I promised a thread on the future of Boards...

DeVore

which makes me want to not make the same mistakes they did...


DeV.

Steve

On the subject of sheep:

There's a passage I got memorized:
Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.

And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

I been sayin' that stuff for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass.

I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a user 'fore you popped a ban on his ass.

But I saw some stuff this mornin' made me think twice. Now I'm thinkin', it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. banhammer here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or is could by you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that.

But that shít ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin'. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd.

*above post may not be true

Wibbs

I'm still thinking of the wool market TBH. I'm tryin reeeaall hard to be the shearer, who brings the wool to market. Is that just me?:D

Esel

At the end of the day, that's what Boards is - wool. Well, a conglomeration of organised threads, anyway.

johnnyskeleton

DeVore wrote: »

This question was raised by asking "what if Tom gets run over by a train".

We rush his mangled, but still alive body to the secret boards.ie headquarters and use advanced technology to keep him alive. Unfortunately though, as the boards advanced technology is computer related rather than medical, we have to fuse him with the boards.ie server where he will form part of a new, living boards.ie.

But then, a few years later, some bureaucrat from the government decides to give him access to the military computer system, and that's when it all starts to go horribly wrong.

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote: »

Boards awards in days gone by were fun and games, but wholly infeasible at this point. Biggest muppet? Hottest poster? Great fun, but how in God's name do you do that again without getting into trouble and getting names from a fair spread of the community?

The biggest muppet type boards award really annoys me, particularly last year when a poster who ordinarily made quite sensible and interesting comments in some of the SOC fora also held some unorthodox views in Soccer/AH etc. So there was a poster who as far as I could see only made clever and well reasoned posts but inspired the ire of the larger, more popular fora.

It struck me at the time that the people who thought the poster was "a muppet" had probably never darkened the doors of the SOC fora.

Wibbs wrote:

Cross fertilisation is a good bet for any community too.

I'd agree, particularly in the context of what I see as a growing trend towards social fora rather than topical fora. A lot of new fora are set up along the lines of "likeminded people who like history politics and literature" or the like, whereby people are invited to post on any topic they want in a fora where everyone is defined by a perceived social grouping (and, it seems to me, as the fora progress that perceived social grouping solidifies into "regular posters in this forum").

The problems I have with this are that it deprives the topical fora (in the above example, History & Heritage, Politics and Literature) of topics which might be of interest to posters there; it makes it harder to find topics that you are looking for if they are buried in one of several similar social group fora and, perhaps most importantly, it discourages posters from visiting other fora which they would ordinarily be interested in and thus, rather than having cross fertilisation across boards, you end up with several small, incubated fora.

johnnyskeleton

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Jesus Christ, let it go.

Thread on future of boards. I percieve this as a future trend to be avoided. You might see it as a future trend to be embraced. So call it what you will, it's on topic and IMO needs to be aired rather than simply ignored.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

The social forums have been around for over 2 years now, and I haven't seen the soc cat dissipate into nothing.

I can see a huge number of the newer moderators accross the board who got their first learning steps in the social forums. They tend to be spring boards and relaxation rooms.

If someone just wants a place to chill and chat then why should Boards not supply it.

No problem with that, but that's why we have after hours. The problem comes from having new social fora set up which aren't just for random chats, miscellaneous banter etc, but are for discussion of topics that already have fora. For example, you will get social fora where everyone has a similar political antipathy which, if posted about in the politics forum, could lead to an interesting debate about the issue but in a social forum the discussion wouldn't be a debate so much as an us v. them situation.

I'm not saying that social groups should not be allowed, but rather that the prolificacy of these fora which cover specific topics stymies the debate somewhat.

To give an example, I post on thepropertypin.com and I post in the politics/accom&property/irish economy fora on boards and while tpp is great for specialised debate, it suffers from having only a handful of differing opinions and a lack of popular appeal. Boards fora on the other hand tend to attract a variety of different opinions and the occasional randomer who strolls in from another part of the site with a mild curiosity on the issue.

It is my view, and if you disagree then fair enough, that increasing the number of such fora does detract from other fora as it makes posters want to stick to their little section of boards to the exclusion of the rest of it. I'm sure I'm guilty of that too in that I tend to eschew the majority of fora in the REC category, not because I am not interested in what is being discussed there, but because many of them seem to be very territorial and, dare I say it, unwelcoming to non-regular posters.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I absolutely reject that the social forums (we have to give them a proper name) run well are bad for the rest of boards. You've no idea how many people I've unknowingly run into from the Nocturnal forum accross boards, whom I was previously unaware we shared other interests.

