Future of boards.ie debate stuff..

My name is URL

Boston wrote: »

Don't have time for a length 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.

I agree with you.

But how would that change if a few users were selected to speak on our behalf? How will those people be selected?

Once someone has a tag given to them by boards, they're no longer just members (regardless of what protocol says), they're acting in a way that boards deems to be fitting with an ideal.

Maybe I'm way off the mark, but I can see it reverting back to how it is now if this was implemented. Not everyone's concerns will be raised or backed and nepotistic choices on what's important will be made

Orion

Thaedydal wrote: »

It that your I'm not a mod yet whinge

God no. I've never sought that particular brand of pain

Thaedydal wrote: »

Your name was in the hat for parenting if Khannie didn't accept it.

:eek:

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

I have no problem with Khannie modding Parenting at all - it was just the best example I could think of at the time and I have a good recollection of when he first became mod of Computers.

( 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 )

That's not what happened at all. The problem was that we were reliant on the UT forum to arrange games nights and at the time boards was unreliable. The site was regularly down due to crashes and server failures (I'm sure you remember those days) and in the end we decided to set up our own site for UT. Modding wasn't a problem - there was generally no need for mod intervention and on the rare occasion when there was musician was only a PM away. There's still a few of us knocking about on boards

oscarBravo

Boston wrote: »

Depends on the definition.

Sure - if your definition of "all" is "some", "many", or "a (possibly) representative sample", then maybe someone could speak on behalf of "all" users.

This site was never a democracy. I'm not sure why there's a need to try to turn it into one. Democracy is very difficult to operate in the real world - I honestly don't think it could work at all in a virtual world like this.

Earthhorse

What an incredible thread I've discovered.

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.

An adversarial approach to dispute resolution would not be my preference, especially given how well the current system has served us to date, but it's amazing how long - ten years around - it can take to build up goodwill and how quickly that can vanish - six months approximately.

One myth we need to do away with is that there is no difference between users, mods and admins. In principle, this might be true, but in practice it isn't. The three have entirely different experiences of the site and this colours their perception of what constitutes a fair hearing. We need not talk about cliques or conspiracies in order for this to be true; it is simply cause and effect.

As a user, if someone is, say, using multiple accounts to jerk me around, I have no way to verify whether these accounts are coming from the same IP address. Mods and admins can do IP checks. As a user, if someone is banned for something seemingly trivial, I have no way of knowing this was as a result of an accumulated history of misdemeanours. Mods and admins have access to ban history.

As a mod, one of your responsibilities is to investigate reported posts. If Feedback is anything to go by then the vast majority of these have no merit or, at least, not enough for you to action. Even so, one needs to spend time communicating this to users and following up on the few cases with merit can be tricky and time consuming. This is not to mention all the effort the best mods put into making their communities places where people feel welcome and able to generate high value content.

On top of these responsibilities mods have access to the moderators and reported posts forums (to the best of my knowledge these forums are separate). The former may be an eye opener to the various different friendships and feuds which form, inevitably, over time in a community of this size. The latter is a place where, I imagine, occasionally, from time to time, people report things and, as a result, reveal something quite personal about themselves.

Most of the current administrators are also active moderators or have been at some point. So, not only does all of the above apply to them, they have the added responsibility of looking after Feedback, mediating in Helpdesk and debating the future direction of the site. They may also have access to more tools and more areas of the site than regular mods.

There is nothing wrong with any of these experiences. They are almost inevitable as a result of the functioning of the site. But the idea that an administrator can fairly represent a user's experience on boards is a fallacy. Most of the time they don't need to because most cases are clear cut. It is the edge cases, the tiny minority, where a user rep would be highly useful in producing a resolution that is fairer to users. As it stands, in an imperfect information system, the odds are stacked against the user.

Wibbs wrote: »

If this site requires user reps, it's failing. The mods of forums are failing and the admins are failing.

Failing is far too strong a word. Floundering might be more apt and whilst I genuinely hope they hit their stride again there is little indication that this is happening. BuffyBot's splitting of this thread to allow discussion continue is a step in the right direction. A month ago, I've a funny feeling Boston's thread would have been nixed.

Thaedydal wrote: »

It's always been a company...

Only in the strictest sense of the word. It has always been sold (ha! the irony) to us as a community.

Community implies a place where people are safe, where they care about each other and where they are treated, for the most part, as equals. We don't have to moddy coddle them from the big bad world, we don't even have to like them but if we're to call oursleves a community then we have to earn that; continually, not just based on our past behaviour. And it did feel like a community in the past; a place where people would stand up for what was right regardless of whether it was for or against someone they liked or disliked. It's an intangible thing, impossible to prove, but it was there and now it is gone, and it's what has posters like you, myself, Boston and Kiera raising an eyebrow and wondering if it's worth it.

Whilst I have no wish to align myself with Boston (sorry, dude but it's true ) he is right that even the title of Community Manager is a mistake. The community (I hesitate to call it our community given how disenfranchised I feel from it right now) is a self organising one. The idea that it needs to be managed is a little condescending. Community Liaison would be better, though still not perfect. No doubt to an admin this will seem like such a triviality, such a semantic irrelevance but again I would say that admins are not good representatives of a user's perspective.

Macros makes a great point in his post about the nature of mods. Most are intially selected based on their interest and investment in a community. After that, they are more likely to be selected for future modships. They are trusted because they are trusted. As Thaed says, this is often done because it is expedient; but the convenience of expediency comes at the cost of diversity. When it comes down to it a mod, who is essentially a trusted user, will have his word taken over that of a user; who isn't so much untrusted as they are unknown. It's another inequity in the system that needs to be acknowledged and which would be, in some way, mitigated by a user rep.

Note: Just seeing a few posts in the preview that have a very different idea of what a user rep would be than I do. Will explain how I would see it working in my next post.

seamus

Boston wrote: »

Users don't get a say on changes to boards.ie before they happen.

Should they? It would be like putting a proposal out to a committee of 10,000. Nothing would ever change because nobody would ever stop talking about it long enough to approve it.

So your alternative then is a representative "committee". The concept of which presents as many problems as it tries to solve. Ultimately you'll end up with user representatives who are chosen in exactly the same way that moderators are - through showing that they have the cop-on and the maturity to be that kind of person and through demonstrating that they have the best interests of the site as a whole at heart.

You made a point earlier on Boston about the site only wanting "team players" or people who'll toe the line with the owners.

You're basically right, except that you're painting it as something bad and stifling. When choosing someone for a position of responsibility, there's only one common trait asked of every single one of them - that you will act in the best interests of the community (and by extension the site) in carrying out that responsibility. Dissenting voices have never been closed down or quietened, where that dissenting voice is dissenting because they believe it needs to be said on behalf of the community and for the benefit of the community.

The only dissenting voices who are ignored are those who are dissenting because they are trying to get something out of it for themselves - be it a need to enforce their own morality on the way the site works* or a need to "win" something back because they feel they've been wronged on the site.

You'd be surprised the amount of 5000-word essays which appear on feedback, screaming about justice for the little guy and acting all high and mighty about the needs of the average user, who then promptly shut up and forget all about the average user when they get their own personal issue resolved.

