually quite inefficient. I do think many parts of the structure need to be looked at.

This is not against the commercialisation of the site either. I'm a capitalist in the sense that to make this place better it requires finance to do so. If the leccy bill doesn't get paid, no matter how many users are here, it's game over. I've no issue with that and I do think that this course can be charted between vested interests and genuine dialogue and actual communities. It just can't be done with old fashioned thinking. If this is the "new media" and not just hubristic vapourware then new ways of doing things will need to be addressed and invented.

I'll address this all in one big chunk. The commercialisation of boards.ie is not the problem. Vexorg achieved something many before him had tried and failed to, it was a huge success. Vexorg was an excellent administration, a gentleman, a man of vision and an absolute legend of a person who adored this site and the people on it. I do not believe for a moment he would instigate anything which would cause harm to this site in the long run. Alot of us who haven't been happy with the path board is going down have attributed it to the commercialisation. I Believe its the homogenisation rather then the commercialisation of the site which is the root problem.

Boards.ie is no longer the place where person A can have a different view to person B and as long as well all respect each other we'll get along. There is now a right view and several wrong views. dr.bollocko, a user of clear intelligence has - as indicated above - bought into the notion this is a good thing. A user must have the same experience through out boards rather then having a different one on each forum he or she uses. The aim isn't to increase diversity but rather to have everything conform to a single homogenius experience and single "world" view. You may have topics ranging from soccer to creative writing to food and drink but if it's all the same soulless, sterile interactions, Where's the point. Boards has character and that comes from the forums that aren't like all the rest and the users who don't posts like all these rest. Sheep are a dim a dozen, but that user you scan through the thread looking for posts by, or that forum you go to because the quality of conversation is generally freer, they're rare.

The mastermind behind the current incarnation of boards has never vocalised his vision for boards.ie like this before but I think it can be summed up as a place where a customer can post on any conceivable topic and expect a completely consistent experience most of the time. Everyone is treated the same, there are strict rules and an almost automated system of enforcing them. This in turn allows the greatest number of people to interact with each other and share opinions regardless of the quality of those opinions. The more people who interact, the more we have to respect the lowest common denominator. I'd love for him to say I was wrong. That to me his future is a future where the signal and the noise are so similar you can't tell them apart.

Wibbs wrote: »

Again IMHO one of the things that does irritate/concern me about this site is the over reverence towards modsand admins, the hierarchy and cliques, real and perceived. It's an oft heard complaint I've heard from lurkers of this site and a reason they don't nor would sign up(and a reason I suspect many post a few times and bugger off too). A case of too many chiefs not enough indians. These are not always fight the powah types either(as is too often the easy answer) and it's not a complaint against the moderation in general which from what I've seen is pretty consistent on a forum by forum basis. It can be improved of course, but amazing considering the breadth of communities here and the fact that people are invested enugh to do that for free. Basically the mod and admin fanboi schtick is getting to be old hat. Especially when you consider the number of them compared to the number of consistent regular posters who generate the vast majority of the site content,

I never really believed in the power of cliques of the moderator conspiracy. It has been, as you say, old hat long before you even joined. Too many people with too many opinions. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that death by clique wan't a joke.

Wibbs wrote: »

Thinking back on my +1 with regard to user reps, Im re thinking that or at least it points out to me that that's another part of the problem right there. If this site requires user reps, it's failing. The mods of forums are failing and the admins are failing. I'm a user first and foremost. A member of whichever communities will have me. End of. I post far more as a (longwinded)user than I ever have as a mod in any of the places I happen to be a mod of.I'm a user that happens to have extra responsibilities to help the community I'm part of. End of. I'm not special, I'm not any better or worse than 90% of the people who make up the various communities. IMHO if any mod thinks they're more than that, then they need to get a life or get their head read. Ditto for admins. Users come first or should come first, regardless of the the "title" under their usernames. Ditto for the communities that those users are a part of. As a mod I and other mods should be the user reps. I'm a user that also has access to an extra voice for other users. Even simple stuff like people PMing me and other PI mods to delete posts and threads they made. Or if say the forum(s) were changed from on high in a way that impacted the community. Damn right, I and others will register our feelings about that and rightfully so.

I agree, but look at all the user who think its a good idea, that its needed. As boards.ie has continued to grow the powers that be have increasingly relied on the moderators to be their community representatives the some moderators have become used to speaking for the mini communities they mod. I hasard the guess that this has been the source of much of the resentment towards me. Users no longer voice opinions to the management so how dare I. I should forward it via the proper channels. Anyway, I'm off on a tangent.