You've no idea how many people who I have come across in several different fora and realised that we have similar opinions on some issues and have wildly differing opinions on other topics. I'd hate to see that go.

Doctor DooM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Thread on future of boards. I percieve this as a future trend to be avoided. You might see it as a future trend to be embraced. So call it what you will, it's on topic and IMO needs to be aired rather than simply ignored.

Sorry, but to my eyes you simply attack social forums whenever you get the chance. We'll agree to disagree because frankly you've never said anything which makes you appear to be genuine in my eyes on this matter.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No problem with that, but that's why we have after hours. The problem comes from having new social fora set up which aren't just for random chats, miscellaneous banter etc, but are for discussion of topics that already have fora. For example, you will get social fora where everyone has a similar political antipathy which, if posted about in the politics forum, could lead to an interesting debate about the issue but in a social forum the discussion wouldn't be a debate so much as an us v. them situation.

I'm not saying that social groups should not be allowed, but rather that the prolificacy of these fora which cover specific topics stymies the debate somewhat.

There are, to my knowledge, 6, maybe 7 social forums. This is not prolificacy.

AH is directionless in a sense. The "AH is for that" argument is tired and incorrect.

In specific?

Because the Gentlemans Club, for example, wouldn't exist with BGRH. The only forum that has anything to worry about the nocturnal forum is zombie hunters and possibly horror films.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

To give an example, I post on thepropertypin.com and I post in the politics/accom&property/irish economy fora on boards and while tpp is great for specialised debate, it suffers from having only a handful of differing opinions and a lack of popular appeal. Boards fora on the other hand tend to attract a variety of different opinions and the occasional randomer who strolls in from another part of the site with a mild curiosity on the issue.

It is my view, and if you disagree then fair enough, that increasing the number of such fora does detract from other fora as it makes posters want to stick to their little section of boards to the exclusion of the rest of it. I'm sure I'm guilty of that too in that I tend to eschew the majority of fora in the REC category, not because I am not interested in what is being discussed there, but because many of them seem to be very territorial and, dare I say it, unwelcoming to non-regular posters.

To my knowledge the last "social" forum approved in REC was C&H, and that was a while ago. You are also failing to address my point- I see NO evidence that soc forum users "stick to their little section of boards to the exclusion of the rest of it."

ANY forum can appear territorial and intimidating to someone from outside. Are you honestly saying that someone who posts in a Soc thread with something "amatuerish" or that has been said before isn't met with a level of hostility?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You've no idea how many people who I have come across in several different fora and realised that we have similar opinions on some issues and have wildly differing opinions on other topics. I'd hate to see that go.

How does that have anything to do with the fact that Social forum users cross post. It doesn't remove the fact they do.

johnnyskeleton

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Sorry, but to my eyes you simply attack social forums whenever you get the chance. We'll agree to disagree because frankly you've never said anything which makes you appear to be genuine in my eyes on this matter.

Just because you see things from a different point of view and can't/won't appreciate the other side of the coin doesn't mean that what I say is not genuine.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

There are, to my knowledge, 6, maybe 7 social forums. This is not prolificacy.

I said "I'm not saying that social groups should not be allowed, but rather that the prolificacy of these fora which cover specific topics stymies the debate somewhat.". Just to be clear, I am not saying that the current ones should be removed, but rather that increasing the numbers of these fora can change the dynamic of the site.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

AH is directionless in a sense. The "AH is for that" argument is tired and incorrect.

Exactly. That is the place for directionless chat. And it's fair enough to say that AH can sometimes seem to big and directionless but I don't think that having smaller social group fora is the remedy for that.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

In specific?

In specific - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055571980

In general I think it is one way that boards.ie could go. There's a certain element of speculation on my part (of necessity) but I think in a thread about the future of boards such is par for the course.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Because the Gentlemans Club, for example, wouldn't exist with BGRH. The only forum that has anything to worry about the nocturnal forum is zombie hunters and possibly horror films.

I don't know much about the nocturnal forum but from what I gather, any film, book or piece of music to do with night, darkness or gothic themes as I'm sure there are occasional debates on political issues etc. But at least there is a clear concept to a nocturnal forum as opposed to what could be brought in.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

To my knowledge the last "social" forum approved in REC was C&H, and that was a while ago. You are also failing to address my point- I see NO evidence that soc forum users "stick to their little section of boards to the exclusion of the rest of it."