There's also a somewhat a difference between acting in the best interests of the community and acting within the community. Your little "project" Boston, as far as I can tell, is an attempt to document the moderation actions of an individual moderator over the course of time, in an attempt to show that moderation isn't consistent. Sounds like an interesting Daily Mail "expose", and on top of victimising a single moderator for no reason other than you chose him/her at random to be victimised, it fails to do two things:
1. Prove anything which isn't already known.
2. Provide anything to the community

Now, you can mitigate point 2 by providing a solution to the problem in addition to your findings. However, simply presenting your findings won't acheive anything except to cause friction in the community. And that's not the action of the self-styled community "champion" you're making yourself out to be.

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

I could easily argue that's precisely what the Admins do - speak directly to the owners of boards.ie in the best interests of all users.

*I'm not getting into the "enforcing one's own morality is acting on what you believe is best for the site" argument. That's a philosophical matter.

Earthhorse

As it stands there are three dispute resolution mechanisms on boards; two public, Feedback and Helpdesk, and one private, PMs.

We are often told that here on boards we own our words. This isn't always true. Threads get locked, so we can't share our words, posts get deleted, so our words are taken from us. We own our words, until someone else does. There are times when this is fair; libellous or abusive statements should be removed, though the latter, if aimed at another user should be sanctioned.

So what happens when an abusive comment is removed and no sanction is imposed? How can a user make a case? They'll just come across as a crank.

Feedback is a also a place where we can make more general comments about the moderation and administration of the site. We are told to avoid talking about specific users or issues because then it will just become about that user or that issue. So we don't. Then we are asked to evidence our claims, whatever they may be, with some examples.

How is this possible? There's a clear exclusivity between the two demands.

So we loan rather than own our words and we must produce evidence without reference. Double standards are no standards at all.

Helpdesk is a place where people can challenge the specific decisions we are asked to avoid in Feedback. It's a noble attempt to cut through the clamour of Feedback but if the user has a genuine grievance and one that is in any way ambiguous they are at a severe disadvantage. Over the years I have seen many cases where mods have challenged other mods regarding the contents of deleted posts. A user has no mechanism by which they can achieve this.

PMs are the first means of response we are encouraged to pursue (and may be the only course you end up with if your thread is locked or deleted) but it suffers from the above described problems, only moreso.

In short, the problems with the current resolution mechanisms are lack of transparency and imperfect information (from the user's point of view).

How would appointing a user rep resolve this? It could only make a difference were they to be granted some of the existing tools available to mods. This is a sketch of how I see it working:

1. Access to muppet checks. For starters, no one wants a situation where user reps are hassling mods or admins. We want them representing genuine users with real issues, not time-wasters. Remember, I am talking only about the edge, difficult, ambiguous and unique conflicts that arise on this site. Not the day to day modding which I think for the most part works exceedingly well.
2. Access (if only temporary) to see deleted posts etc. To redress the information balance that exists in the present system a user rep would be able to see the disputed content in question. You can't open this up to all users, but to a trusted few you could share this information, in the interests of fairness.
3. Read-only access to the moderators forum. Not essential perhaps but could be useful in determining a person's position (and disposition) regarding certain issues or users. Identifying agendas basically. Make it read only access so as the user rep never gets involved or takes sides.

That's not a copper-fastened list by the way. Just some of the things I think would need to be in place for such an approach to work.

The user rep would be biased toward the user's point of view. They would lean on admins to pursue issues of merit and would have the tools to do so. As it stands, I think there is a bias toward expediency in the resolution of difficult issues. The user rep is a necessary counterbalance to that.

Make no mistake; I would much rather there wasn't a need to propose this. I would much rather have my faith in the custodians of this site restored. But it is difficult to base that faith on nothing or to ignore what I have seen or dismiss it as exception.

With regard to future direction of the site, I am not sure the user rep would have such a big role. As oscarBravo says, there is little chance of any one user being able to represent all of us. It's too tall a task to ask of anyone. They may have a role in ensuring users powers (such as the ability to Thank posts in Feedback ) aren't removed or restricted but I would say there is far more room for them to play the role as have I sketched it (and it's just that, a sketch) above.

Boston

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure - if your definition of "all" is "some", "many", or "a (possibly) representative sample", then maybe someone could speak on behalf of "all" users.

This site was never a democracy. I'm not sure why there's a need to try to turn it into one. Democracy is very difficult to operate in the real world - I honestly don't think it could work at all in a virtual world like this.

Sorry it's a concept thing. Take a TD. No one could claim that a TD represents all the diverse views of his constituents. Some may want jam on Tuesdays while others want jam on Wednesday, an obviously irreconcilable position. Though it is his job to represent all the views of the electorate as best he can to the government. You don't need universal approval / support to represent people.

We are all well aware that this place isn't a democracy. It is a dictatorship, complete with secret police, inquisitions and wire taps. But this place was never meant to be run with a deaf ear to the grass roots contributors.

Earthhorse wrote: »

An adversarial approach to dispute resolution would not be my preference, especially given how well the current system has served us to date, but it's amazing how long - ten years around - it can take to build up goodwill and how quickly that can vanish - six months approximately.

One myth we need to do away with is that there is no difference between users, mods and admins. In principle, this might be true, but in practice it isn't. The three have entirely different experiences of the site and this colours their perception of what constitutes a fair hearing. We need not talk about cliques or conspiracies in order for this to be true; it is simply cause and effect.

As a user, if someone is, say, using multiple accounts to jerk me around, I have no way to verify whether these accounts are coming from the same IP address. Mods and admins can do IP checks. As a user, if someone is banned for something seemingly trivial, I have no way of knowing this was as a result of an accumulated history of misdemeanours. Mods and admins have access to ban history.

As a mod, one of your responsibilities is to investigate reported posts. If Feedback is anything to go by then the vast majority of these have no merit or, at least, not enough for you to action. Even so, one needs to spend time communicating this to users and following up on the few cases with merit can be tricky and time consuming. This is not to mention all the effort the best mods put into making their communities places where people feel welcome and able to generate high value content.

On top of these responsibilities mods have access to the moderators and reported posts forums (to the best of my knowledge these forums are separate). The former may be an eye opener to the various different friendships and feuds which form, inevitably, over time in a community of this size. The latter is a place where, I imagine, occasionally, from time to time, people report things and, as a result, reveal something quite personal about themselves.

Last item first.

Moderators forum;

The Reports forum is a separate sub forum to the moderators forum. The moderators forum was a place for moderators to discuss moderating issues and to defuse mod-mod tensions in private, it wasn't set up to be the moderators rant and raving club. I was around when it was set up, I (and several other now missing members) were the direct cause of the forum being set up. The way the forum operates now has lead to the constant accusations of moderator conspiracy, and a large amount of intrigue, politicking, lobbying and games . This is how it works for the uninducted.

Any moderator can start a thread about any user regardless of whether of not said user posts in their forum. The moderator can then lobby the management for action to be taken against the user, solicit support against the user and / or simply rant and vent about said user. The user is then essentially trialled in private by the moderators without an option to defend him or herself. The management's actions are then based partly on the feedback generated by the moderator forum. A moderator accused of wrong doing is free to defend themselves and gather around them their own click of users.