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree. Dunno how you would do that though TBH. The amount of helpdesk/feedback threads generated by a mod might be a start. If mods get a few reported posts that would concern me anyway if I was getting them(ditto with helpdesk threads). The problem is...well... arseholes. People who want to cause trouble and some forums simply have more than others. EG dr bollocko, tbh and tallaght01 etc, better mods than me have had more helpdesk threads than me(I think I've had one maybe two since the get go?). Same goes for bans. PI generates an helluva lot of infractions, bans etc than other forums. That's the prob right there. It would have to be on a case by case basis. That said if tomorrow I started getting HD/FB threads and reported posts from a cross section of other users I would step down.

I'd start small, taking one moderator on one forum and look for inconsistencies with himself/herself over a narrow time frame. I'd then post up the results and modify my methods based on feedback.

Wibbs wrote: »

As for the communities themselves? Feedback needs to be improved. It also needs to be modded. It's mostly as simple as that. I'd also suggest having it modded by more non admins too. Actually ditto for helpdesk. As this them and us BS goes both ways(Communities need to nurtured in other ways too. The dropping of the sitewide beers was a monumental fcuk up of a decision IMHO. The excuses of security and insurance simply don't cut it. They're excuses and very easily overcome excuses. Every niteclub in the land does it every saturday night. This community kicked off in both the e world and the real world, it needs to get back to that in every way. Without the communites growing there, it will barely grow here beyond a certain point).

As I understand it you can happily have an unofficial site wide boards beers. As someone who has organised Site wide events I'd be extremely slow to organise one again. The numbers involved made any pretence of maintaining control over proceeding a farse and while you can say that's largely the clubs problem, I can see why they didn't want the boards.ie brand associated with something with that must potential for disaster.

Nevyn

Look boards.ie is going to try and become the IKEA of the irish internet with
the many forums for the many people.

It was allways the idea behind this place and it is now likely to happen.

Personally I don't want to see that it is no longer the place were smart people discus things and talk. Yes it's poxy it's like your local being invaded when you could have a reasonably good conversation about the state of the nation but now there's soccer heads in the pub and a hen party and group of metal heads at the juke box and there is a lot more noise then signal but even the definition of that is changing.

Boards.ie now you're talking,

The general public is finding the site and using to get talking an it's changing,
then again it's always changed and it will keep changing.

I am have been keeping an eye and wondering that if I did not have the amount of history and friendships and emotional connection invested in the site and was to only 'discover' it this week, would I be bothered enough to sign up to post?

That is a question I know I will be asking myself on and off over the next 6 months.

I too keep waiting for the changes and things which it the communities asked for which we were told would happen once there were staff, and it hasn't yet.

I do think that online communities need community managers but I think most sites deal with all that behind closed doors and this place was different that there was always a certain level of transparent accountability but that unfortunately due to the sheer size of the site have to change.

And with that happening then it comes back to 'trusting the admins' and it seems a fair few people are disillusioned but they are on a learning curve, and due to so many things being handled off the public radar we don't know how much they are doing or how well they are doing it.

Tbh Boston seems you just picked up a drum that myself and a few other's got fed up of banging a while back as all it seemed to do was make us targets /shrug.

But as I have been told it's not what's being said it's how the issues are raised but currently those of who you are passionate about the site and give a ****e about where it's going and want to see it grow, survive and thrive don't have a way of giving feedback or being part of that process any more.

So it seems it's how long before you get fed up bouncing your head against a brick wall or when will doing that wear a person down so that they just don't care enough to bother any more.

I think that with us being told we 'own' out posts and that we make such wonderful connections to other posters and the site it's self people felt invovled, that it was 'their' boards.ie and now it's not and there are other people making the decisions behind closed doors, but tbh the majority of posters don't know this, don't care and as long as they can use the site won't care for the post part the direction it goes.

I just get concerned with the consistent rise in new sign ups despite all the documentation the site will become so diluted that one day I two will start a thread
in here saying goodbye and thanks for all the fish cos the answer to the question of
"If I had just discovered boards.ie today, would I sign up and post?" would be No.

Earthhorse

Posting on the longest page in boards' history.