First of all, you have quoted me out of context above. I did not say that I had evidence of that happening at present, but I rather expressed my opinion as to what I perceive to be likely to happen in the future. I said "It is my view, and if you disagree then fair enough, that increasing the number of such fora does detract from other fora as it makes posters want to stick to their little section of boards to the exclusion of the rest of it." The difference is that I was looking forward as to the future of boards, while you are referring to what is happening at present. I have no major problem with having a balance of social groups over topical discussions, but I do have a problem with what would happen as more and more social groups pop up leading to a decline in topical fora.

Aside from that minor gripe, if you accept that topics are posted in social fora which could have been posted in another forum (e.g. Night poetry) then it is evidence to my mind, that rather than post in the Literature forum and expose it to a general audience, a decision was made to post it in the Nocturnal forum.

Now, I suppose that it could be argued that it wouldn't have received as much of a response in Literature because of low traffic through there and while you might see that as a reason justifying the existence of more social fora, I see it as something which can take traffic away from other fora of more general interest. I guess there's an element of chicken and the egg to it, but it seems to me that there is an increasing trend for people to post their views on X topic in a forum where their friends will see it rather than in another forum where a more general audience (or at least an audience interested in that topic) will see it. That's the problem I have.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

ANY forum can appear territorial and intimidating to someone from outside. Are you honestly saying that someone who posts in a Soc thread with something "amatuerish" or that has been said before isn't met with a level of hostility?

Sometimes, but if you look at Accomodation and Property there are lots of threads from people wanting advice on whether to buy or not to buy. Occasionally there will be a few hostile posts, but generally I would say that posters are not afraid to post their questions there. The same might not necessarily be true of Politics for example but I would feel more comfortable posting something there than in a lot of the REC fora.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

How does that have anything to do with the fact that Social forum users cross post. It doesn't remove the fact they do.

1. You posted that social fora were good because of the people you have met through them and realised in other fora that you shared common interests.

2. I replied by saying that keeping boards focussed on topical fora was good because of the people I have met through posting in different fora and realising common interests AND realising common points of disagreement. Discussion is much more interesting (and educational) when you meet people you disagree with in my opinion.

3. You're question above, replying as it is to my reply, doesn't therefore make sense. I don't deny that users from social fora post in other fora, but I do make the point that the increase in number of social fora makes posters less inclined to post in other fora and again, it is better to have the site divided by topic, where people can express different opinions on that topic, rather than common interest, where people can discuss different topics in the light of that interest.

4. Therefore, while you like social fora because you have met other posters through them, I don't like them because from my point of view they take posters away from the topical discussions.

This may not be bad for boards at the moment, but I perceive it as something coming down the line which would change the nature of boards.

Nevyn

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No problem with that, but that's why we have after hours.

After hours and it's tone is clearly not to everyone taste, and the so called socail fora have thier own theme and tone and do not in my experience take from other forums, the mods of them all will move threads on to other forums
and are very aware that the forums are not to be a microcosm boards.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The problem comes from having new social fora set up which aren't just for random chats, miscellaneous banter etc, but are for discussion of topics that already have fora.

Actually that happens more in AH then anywhere else.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

For example, you will get social fora where everyone has a similar political antipathy which, if posted about in the politics forum, could lead to an interesting debate about the issue but in a social forum the discussion wouldn't be a debate so much as an us v. them situation.

I can not think of any of the so called called socail fora which have a clear bias to wards any political agenda if you have seen this please provide links cos I would very much like to see it.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm not saying that social groups should not be allowed, but rather that the prolificacy of these fora which cover specific topics stymies the debate somewhat.

Social groups are a totally different entity then the socail forums, BGRh/noc/tLL/GC.

I think tbh they just meant a lot of people could have a private forum for them and their mates more then anything else and tbh the content of them has to be harder to keep an eye on as they outside of the standard structure and remit of the site. Seems they were another feature added on with out much for thinking of their effect.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It is my view, and if you disagree then fair enough, that increasing the number of such fora does detract from other fora as it makes posters want to stick to their little section of boards to the exclusion of the rest of it.

That is part of the site growing and becoming instead of 1 community but many diverse communities, yes in some places it has to be watched by the mod so that regs in actives forums are encouraged to use the rest of the site rather then just wanting to try and talk politics in the photography forum ( for random example) but that is part of the fun too that you can be a reg in a lot of very different communities.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm sure I'm guilty of that too in that I tend to eschew the majority of fora in the REC category, not because I am not interested in what is being discussed there, but because many of them seem to be very territorial and, dare I say it, unwelcoming to non-regular posters.

That can be a problem, I've felt that myself, I read more forums then I post to and when I have posted it's almost like you have intruded and what they hell are you doing posting here and my answer is I am entitled to post in any forum on the whole site as long as it's on topic and abides by the rules.

But it can be the regular posters which give a forum atmosphere and create community which draws people in, so it's a balance which has to be struck.