The reason offered by management as to why moderator who have nothing to do with a user should be allowed have a say on what, if anything, the user contributes to the site is that they're forum leaders and as such the management values their input. I cannot accept that as a valid reason for why a moderator gets to sit in judgement of a users actions outside their forum. Are they not "just normal users" outside of the forums they moderate despite the constant proclamations of such. I should add that none of the thread I've seen where started by a moderator complaining about my behaviour on their forum. If you went through the mods on the mods forum calling for me to be banned you'll find I've almost never posted on any of there forums and I doubt you'll find one whose so much as infracted me. Yet, they're able to call for management intervention, and worse still be seen as having legitimate cause. All because of their special position as "more then a user".

Why should they comment when I and you cannot? Is there not a bias here? Helpdesk restricts user complaints so that other users cannot pass judgement on moderator actions but any moderator can chim in and call for a user to be banned simply due to disliking how they post on boards in general. It's no fair that vested interests can lobby like this but if I or someone else started a thread about a moderator whom i didn't like explicitly for the purposes of undermining their boards status, locks infractions and bans would follow.

I was lambasted for interfering in the poker forum situation, a few people felt that it was none of my business. il duce has used a similiar line with regards to the Watty mess, however without fail one or more poker mods have called for me to be reprimanded in every thread relating to me on the mod forum since the incident. Often with lines such as "Special treatment" and "Any of user would have been banned". Forgetting the special interest and efforts several administrators and il duce himself personally showed to keep them on this site and make compromises any other mods of any other forum wouldn't have been accommodated to the degree they were.

I've seen moderators copy and paste entire threads from the moderators forum into IRC channels, laugh and Jer and rub their hands together at the miss fortune of those on their hate list. These moderators don't represent the user base. They are solely about their own ego and bloated sense of self importance. But that never really bothered me until I saw how reliant those up on high have become of the so called valued users.

Moderator access to information;

As you point out moderators have access to vastly more information then the regular user. What you may no be aware of is that they know every change that happens on this site. You get infracted on a private forum, there is it. You get banned from a forum, there it is. They access to information about your boards.ie history which you as a regular user have no access to and they're very willing to use that against you should the need arise. I had one moderator justify infracting me based on an infraction I received on a totally different forum.

Should tomorrow or the day after I grow tired of the Boston account and the numerous hate lists it appear on, I couldn't close down the account and start again. Every moderator would instantly be able to run "Muppet" checks to determine my identy. Within a hour there would be a thread on the moderators forum calling for a ban. After that everyone within five degrees of separations from the mod forum would know who I was.

Do we really believe that moderators are "Just normal users outside their forums" anymore? No.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Most of the current administrators are also active moderators or have been at some point. So, not only does all of the above apply to them, they have the added responsibility of looking after Feedback, mediating in Helpdesk and debating the future direction of the site. They may also have access to more tools and more areas of the site than regular mods.

There is nothing wrong with any of these experiences. They are almost inevitable as a result of the functioning of the site. But the idea that an administrator can fairly represent a user's experience on boards is a fallacy. Most of the time they don't need to because most cases are clear cut. It is the edge cases, the tiny minority, where a user rep would be highly useful in producing a resolution that is fairer to users. As it stands, in an imperfect information system, the odds are stacked against the user.

A user advocate is badly needed. Someone who can't be banned, told to shut up or that it's none of their business. An outside view from an insider.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Failing is far too strong a word. Floundering might be more apt and whilst I genuinely hope they hit their stride again there is little indication that this is happening. BuffyBot's splitting of this thread to allow discussion continue is a step in the right direction. A month ago, I've a funny feeling Boston's thread would have been nixed.

Falling is the wrong word. You can't use the word falling for something which never worked in the first place. More to the point it did work for some moderators but the majority never acted as user representatives. That simply wasn't a part of the job for them. The system is falling now because a lot of those moderators who where community / user representatives have quiet to be replaced by people who simply put don't care as much.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Only in the strictest sense of the word. It has always been sold (ha! the irony) to us as a community.

Community implies a place where people are safe, where they care about each other and where they are treated, for the most part, as equals. We don't have to moddy coddle them from the big bad world, we don't even have to like them but if we're to call oursleves a community then we have to earn that; continually, not just based on our past behaviour. And it did feel like a community in the past; a place where people would stand up for what was right regardless of whether it was for or against someone they liked or disliked. It's an intangible thing, impossible to prove, but it was there and now it is gone, and it's what has posters like you, myself, Boston and Kiera raising an eyebrow and wondering if it's worth it.

Boards.ie LTD existed for two reasons, to get the .ie domain and for limited libability. It was never a company in an serious way. Accounts where filled and all the legal requirements met. Boards.ie became a company the day Ross was hired. (Who btw is actually the second boards.ie employee, not the first). The idea was a community which was funded through the company arm of things. Making money where possible. Now things have shifted towards a company with a community as the product we're looking to sell. This isn't good.

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

seamus wrote: »

Should they? It would be like putting a proposal out to a committee of 10,000. Nothing would ever change because nobody would ever stop talking about it long enough to approve it.

So your alternative then is a representative "committee". The concept of which presents as many problems as it tries to solve. Ultimately you'll end up with user representatives who are chosen in exactly the same way that moderators are - through showing that they have the cop-on and the maturity to be that kind of person and through demonstrating that they have the best interests of the site as a whole at heart.

How moderators are selected isn't the key problem. I cannot suggest a better way then what macros outlined. The problem is that you have people being judge, jury and executioner. It's like the TDs deciding if they deserve a pay increase. All executive branches of the boards.ie ruling class are filled by the same people in largely the same role, only scope differs.

Wheres the harm in letting 10,000 people have say? It is a discussion forum after all. You don't have to follow what anyone says, the site is still a dictatorship and better off for it. But allowing people to say "Actually that new front page is ****e" before you go live with it, isn't a bad idea.

seamus wrote: »

You made a point earlier on Boston about the site only wanting "team players" or people who'll toe the line with the owners.

You're basically right, except that you're painting it as something bad and stifling. When choosing someone for a position of responsibility, there's only one common trait asked of every single one of them - that you will act in the best interests of the community (and by extension the site) in carrying out that responsibility. Dissenting voices have never been closed down or quietened, where that dissenting voice is dissenting because they believe it needs to be said on behalf of the community and for the benefit of the community.

What you're saying is that the administrator team need to be a team, needs to have builders not distroyers. I get that, but I don't think it should be a case of follow the leader. Something new happened when boards.ie LTD gained parity with boards.ie community. For the first time a single administrator, the CEO could affect major changes without the need to consult or be advised by the other administrators/ site owners. That was needed for what vexorg was doing. Its proven disaterous in the hands of il duce.

seamus wrote: »

The only dissenting voices who are ignored are those who are dissenting because they are trying to get something out of it for themselves - be it a need to enforce their own morality on the way the site works* or a need to "win" something back because they feel they've been wronged on the site.