Wibbs

Rev. BlueJeans wrote: »

I think this is a very interesting discussion, I'd suggest that if topic integrity must be maintained (?) then these posts should be split into a new thread to allow this to continue.

FWIW I would agree.

Boston wrote: »

They are trigger men. They are there to get the community to swallow whatever il duce wants. I have looked at what they've done with the community and if you scratch below the surface its not that pretty. They are the PR people who dress **** up as roses.

I like a bit of digging under the rse bush, but I wouldn't agree with you on the com guys. Yes they have a job to do, but from my dealings and experience of them they're doing pretty well, considering what they face. I don't know the Darragh chap at all, so I can't comment. I only know the Dav chap a little, but enough to know the guy loves this place. Almost to a fault.

I guess I don't believe in feedback any more.

I'm somewhat with you there, but maybe for different reasons.

Cause I don't care how I get those asleep at the wheel to act, once they do.

Hey I get that, but if you pee on someone's head everytime you feel they fcukup, even if they know they've made a mistake after a while all they smell is pee on their head.

This was done to establish the idea that you have a choice, controlled debate with garbage or without garbage.

I'm with you a fair bit on that, but I don't see a plan, I simply see bad modding. Happens to us all.

which makes a mockery of such claims when an administrator ignores the personal abuse of one user and bans another for a month citing that the rule is black and white and the same for all. Even demonstrating that true consistency is impossible as you assert would go a long way towards mediating some of the backwards thinking I've seen of late.

Hence my PS post which would be better returned to as you suggested. Irony aint in it:D

Look here for yourself. I never heard anything back from the administrators after the last post. The implication was clear in the replies I received.

Yep and FWIW I agree with you on that score to a fair degree. If I happened to see in passing something that made me go Huh? I would like to think it wouldnt be dismissed just because it was in passing. Then again like us all WWM is absolutely perfectly suited and indeed helpful in some issues and as much use as tits on a bull in others. You ended up milking the latter.

While its all well and good administrator taking moderators to task, last time I said a moderator was unfit I was threatened with a perma site ban. The time before that I received a temp site ban, not an infraction, not a forum ban, a straight up site ban. If I start a thread tomorrow saying "dr.bollocko is too harsh and should be removed as AH moderator", I will be permanently site banned after nine and half years, gone. Why? To protect you and others from hearing an opinion you disagree with and being challenged to step up and do so publically. You say the old feedback forum failed because it was too open to personal opinion but whatever are you going to use? Few people can be completely rational. Just because people will disagree with your opinion, just because it will cause disharmony and isn't conductive to good governance, isn't reason enough to stop people voicing their opinions.

It's in the how you say it. It comes across as snide and bitchy all too often. Even when I have fully agreed with you(more times than you may think), I have baulked at your delivery.

I take little issue with the current administrative team. This thread isn't about them. Its about the new team which will surely come in the next few months. The users selected to be administrators less then a year ago painted a particular story, those who have left since paint another and the ones who join tomorrow or the day after will give something different again.

Tide goes in, tide goes out. TBH I care little about who is an admin or not. Doesnt really interest me unless it affects me directly in the forums or in others forums. I'm all about the structure involved. Get that right and even if a muppet gets in, they'll have little lasting effect.

As for the current admin crop. Some I like, some I respect, the two aren't always the same. The aforementioned WWM a perfect example. If I have to think about it I don't particularly like him for a few reasons, but he's very good at what he does and is an asset as a mod and member of this community way more than he's not. I'd even vote for him if it came up on a poll. Go figure. Actually I don't need to figure. It's because he's not one of the mob. He stands out. Meh I never considered consensus much cop TBH. For me it usually just meant all the fcukwits were on the same side. He's not a fcukwit and he's not always on the same side. That's more than enough for me anyway.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

WIbbs I'll reply to this post but not the other since its off-topic. I'm not ignoring it, I've taken it on board, but there's a time and a place for everything.

True and cool.

I'll address this all in one big chunk. The commercialisation of boards.ie is not the problem. Vexorg achieved something many before him had tried and failed to, it was a huge success. Vexorg was an excellent administration, a gentleman, a man of vision and an absolute legend of a person who adored this site and the people on it.

I agree. Nice man on more than a few levels. Rare anywhere.

I do not believe for a moment he would instigate anything which would cause harm to this site in the long run. Alot of us who haven't been happy with the path board is going down have attributed it to the commercialisation. I Believe its the homogenisation rather then the commercialisation of the site which is the root problem.