Is this me? Do you feel this is me? I see no winning in this.

seamus wrote: »

You'd be surprised the amount of 5000-word essays which appear on feedback, screaming about justice for the little guy and acting all high and mighty about the needs of the average user, who then promptly shut up and forget all about the average user when they get their own personal issue resolved.

In the past I've easied off when whatever issue I've rallied for has been addressed. I've given the management good will and time to fullfill promises made. This should not be mistaken for suddenly not caring once matters have been resolved.

seamus wrote: »

There's also a somewhat a difference between acting in the best interests of the community and acting within the community. Your little "project" Boston, as far as I can tell, is an attempt to document the moderation actions of an individual moderator over the course of time, in an attempt to show that moderation isn't consistent. Sounds like an interesting Daily Mail "expose", and on top of victimising a single moderator for no reason other than you chose him/her at random to be victimised, it fails to do two things:
1. Prove anything which isn't already known.
2. Provide anything to the community

Now, you can mitigate point 2 by providing a solution to the problem in addition to your findings. However, simply presenting your findings won't acheive anything except to cause friction in the community. And that's not the action of the self-styled community "champion" you're making yourself out to be.

My other little project was to take a random "good" user and through manipulating cliques on the moderators forum, IRC channels and other venues get him sitebanned. The first step would have been to add him to my friends list, a kiss of death if ever there was one. I decide I wasn't that much of a bastard. I'd love for you to provide me with a post where I declared myself champion of the community or claimed to speak for anyone put myself. I can provide several posts where I indicated the exact opposite. I don't think you even be able to find a post by any user saying I speak for them.

As for what purpose it would serve. If that moderator took sometime for introspection and came away better for it, then it would have served the only purpose I desire. If other moderators saw it and then questions their own actions and found them lacking or not, then it would have served a purpose in excess of my desirers.

seamus wrote: »

I could easily argue that's precisely what the Admins do - speak directly to the owners of boards.ie in the best interests of all users.

Please do make the arguement seamus. I don't think its an easy one.


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

Earthhorse wrote: »

As it stands there are three dispute resolution mechanisms on boards; two public, Feedback and Helpdesk, and one private, PMs.

We are often told that here on boards we own our words. This isn't always true. Threads get locked, so we can't share our words, posts get deleted, so our words are taken from us. We own our words, until someone else does. There are times when this is fair; libellous or abusive statements should be removed, though the latter, if aimed at another user should be sanctioned.

So what happens when an abusive comment is removed and no sanction is imposed? How can a user make a case? They'll just come across as a crank.

Feedback is a also a place where we can make more general comments about the moderation and administration of the site. We are told to avoid talking about specific users or issues because then it will just become about that user or that issue. So we don't. Then we are asked to evidence our claims, whatever they may be, with some examples.

How is this possible? There's a clear exclusivity between the two demands.

Very eloquent. I agree.

Earthhorse wrote: »

So we loan rather than own our words and we must produce evidence without reference. Double standards are no standards at all.

Helpdesk is a place where people can challenge the specific decisions we are asked to avoid in Feedback. It's a noble attempt to cut through the clamour of Feedback but if the user has a genuine grievance and one that is in any way ambiguous they are at a severe disadvantage. Over the years I have seen many cases where mods have challenged other mods regarding the contents of deleted posts. A user has no mechanism by which they can achieve this.

PMs are the first means of response we are encouraged to pursue (and may be the only course you end up with if your thread is locked or deleted) but it suffers from the above described problems, only moreso.

In short, the problems with the current resolution mechanisms are lack of transparency and imperfect information (from the user's point of view).

How would appointing a user rep resolve this? It could only make a difference were they to be granted some of the existing tools available to mods. This is a sketch of how I see it working:

1. Access to muppet checks. For starters, no one wants a situation where user reps are hassling mods or admins. We want them representing genuine users with real issues, not time-wasters. Remember, I am talking only about the edge, difficult, ambiguous and unique conflicts that arise on this site. Not the day to day modding which I think for the most part works exceedingly well.
2. Access (if only temporary) to see deleted posts etc. To redress the information balance that exists in the present system a user rep would be able to see the disputed content in question. You can't open this up to all users, but to a trusted few you could share this information, in the interests of fairness.
3. Read-only access to the moderators forum. Not essential perhaps but could be useful in determining a person's position (and disposition) regarding certain issues or users. Identifying agendas basically. Make it read only access so as the user rep never gets involved or takes sides.

That's not a copper-fastened list by the way. Just some of the things I think would need to be in place for such an approach to work.

I like it.

Doctor DooM

Earthhorse wrote: »

As it stands there are three dispute resolution mechanisms on boards; two public, Feedback and Helpdesk, and one private, PMs.

We are often told that here on boards we own our words. This isn't always true. Threads get locked, so we can't share our words, posts get deleted, so our words are taken from us. We own our words, until someone else does. There are times when this is fair; libellous or abusive statements should be removed, though the latter, if aimed at another user should be sanctioned.

So what happens when an abusive comment is removed and no sanction is imposed? How can a user make a case? They'll just come across as a crank.

Feedback is a also a place where we can make more general comments about the moderation and administration of the site. We are told to avoid talking about specific users or issues because then it will just become about that user or that issue. So we don't. Then we are asked to evidence our claims, whatever they may be, with some examples.

How is this possible? There's a clear exclusivity between the two demands.

So we loan rather than own our words and we must produce evidence without reference. Double standards are no standards at all.

Helpdesk is a place where people can challenge the specific decisions we are asked to avoid in Feedback. It's a noble attempt to cut through the clamour of Feedback but if the user has a genuine grievance and one that is in any way ambiguous they are at a severe disadvantage. Over the years I have seen many cases where mods have challenged other mods regarding the contents of deleted posts. A user has no mechanism by which they can achieve this.

PMs are the first means of response we are encouraged to pursue (and may be the only course you end up with if your thread is locked or deleted) but it suffers from the above described problems, only moreso.

In short, the problems with the current resolution mechanisms are lack of transparency and imperfect information (from the user's point of view).

How would appointing a user rep resolve this? It could only make a difference were they to be granted some of the existing tools available to mods. This is a sketch of how I see it working:

1. Access to muppet checks. For starters, no one wants a situation where user reps are hassling mods or admins. We want them representing genuine users with real issues, not time-wasters. Remember, I am talking only about the edge, difficult, ambiguous and unique conflicts that arise on this site. Not the day to day modding which I think for the most part works exceedingly well.
2. Access (if only temporary) to see deleted posts etc. To redress the information balance that exists in the present system a user rep would be able to see the disputed content in question. You can't open this up to all users, but to a trusted few you could share this information, in the interests of fairness.
3. Read-only access to the moderators forum. Not essential perhaps but could be useful in determining a person's position (and disposition) regarding certain issues or users. Identifying agendas basically. Make it read only access so as the user rep never gets involved or takes sides.

That's not a copper-fastened list by the way. Just some of the things I think would need to be in place for such an approach to work.

The user rep would be biased toward the user's point of view. They would lean on admins to pursue issues of merit and would have the tools to do so. As it stands, I think there is a bias toward expediency in the resolution of difficult issues. The user rep is a necessary counterbalance to that.

Make no mistake; I would much rather there wasn't a need to propose this. I would much rather have my faith in the custodians of this site restored. But it is difficult to base that faith on nothing or to ignore what I have seen or dismiss it as exception.

I dunno dude Alot of good points there. BUT...

If someone came up to me and said "Hi, I'm biased towards the users against the mods" I would instantly be taking every word they say with a pinch of salt. I'd be thinking "how do I get rid of this guy" as opposed to "let's sort this out".

If however he came up to me and said "Look DooM, you were a bit harsh there, lets have a talk about this" and he wasn't doing it every 5 minutes to me I'd know I should listen.

Site wide access to mupchecks and deleted posts is something the mods don't have. I am not sure the admins would be comfy divesting that much POWAH to any non adminny people.

(And yes people, mupchecking in a real world sense is alot more power than banning et al.)

Boston

Well there will be enough people to condemn the complaining user. The User Rep / Advocates job would be to make a proper argument on behalf of the user. That is the only bias. I've often seen users with legitimate complaints getting nowhere simply because

1) They didn't structure the complaint in a way which the management found palatable
2) They didn't know enough about how boards operators to do things the right way.

And advocate would avoid these problems.

Nevyn

I wish at times that real shít lists did exist for the site.
Fact of the matter is they don't cos if they did there are posters how are permabanned from some of the forums I mod which by your logic be site banned by now and they are not.

Yes there are cliques on boards it's like life.

As for any unoffical irc channels which has boards posters and mods in there are several but if you are seeing them breach the trust placed in them as mod to not share the contend of the mods forum and they are using it as a spring board to harrash and abuse posters and you have logs well then turn them over to the admins to deal with.

Boston

Thaedydal wrote: »

I wish at times that real shít lists did exist for the site.
Fact of the matter is they don't cos if they did there are posters how are permabanned from some of the forums I mod which by your logic be site banned by now and they are not.

Just because you're not the type of moderator to victimise and bully other users doesn't mean other moderators have the same sense of right and wrong.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes there are cliques on boards it's like life.

True. And maybe it was selfish of me not to care about them until they started to affect me.

Thaedydal wrote: »

As for any unoffical irc channels which has boards posters and mods in there are several but if you are seeing them breach the trust placed in them as mod to not share the contend of the mods forum and they are using it as a spring board to harrash and abuse posters and you have logs well then turn them over to the admins to deal with.

I've done this in the past. And fair is fair I'm extremely grateful to the administrator team and one administrator in particular for the quick and decisive action taken. I'd be extremely slow to do it again though due to recent revelations.

seamus

Boston wrote: »

We are all well aware that this place isn't a demoncracy. It is a dictatorship, comeplete with secret police, inquistions and wire taps. But this place was never meant to be run withe a deaf ear to the grass roots contributors.

Inquisitions and wire taps? Paranoid much? You're also forgetting that the vast majority of the people you're accusing of ignoring the "grass roots", are in fact "grass roots" themselves.

All executive branches of the boards.ie ruling class are filled by the same people in largely the same role, only scope differs.

Now you're getting into Joe Higgins territory. "Ruling class"? Have you any idea how ridiculous and melodramatic that sounds?
The moderators and the admins know eachother *because* they are moderators and admins. It's not the other way around. There's no closed higher order here constantly patting eachother on the back and ignoring the "proletariat".

Wheres the harm in letting 10,000 people have say? It is a discussion forum after all. You don't have to follow what anyone says, the site is still a dictatorship and better off for it. But allowing people to say "Actually that new front page is ****e" before you go live with it, isn't a bad idea.

Agreed. See the thread on the new menu and you'll see the value of this in action. But at the same time, you can't go to the userbase before you make every change.

Its proven disaterous in the hands of il duce.

That's your opinion. Have you seen the growth figures? As a number of others have pointed out, it's the growth that's changed this site more than anything else, not the action or inaction of any group or individual. Any issues in management arise from attempting to build a stable framework operated by a number of individuals to replace what was previously a Vishnu scenario. There's no direct phase-in or upgrade path. It takes time, it ruffles feathers and it effects change in a much less subtle way.

Is this me? Do you feel this is me? I see no winning in this.

Nope, wasn't referring to you. Just illustrating how difficult it is to separate actual constructive, concerned feedback, from foghorns. The existence of long feedback threads indicates nothing except that people like to talk.

My other little project was to take a random "good" user and through manipulating cliques on the moderators forum, IRC channels and other venues get him sitebanned. The first step would have been to add him to my friends list, a kiss of death if ever there was one. I decide I wasn't that much of a bastard.

I'd love for you to provide me with a post where I declared myself champion of the community or claimed to speak for anyone put myself.

I've decided to separate these two sections deliberately. On one hand you claim to have the power to influence and "manipulate" the administrators and guess what they're doing, and in the next breath you're telling me that you don't think you have any particular influence in the community.
When I say "champion of the community" I mean someone who believes that they have the power to influence the community. Although I meant it in the positive light, i.e. you feel the need to use to this power that you believe you have, to improve the community.

Please do make the arguement seamus. I don't think its an easy one.

It's perfectly easy. If the admins were paid, I'd agree with you. But they're not. So if they're not doing it with the community's interests at heart, why else would they put up with it? It's work, it's thankless work, and don't even bother pulling the "power trip" card.
Admins are users, just like everyone else. They participate in the community, they get involved in discussions and they have fun. So what other part of the "boards.ie experience" are they so critically missing that they are incapable of representing the users' best interests?

And...I intend to come back and comment on other parts of this thread once I've read them as there does appear to be good stuff in it.

Nevyn

Boston wrote: »

Just because you're not the type of moderator to victimise and bully other users doesn't mean other moderators have the same sense of right and wrong.

I think the majority do and I have seen admins be swift to kick into touch those who do try an abuse the system.

Boston wrote: »

True. And maybe it was selfish of me not to care about them until they started to affect me.

I haven't had that luxury for the last 4 years.

Boston wrote: »

I've done this in the past. And fair is fair I'm extremely grateful to the administrator team and one administrator in particular for the quick and decisive action taken. I'd be extremely slow to do it again though due to recent revelations.

I have "snitched" on those who were abusing the site and the knives came out it's one of the reasons I am ultrakickbaned at ip level from certain channels on irc and you know what I'd do it again in a heart beat despite the personal hassle and abuse that followed and the disruption to forums I mod
and the witchhunting in this forum and the same being done to people simply on the bases they are close to me.

You not in a place that other's have not been before you, just you and I are not people to be quiet about it.

If the new direction for boards mean that such abuses are not allowed to the extent people are demodded/site banned ( even repeatedly so ) then that is fine by me.

I can understand seeing that type of toxicity happening and seeing it reflected in people's actions on the site would cause anyone to be disillusioned but it can't be dealt with if it's not brought to the notice of those who can and will do something about it.

Honestly don't let that rabble ruin boards for you.