Yep the slow creep of the dreaded beige in some quarters. Then again is that not another problem? On the one hand you want more of a spread of views, but on the other you want homogenisation of say modding across the board(s), across various forums. Hard one to navigate and define I would have thought?

Boards.ie is no longer the place where person A can have a different view to person B and as long as well all respect each other we'll get along. There is now a right view and several wrong views. dr.bollocko, a user of clear intelligence has - as indicated above - bought into the notion this is a good thing. A user must have the same experience through out boards rather then having a different one on each forum he or she uses. The aim isn't to increase diversity but rather to have everything conform to a single homogenius experience and single "world" view. You may have topics ranging from soccer to creative writing to food and drink but if it's all the same soulless, sterile interactions, Where's the point. Boards has character and that comes from the forums that aren't like all the rest and the users who don't posts like all these rest. Sheep are a dim a dozen, but that user you scan through the thread looking for posts by, or that forum you go to because the quality of conversation is generally freer, they're rare.

Maybe, but that's true of life. Just because its' the written word online wont change the ratio of sheep to lions. I know the geeks, the nerds the socially excluded, indeed mostly the smart, thought the Web Would Change Everything tm and it did for a time, but it's mainstream now. The people that made many feel left out are on board now. It's the way of the world in many ways. Indeed the more mainstream any medium becomes thats more, not less likely to be the case. You better go and try to change the wider world first. Anyway nothing wrong with so called sheep anyway. Rare is the sheep that isn't a lion somewhere. Maybe a place like boards can bring that roar out in some.

The more people who interact, the more we have to respect the lowest common denominator. I'd love for him to say I was wrong. That to me his future is a future where the signal and the noise are so similar you can't tell them apart.

Maybe, or maybe its the complaint of someone fulminating against change and worrying that the vision they had or have is not shared by the world at large, or the world that was small is now larger. Hell Plato equally fulminated against whippersnapper newbies so you're in very good company at least

I hasard the guess that this has been the source of much of the resentment towards me. Users no longer voice opinions to the management so how dare I. I should forward it via the proper channels. Anyway, I'm off on a tangent.

Maybe. I dunno. If I have an issue on a forum I go to the mod and ask WTF? First port of call. I wouldn't go to an admin, not because I don't respect their authoritaaaay, but because they're not directly involved in the community. They might be in which case I might. If I was a user of say PI and I pm'd a mod and it went nowhere I would be tempted to go to beruthial as she was a good and longstanding mod there so knows whats what.

I'd start small, taking one moderator on one forum and look for inconsistencies with himself/herself over a narrow time frame. I'd then post up the results and modify my methods based on feedback.

Great in theory, but then it looks like efficiency reports and all that middle management BS. I guarantee you would lose the best mods if you went down that road. The best/more interesting people in life don't respond well to that stuff. Only drones. The very people you're against taking over the site.

As I understand it you can happily have an unofficial site wide boards beers. As someone who has organised Site wide events I'd be extremely slow to organise one again. The numbers involved made any pretence of maintaining control over proceeding a farse and while you can say that's largely the clubs problem, I can see why they didn't want the boards.ie brand associated with it something with that must potential for disaster.

I still don't agree. For a start I think of people as adults. Secondly most stuff that happens is storm in a teacup stuff. Thirdly this stuff usually goes off without a hitch. Mollycoddle people and you're doomed. The legal/insurance/security stuff is pretty easy to sort. I helped organise a fair number of legal and illegal raves back in the 80's with plenty of scope for disaster and very very little untoward happened. You get the odd hiccup, but surprisingly few. Actually I would say it's easier to control an organised beers type event than a loose spur of the moment lets book this part of a pub on such and such a night forum thing. You can control the input more for a start and you also have an advantage with boards. You can take away site access to fcukwits after the event. It just takes a bit of balls, but it would grow the community IMHO and help the "brand", more than it would hinder. Cynical oul me would even go so far as to say even if there was an "issue" at one of the organised beers it would raise the profile. anyway that's an aside.

Wibbs

Great post from Thaedydal.

Thaedydal wrote:

And with that happening then it comes back to 'trusting the admins' and it seems a fair few people are disillusioned but they are on a learning curve, and due to so many things being handled off the public radar we don't know how much they are doing or how well they are doing it.

As always the proof of the pudding is in the eating and there have been a few belly aches since the new admin team were appointed, but as you said all of us have had a learning curve. As users and mods and admins

Kiera

+1 Thaedydal's post.