Boston

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after you. I'd be less paranoid if the management stopped making statements about their willingness to search my private messages. Ruling class was a turn of phrase, lets not get hung up on it. It simply refers to all those seen as better then the average user.

seamus wrote: »

Agreed. See the thread on the new menu and you'll see the value of this in action. But at the same time, you can't go to the userbase before you make every change.
That's your opinion. Have you seen the growth figures? As a number of others have pointed out, it's the growth that's changed this site more than anything else, not the action or inaction of any group or individual. Any issues in management arise from attempting to build a stable framework operated by a number of individuals to replace what was previously a Vishnu scenario. There's no direct phase-in or upgrade path. It takes time, it ruffles feathers and it effects change in a much less subtle way.

It seems that anything which maybe contentious is never shown to the users before it's implemented. Rather they do it and then ask questions. If you can have a debate after the fact, you can have one before it. I find all the excuses offered exceedingly weak.

seamus wrote: »

Nope, wasn't referring to you. Just illustrating how difficult it is to separate actual constructive, concerned feedback, from foghorns. The existence of long feedback threads indicates nothing except that people like to talk.

Extremely Jaded there seamus.

seamus wrote: »

I've decided to separate these two sections deliberately. On one hand you claim to have the power to influence and "manipulate" the administrators and guess what they're doing, and in the next breath you're telling me that you don't think you have any particular influence in the community.

Wrong on both counts. The fact that I have a brain in my head and can articulate a coherent argument in support of a given position is reason enough to believe I have more influence then the average boards sheep. I never said manipulate the administrators, I said the system. I don't think there was anything particularly special about being able to do that. Case in point. I watched a group of user discuss a plan to report one of my posts. A seemingly innocent outsider reported a post claiming he found it offensive. The idea was that moderators associated with this clique would then post on the moderators forum in support of reprimand. Once it emerged that the person reporting the post was in fact an associate of a recently banned user, the scheme fell apart. But it demonstrated to me how easy it would be to set up a user - any user - for a fall on this site. I decide I had a just that bit more class then those I was up against and abandoned that path. That said if I ever encountered a member of management who believe it couldn't happen, I do it just to prove how wrong they were.

seamus wrote: »

When I say "champion of the community" I mean someone who believes that they have the power to influence the community. Although I meant it in the positive light, i.e. you feel the need to use to this power that you believe you have, to improve the community.

Titles like names are important, they have power. I'm uneasy with the idea of being anyones champion as it places responsibilities upon me to live up to something I'm probably not.

seamus wrote: »

It's perfectly easy. If the admins were paid, I'd agree with you. But they're not. So if they're not doing it with the community's interests at heart, why else would they put up with it? It's work, it's thankless work, and don't even bother pulling the "power trip" card.
Admins are users, just like everyone else. They participate in the community, they get involved in discussions and they have fun. So what other part of the "boards.ie experience" are they so critically missing that they are incapable of representing the users' best interests?

Steady state. When asked "why are you what you are" people in general inevitably reply, "because thats what I've always been". Some of the administrators boards persona's entirely revolve around being an administrator. I don't think il duce for example could cope with using boards if he wasn't "the man". I recon he'd leave.

Nevyn

Boston wrote: »

Wrong on both counts. The fact that I have a brain in my head and can articulate a coherent argument in support of a given position is reason enough to believe I have more influence then the average boards sheep. I never said manipulate the administrators, I said the system. I don't think there was anything particularly special about being able to do that.

I do think that boards needs smart passionate people who care about it and those that do are interested in where it's going and what's the next development. I've don't want to see that change. I how ever do not like what happens when a person becomes disillusioned the passion is still there and fire but they can start to burn things like bridges if they are not careful.

If people are feeling disenfranchised then it has to be addressed.

Boston wrote: »

Case in point. I watched a group of user discuss a plan to report one of my posts. A seemingly innocent outsider reported a post claiming he found it offensive. The idea was that moderators associated with this clique would then post on the moderators forum in support of reprimand. Once it emerged that the person reporting the post was in fact an associate of a recently banned user, the scheme fell apart.

And I have see people chime in cos they find a poster to be an intolerable arsehole in their experience on boards and I have seen others stand up for them and say in my experience they are not.

With the site getting bigger and bigger we are getting Jekel and Hyde posters, they are great in some forums/Cats and trollmonsters in others.
( Ropey that's another gathering card right there )

Thankfully we do have the infraction system so if they go abusing the site rules in enough forums it can be seen and the pattern figured out, poster X grand in Sports, pain in the hole in Soc, I can see a time where we have people catbanned from certain parts tbh if they can't restrain themselves.

Can't expect everyone to agree and again if you can prove that sort of abuse of the system is happening get the info into the hands of the admins and get them to sort it out rather then fire bombing the site.

Boston wrote: »

But it demonstrated to me how easy it would be to set up a user - any user - for a fall on this site. I decide I had a just that bit more class then those I was up against and abandoned that path. That said if I ever encountered a member of management who believe it couldn't happen, I do it just to prove how wrong they were.

Oh I know it can happen, seen it in a few online communities, I've seen it in real life, it's the same as real life school yard bullying. I don't have any time for it and will deal with people based on how they deal with me.
If someone is mates with an arsehole, fair enough but I am not going to treat them like they are an arsehole unless they behave like one.

I've had people who I considered friends that I have meet through boards and had in my home on next I meet them be cold, distant and snide and I knew well it was due to things being said by certain people. But hey if they don't have the brains to make their own decisions, the back bone to stand up to their mates and the balls to talk to me about then it's their loss in so many ways and not mine.

Again if you think that there is a toxic clique trying to skew the system that is in place to abuse people then get the info to the admins and let them kick arse and clean house.

Boston wrote: »

Steady state. When asked "why are you what you are" they inevitably reply, "because thats what I've always been". Some of the administrators boards persona's entirely revolve around being an administrator.

I hope not cos that's not a good thing at all, nothing worse then being on the committee for the sake of being on the committee.

Boston wrote: »

I don't think il duce for example could cop with using boards if he wasn't "the man". I recon he'd leave.

Who? oh right DeVore.

That has to be the funniest thing thing I have ever seen you post on boards, seriously and it's funny due to how wrong it it. I would bet easily that at least 60% of posters have no idea that he is a founder admin or that he is the DeVore of the site or that the name DeVore once struck terror into the hearts of trolls and muppets.

I've seen it, in a few forums, the site is just that big now, really it started with the pic of the golden spider aware on his head about two years ago and people going who the hell is that.

nah your wrong there.

seamus

Boston wrote: »

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after you. I'd be less paranoid if the management stopped making statements about their willingness to search my private messages.

Let's be fair. Links?

Ruling class was a turn of phrase, lets not get hung up on it. It simply refers to all those seen as better then the average user.

Then it's not a turn of phrase, it has a literal connotation. "Better" is subjective and it depends on how one perceives themselves. It's not fair to say that the system considers anyone "better" than anyone else. Even using the term "class" implies the mindset that you're in here.

I seems that anything which maybe contentious is never shown to the users before it's implemented. Rather they do it and then ask questions.

Light/heat tradeoff. Again, some things, contentious or not, do not require to be "shown" to anyone. There's stuff which requires user feedback and there's stuff which doesn't. Nobody says, "People won't like this, let's not ask them".

Extremely Jaded there seamus.

Then you missed my point. For a long time, people have been pointing to activity in feedback as an indication that *something* is wrong. I would disagree. "You can please some of the people...." and so forth. I can't remember a single feedback thread about an *actual* problem, that wasn't addressed. I could be wrong. I haven't read everything in Feedback.

...But it demonstrated to me how easy it would be to set up a user - any user - for a fall on this site.

That you would come to that conclusion demonstrates that you don't really understand how it all fits together. The moderators nor the admins (believe it or not) do not decide who is "popular" and who will end up "taking a fall", as you put it. If any user does believe that they're being unfairly railed against, any such conspiracies are (and have been) easily exposed.

Some of the administrators boards persona's entirely revolve around being an administrator. I don't think il duce for example could cop with using boards if he wasn't "the man". I recon he'd leave.

I don't think you're as good at reading people as you think you are.

DeVore

Boston wrote:

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after you. I'd be less paranoid if the management stopped making statements about their willingness to search my private messages. Ruling class was a turn of phrase, lets not get hung up on it. It simply refers to all those seen as better then the average user.

I'm sorry Boston but you have said this on several occasions now. In fact, you have directly accused me of it (along with several other paranoid delusions).

Let me be clear.

That is a baseless lie.

No one has searched your PMs. I would issue a written warning at the very least if someone did so without my knowledge and I most certainly would not instruct anyone to do so unless I was in receipt of a court order. (For clarity, you are not the subject of a court order, before you go off and invent something about that).

For several weeks I've been trying to devise a framework around the mods, admins and users that would allow for more self-checking and less "DeVore", so this thread is useful but seriously, when you start in with:

Boston wrote:

We are all well aware that this place isn't a demoncracy. It is a dictatorship, comeplete with secret police, inquistions and wire taps. But this place was never meant to be run withe a deaf ear to the grass roots contributors.

and when you abuse me personally in PM.... thats when I start not listening to you.

But I've had it Boston, if you continue to go around telling people lies about me, I'm not going to tolerate it.

DeV.

Boston

DeVore wrote: »

I'm sorry Boston but you have said this on several occasions now. In fact, you have directly accused me of it (along with several other paranoid delusions).

Let me be clear.

That is a baseless lie.

No one has searched your PMs. I would issue a written warning at the very least if someone did so without my knowledge and I most certainly would not instruct anyone to do so unless I was in receipt of a court order. (For clarity, you are not the subject of a court order, before you go off and invent something about that).

For several weeks I've been trying to devise a framework around the mods, admins and users that would allow for more self-checking and less "DeVore", so this thread is useful but seriously, when you start in with:



and when you abuse me personally in PM.... thats when I start not listening to you.

But I've had it Boston, if you continue to go around telling people lies about me, I'm not going to tolerate it.

DeV.

Just a quick reply to this.

Give me access to the moderator forum and the ability to see deleted post and I will know the truth of it. On the last thread relating to me on that forum a moderator suggested that the management search my private message. The response was that it was an option you guys were considering, that it would have to be ross or conor and that it was difficult.

You know exactly the topic I'm referring to, you replied several times to it in relation to my lack of worth, yet you pretend otherwise. what the ****. Someone says "Hey you should search that guys private messages" the response should be "No way would we ever do that without a court order." It should not be "It's an option". You prove to me I have things arseways and I'll apologise, I'll even fall on my sword and depart from boards for the misscalulation. I've said all I'm going to say on this issue. There's a pm function.

Anyway, this nonsense is off-topic. I'll ask you again not to mess up the thread

Nevyn

Hang on you are giving out about mods abusing the trust put in them by disclosing thread from the mods forum in irc and that you think that is disgraceful but you are willing to turn around and say that someone has been feeding you info from that same forum and not shop them cos it suits you.

I find that galling, hypercritcal and dishonourable and I would apply the same terms to the action of anyone who'd breach the trust placed in them as mods.

I don't see how you expect anyone do deal with you honourably and honestly when your not doing the same.

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

Hang on you are giving out about mods abusing the trust put in them by disclosing thread from the mods forum in irc and that you think that is disgraceful but you are willing to turn around and say that someone has been feeding you info from that same forum and not shop them cos it suits you.

I find that galling, hypercritcal and dishonourable and I would apply the same terms to the action of anyone who'd breach the trust placed in them as mods.

I don't see how you expect anyone do deal with you honourably and honestly when your not doing the same.

+ 1000. I have to say Boston, I agreed with many of your points and concerns, but that PS post I made comes back again.

As I see it you seem to know a helluva lot about what's going on in private forums. You appear to know what's what in the mod forum, even down to specific threads and the wording of posts. You even claim to know what's going on in the admin forum. IMHO while boston is clearly an intelligent chap his accuracy about this stuff is high enough to be on ripleys if he's running on pure conjecture.

So if someone is enabling this is out there, then do the decent thing and step down, you're a waste of space, or stupid. One or the other

You also lost me on the il Duce comments re DeVore I have to say. In my time here he has been one of the most consistent posters I've read on many subjects including his role as admin. I didnt know he was who he was for a long time. I've honestly never seen him act anything but fair and straight with people. I've seen him lose the rag at times from frustration, but I've also seen him take a breath and come at it from a different angle and indeed apologise for it. Frankly, I trust basic manners over anything, especially emotion and he has more than basic manners. Also frankly if he had buggered off in the last year this place would have gone to crap more than once and you would be bitching about far more IMHO.

TBH I think the place has just gotten too big for you and find it hard to reconcile that change with what you thought boards was, is or could be. Things change. Things grow or die. It's the nature of things.

Nerin

Thaedydal wrote: »

I don't see how you expect anyone do deal with you honourably and honestly when your not doing the same.

+1

ive been reading this thread since this morning, and wanted to post (but mobile boards is glitchy on my phone when posting for some reason ) a thank you for such an interesting read and some good points.
But, seeing it descend into nonsense has pissed me off.

i too share certain similar feelings of users/mods that have left lately.
theres something wrong here but i cannot put my finger on it.
Its not the admins fault. i still find DeV interesting (in a kevin smith,"i dont agree with his stance but my god i cant stop listening to him talk" kinda way) and i still trust most of the admins.
Yes, most.
There are some admins that simply annoy me. i annoy some (or all >_>) admins. thats human nature. there are alot of mods that just plain piss me off.
there are some that i simply dont nderstand. Like why are they mods, why have the admins kept them as mods etc.

there are users that i'll admit, like mods, i simply hate. hates a strong word, but in online "this is all ones and zeros" terms of life, i hate them.

i do know that boards can be the most beautiful and fun and interesting site on the net when you are in a certain mood or mindset.
It can also be a bleak dreadful place in another.
and then again, it can be something else all together when you dont understand it.

i dont know if its the more mainstream element or the comercial side thats making me feel less interested or less inclined to post (but i still lurk,always watching).
i hope it isnt. i'd feel dumb if that was what was itching the back of my brain.