BuffyBot

Split off from the "Administrators" thread.

Reminder: to all mods and users - this thread isn't the place to discuss individual users. Keep it on a higher level than that please

randylonghorn

Wibbs wrote: »

It's in the how you say it. It comes across as snide and bitchy all too often. Even when I have fully agreed with you(more times than you may think), I have baulked at your delivery.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Wibbs, Boston. I have always read what you have to say with interest and given it thought even when I didn't especially agree with it. Recently, though, there's been a sharp increase in the bitchíocht, intentionally or not, and that just makes me lose interest and switch off.

Wibbs wrote: »

Great in theory, but then it looks like efficiency reports and all that middle management BS. I guarantee you would lose the best mods if you went down that road.

Yep. Not claiming to be one of "the best mods", btw, or even a good one, but certainly I get enough of that kind of corporate BS at work and I certainly don't want to see it creep in here. Nor does it do any good anyway, it just takes up time and makes it look like something is being done, and allows people to rattle off stats like "96% of posters never made a complaint, aren't we great!" without ever actually looking at the 4% who did or the 2% who had good reason to and trying to see what needed to be done about it.*

*Stats are illustrative, and straight out of my imagination.

sceptre wrote: »

You're too young. Less Arnie, more Stan/Loretta. His sense of humour is definitely firing on eight cylinders there.

Lol, actually I know TLOB, but it's been a while and I had forgotten that scene.


Actually, on (the actual) topic: Brian for Admin!!

Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different!

Orion

Well as someone who isn't vested in any direction I can see concerns with the current direction and ethos of boards. In Feedback there has always been FTP posts and that will probably never change. But more recently there has been respected users leaving boards. Hagar and orestes are two that spring to mind (without searching ... oh I can't search ). I know there was prams with toys with Hagar but it was still a symptom of a greater problem.

In the past Mods were always users who were given mod-ships for the areas they were active in. The example I will use is Khannie - Comp & Tech had no very active mods and a post was started in here to get a new one. Khannie was suggested by regulars on that forum, Dev responded about a sticky that Khannie had started which showed his commitment and he became a mod. That was back in the good old days when users were listened to imo. Now Khannie is a mod of 5 forums. It appears a "jobs for the old boys" thing. I'm not saying it is that (and this is not an attack on Khannie - he's a great bloke and a personal friend irl) but it can (and seemingly does) appear that way. Users who show a concern, or request change, often get pounced upon by Admins and Mods and nothing changes. AH is the only forum I've seen recently where users get input into who becomes mod - and AH is the sewer of boards (not the posters - just the topics).

More recently there's also been a hell of a lot more commercial interest in the site which is giving the impression of a sell-out. I've no problem with boards raising money in that regard but there seems to be more interest for the Community Managers in attracting advertising than working with the content providers ... i.e. us.

I know this post seems disjointed - that's because of the 2 bottles of Hunter's Peak - but they are concerns of mine regardless. I'm not mad on the current direction of boards. It used to be of the people, by the people and for the people. But more recently it has appeared to be of the people, by the people, for the company.

Nevyn

Macros42 wrote: »

Well as someone who isn't vested in any direction I can see concerns with the current direction and ethos of boards. In Feedback there has always been FTP posts and that will probably never change. But more recently there has been respected users leaving boards. Hagar and orestes are two that spring to mind (without searching ... oh I can't search ). I know there was prams with toys with Hagar but it was still a symptom of a greater problem.

I think there are fair few people who are feeling disenfranchised for what ever reason.

Macros42 wrote: »

In the past Mods were always users who were given mod-ships for the areas they were active in. The example I will use is Khannie - Comp & Tech had no very active mods and a post was started in here to get a new one. Khannie was suggested by regulars on that forum, Dev responded about a sticky that Khannie had started which showed his commitment and he became a mod. That was back in the good old days when users were listened to imo. Now Khannie is a mod of 5 forums. It appears a "jobs for the old boys" thing. I'm not saying it is that (and this is not an attack on Khannie - he's a great bloke and a personal friend irl) but it can (and seemingly does) appear that way. Users who show a concern, or request change, often get pounced upon by Admins and Mods and nothing changes. AH is the only forum I've seen recently where users get input into who becomes mod - and AH is the sewer of boards (not the posters - just the topics).