i guess what im rambling is, ive taken giant leaps back from being super involved and wanting to do ten billion things for boards.ie lately.
Ive dropped most of the forums i modded (apart from the Noc, probably due to daddy issues >_>)
that change isnt what id call good, for the site. if we had ten Ruus(only mentioned because of his godlike powers of doing so much), and nine of them walked at once, it'd be extremely noticeable (**** would stop getting done).
people have been (or seem, seem!!!! i know someones gonna throw some facts and stats at me ) trickling away from the site a bit lately, and maybe we need to figure out why, for the good of the site...

what a ramble. im sorry, ill go lurk some more and break my own site :P

edit-woah, it took me like 6 minutes to spout that crap and wibbs has solved the whole thing :P

Rev. BlueJeans

Wibbs wrote: »

You also lost me on the il Duce comments re DeVore I have to say. In my time here he has been one of the most consistent posters I've read on many subjects including his role as admin. I didnt know he was who he was for a long time. I've honestly never seen him act anything but fair and straight with people. I've seen him lose the rag at times from frustration, but I've also seen him take a breath and come at it from a different angle and indeed apologise for it. Frankly, I trust basic manners over anything, especially emotion and he has more than basic manners. Also frankly if he had buggered off in the last year this place would have gone to crap more than once and you would be bitching about far more IMHO.

I have to quote this for emphasis. I've never known DeV act out of any motive but the progression of boards, or act in anything but a fair and impartial manner.

Earthhorse

Doctor DooM wrote: »

If someone came up to me and said "Hi, I'm biased towards the users against the mods" I would instantly be taking every word they say with a pinch of salt. I'd be thinking "how do I get rid of this guy" as opposed to "let's sort this out".

I am simply admitting the bias. It needn't be a strong one. In a 50/50 scenario the user rep will side with the user. They are advocates for them. There is bias in everyone and in all systems. It's better to admit this than pretend it isn't so.

If however he came up to me and said "Look DooM, you were a bit harsh there, lets have a talk about this" and he wasn't doing it every 5 minutes to me I'd know I should listen.

In practice, that is what they will do. They won't be there to hound mods or berate them over trivial decisions.

Site wide access to mupchecks and deleted posts is something the mods don't have. I am not sure the admins would be comfy divesting that much POWAH to any non adminny people.

Like I say, what I've outlined is just a sketch. If there are concerns over divestment of certain access rights then they needn't be granted. But granting temporary equivalency to mods in the relevant forum hardly seems inconsistent with current practice.

(And yes people, mupchecking in a real world sense is alot more power than banning et al.)

I have no idea what this means.

seamus wrote: »

Nope, wasn't referring to you. Just illustrating how difficult it is to separate actual constructive, concerned feedback, from foghorns.

It shouldn't matter. If someone makes a suggestion that would benefit all users based on their own private gain then it's still a good suggestion for the community. Their motivation in suggesting it is irrelevant. Any idea should be allowed stand or fall based on it's merit; based on it's likely benefit and cost to the community. I have no idea how you would divine anyone's motivation in any event.

The existence of long feedback threads indicates nothing except that people like to talk.

So does the existence of boards.

Admins are users, just like everyone else. They participate in the community, they get involved in discussions and they have fun. So what other part of the "boards.ie experience" are they so critically missing that they are incapable of representing the users' best interests?

Although you've addressed this to Boston it overlaps with a lot of my argument. I disagree that admins are users, "just like everyone else". They have an entirely different experience of boards than plain, vanilla users and I've outlined the reasons I believe that in my third post on this thread. And one of the things they are so critically missing is the experience of being a plain, vanilla user outside the loop of, well, pretty much everything.

Nerin wrote: »

But, seeing it descend into nonsense has pissed me off.

I agree, though I'm not actually pissed off. It would be nice if we could pull it back into shape.

there are users that i'll admit, like mods, i simply hate. hates a strong word, but in online "this is all ones and zeros" terms of life, i hate them.

That level of candidacy is admirable and something which is all too lacking on boards for my money.

oscarBravo

Earthhorse wrote: »

I disagree that admins are users, "just like everyone else".

And user reps won't be users just like everyone else, any more than David Begg is a worker just like everyone else.

Wibbs

Earthhorse wrote: »

I am simply admitting the bias. It needn't be a strong one. In a 50/50 scenario the user rep will side with the user. They are advocates for them. There is bias in everyone and in all systems. It's better to admit this than pretend it isn't so.

True.

I have no idea what this means.

Ditto actually. I would not have a problem with a user rep chap or chappess having access to muppetcheck. Plus I can't see how it would be hard to implement sitewide. I can muppetcheck any username, regardless whether they're in my forum or not(like most mod thingies I found that out by mistake:)). Unless muppetcheck is tied to mod access or something. Even so a user rep with the broad support of the users and having full mod access wouldn't trouble me for a second TBH. Just ask them not to ban or infract people. That'll work too. As a mod I can infract people in forums other than my own. Something to do with a glitch/feature in vBulletin. Very rarely happens that mods make that mistake.

It shouldn't matter. If someone makes a suggestion that would benefit all users based on their own private gain then it's still a good suggestion for the community. Their motivation in suggesting it is irrelevant. Any idea should be allowed stand or fall based on it's merit; based on it's likely benefit and cost to the community. I have no idea how you would divine anyone's motivation in any event.

+1

So does the existence of boards.

yep

And one of the things they are so critically missing is the experience of being a plain, vanilla user outside the loop of, well, pretty much everything.

Agreed, though I have to say that doesn't include many of the admins. Some are very user orientated as well.... users. I agree though others are not.

That level of candidacy is admirable and something which is all too lacking on boards for my money.

Well I don't hate anyone, user mod or admin. People basically. Too much energy involved in hate. I'm too damned lay for it. Don't respect, trust particularly or like? User mod or admin? Yep, though again the three feelings don't always concur. Some users/mods/admins are a pain in the arse for me to deal with and mostly useless, but I have to say there's not that many considering. At all. The other things is some may be utter gobshítes in one arena and bloody brilliant in others. Many have surprised me as much as I've surprised myself in how nice I can be and how much of an arsehole I can be.

Earthhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

And user reps won't be users just like everyone else

Nope, I never contended that they would be.

any more than David Begg is a worker just like everyone else.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make there.

Wibbs

oscarBravo wrote: »

And user reps won't be users just like everyone else, any more than David Begg is a worker just like everyone else.

with respect, silly evasive argument TBH and linear black and white thinking to boot. They would be a lot more like everyone else. Certainly more than admins or mods. Good check and balance for the numpties too. On all sides.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Earthhorse wrote: »

I have no idea what this means.

Earthhorse wrote: »

I have no idea what point you are trying to make there.

You sure don't have a lot of ideas for a man with so many ideas.

Earthhorse

Santana Uptight Semiconductor wrote: »

You sure don't have a lot of ideas for a man with so many ideas.

Thanks.

I learnt a long time ago that it's far more important to admit you don't know what point someone is trying to make than to keep schtum in the hopes of saving face; if it's pertinent they'll clarify it, if not, they won't.

Earthhorse

Wibbs wrote: »

They would be a lot more like everyone else. Certainly more than admins or mods. Good check and balance for the numpties too. On all sides.

That's it exactly.