It that your I'm not a mod yet whinge
Your name was in the hat for parenting if Khannie didn't accept it.

Why an existing mod over someone who I know is a great dad and would be an asset?

Two reasons, proven track record and honestly easier to get approved passed the admin committee. Still I am glad that they are vetting mods; they have to consider not just the forum but the standards of the site as well when appointing a mod.

Macros42 wrote: »

More recently there's also been a hell of a lot more commercial interest in the site which is giving the impression of a sell-out. I've no problem with boards raising money in that regard but there seems to be more interest for the Community Managers in attracting advertising than working with the content providers ... i.e. us.

Well they opened a can of worms with the contact page and are having to deal with all of that and as for time invested in dealing with creating revenue streams if the site doesn't have them then there will not be money to pay staff.

Again seems a lot of what they are doing is stuff most people don't see and can't comment on but I understand the feeling that they are not working for the community they are managing and the concern they are looking out for themselves but I know that they have to deal with sensitive issues which again means unless you are invovled your not going to know.

I know more pain in the hole seeming lack of transparent process and accountability but there are two things which they have done which I know was hard work and I know is and will benefit the site greatly now and as this place grows and that is the FAQ and the new terms and conditions and I am sure the boiler plate charters template will be along soon.

Macros42 wrote: »

I know this post seems disjointed - that's because of the 2 bottles of Hunter's Peak - but they are concerns of mine regardless. I'm not mad on the current direction of boards. It used to be of the people, by the people and for the people. But more recently it has appeared to be of the people, by the people, for the company.

It's always been a company but with out the structure in place, and now it needs work done to put those structures in place, which is stuff which people aren't gonna see but I guess is like seeing a bunch of people working on a bridge re enforcing it, seeing a lot of materials and man hours going in while we are still walking back and across the bridge thinking what are they doing, bugger all has changed were is that bench half way on the bridge we said we wanted, while they are getting it ready to be able to handle lorries and buses instead of just people and the odd car.

Which is like when visitors were coming to the house and Yore Ma turns it up side down cleaning and sorting for 'other' people who are coming to stay, and discommoding those who already live there by not having as much time or being about as much. Which is only going to make you resent your cousin all the more when he gets there, he could be the person most likely on the planet to be your best mate but the fact yore ma seems more concerned about getting the place sorted for when him and the rest of them get there means it's soured before they set foot over the threshold.

While boards is growing and they are looking at dealing with that growth if those who are already here and have been here become discontent in big numbers then it's an issue. While I don't think they will please all of the people all of the time and it's not 10 mods leaving enmass or an entire communities upping roots and buggering off else where ( which is what happened to the irish ut crowd, there was no active mod, calls for a new mod were ignored, no one was tending the forum so they left ) there has been enough people who held the torch for boards and upheld it's standards and ideals leaving over the last year to cause ruffled feathers in my opinion.

Wibbs

+1 on Thaedydal's post

My name is URL

How would the user-rep idea work? Isn't that what a mod is supposed to be in essence.. the voice of reason in the forums they mod?

Users should be able to represent themselves, everyone has a voice atm

Selecting a few to speak for many is not that dissimilar to having more mods or admins, imho

Wibbs

My name is URL wrote: »

How would the user-rep idea work? Isn't that what a mod is supposed to be in essence.. the voice of reason in the forums they mod?

Users should should be able to represent themselves, everyone has a voice atm

Selecting a few to speak for many is not that dissimilar to having more mods or admins, imho

Exactly. If it is needed then something is simply not working. If it is needed of course. Feedback is a small enough forum. A sitewide feedback poll may be not a bad plan. Get actual feedback. There may be no problem at all for the vast majority of the userbase.

Boston

My name is URL wrote: »

How would the user-rep idea work? Isn't that what a mod is supposed to be in essence.. the voice of reason in the forums they mod?

Users should should be able to represent themselves, everyone has a voice atm

Selecting a few to speak for many is not that dissimilar to having more mods or admins, imho

Don't have time for a lengthy reply today but in brief, yes we all have a voice. However some voices penetrate more then others. Users don't get a say on changes to boards.ie before they happen. Users barely get to have a say at all with all these restrictions. Moderators have their voice and feel the need to use it regardless of how appropriate it is. No one speaks directly to management on behalf of all users.

oscarBravo

Boston wrote: »

No one speaks directly to management on behalf of all users.

...and, by definition, no-one ever will.

Boston

Depends on the definition.