Boards.ie allows for people to make connections, create community and come to care about each other, the communities they are invovled in and the site as a whole.

That's why so many people are so passionate about the place, it's what keeps people coming back, sure they may have surfed in looking for how to reprogram their dvd player to region free or how to best roast a chicken or
info about the pill or a movie or a gig but it is the community and being able to take part in the community which makes the difference.

When enough people start not caring and start not taking part then we will have a problem and the thing is that is such a nebulous thing. All that can be done is to help people who want to build community spirit and to make sure that it does not become excluding.

Lessons that the mods of the so called 'socail' forums have had to learn over the last two years, and that needs to be done on a site level which is going to be trick but there are things which can be done and tbh promoting the boards.ie brand is one way of tying together all the different communities.

I do think that site beers can and should come back but they would have run better then just expecting people to turn up same as any 'event' tbh.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You've no idea how many people who I have come across in several different fora and realised that we have similar opinions on some issues and have wildly differing opinions on other topics. I'd hate to see that go.

Actually if you go back 5 years or more you would find less of a difference in the spread of opinions due to the commonalities in the community on the site as people were mostly gamers and college students/graduates.

As the has grown we have seen a wider spread of opinions there are some people who I have a lot of time and respect for that I have polar opposite opinions to them on certain critical matters, but they are still a boardsie and the site has allowed me to gain an understanding of them and were they are coming from and why they hold those opinions and positions, while I may not agree with them I can still respect them.

I don't think we are going to see boards become homogenised, I think if it does then it will be the death of boards. This place thrives on discussion and debate and if we all think the same then there is not much point in discussions, what I am worried about is that we will loose the civil in-depth high standard of discussion over all.

But I guess that is as DeV puts it, if people want to come and take part that fine but it was to be by our rules, which tbh have never been clearer with the FAQ.

I do think that the sorting out of policies has been a good thing for the site,
I do think that there are some more needed, like one on bully/harassment
stating it won't be tolerated using any functions of the site and how and to whom to report such things, 'Don't be a dick' while it covers it is too general esp when a person is in that sort of position and doesn't know who to turn to,
esp as the site has such a broad age range and is often one of the first places for many Irish people when they start to enguage online.

Boards.ie the many forums for the many people.

johnnyskeleton

Overall I agree with your post Thaedydal, particularly that a balance needs to be struck, but there's a few things I should clarify:

Thaedydal wrote: »

I can not think of any of the so called called socail fora which have a clear bias to wards any political agenda if you have seen this please provide links cos I would very much like to see it.

I'm not saying that certain fora have political agendas, but to give the example of the Lisbon debate, many fora had their own thread on Lisbon. I think many mods did a good job redirecting questions etc to the European Union forum, but it just strikes me as a bad thing for the site that posters will go to the forum they feel most comfortable in and raise any topic they want there (within reason obviously) rather than go to a forum that deals with that topic even though they haven't posted there before.

Equally, I think a discussion on feminism in tLL might not necessarily attract the same amount of people who have dissenting views than it would in politics. Again, this isn't necessarily wrong in itself, but I simply observe that in narrowing the audience there is reduced scope for real debate.

Thaedydal wrote: »

That can be a problem, I've felt that myself, I read more forums then I post to and when I have posted it's almost like you have intruded and what they hell are you doing posting here and my answer is I am entitled to post in any forum on the whole site as long as it's on topic and abides by the rules.

And that is a good thing, which keeps the blood pumping in a lot of fora. However, it seems to me that not many people are willing to do this, preferring to post where more people will agree with them rather than where their arguments will be fully met. Fewer and fewer posters, it seems to me, are looking for a genuinely heated debate with someone who shares a polar opposite view.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Actually if you go back 5 years or more you would find less of a difference in the spread of opinions due to the commonalities in the community on the site as people were mostly gamers and college students/graduates.

I suppose the point I'm making is that as there is now a wider range of opinions from a wider range of posters, it would be a shame to hide them under a bushel so to speak. I also think it is harder to disagree with someone who you see as a fellow poster in X forum than it is to disagree with a randomer, especially when you know they are wrong.

Nevyn

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm not saying that certain fora have political agendas, but to give the example of the Lisbon debate, many fora had their own thread on Lisbon.

I didnt' see one in ah, or bgrh or Gc or the noc, there was a thread in tLL about the posters being target at women re the referndum by a certain group but that was it.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think many mods did a good job redirecting questions etc to the European Union forum, but it just strikes me as a bad thing for the site that posters will go to the forum they feel most comfortable in and raise any topic they want there (within reason obviously) rather than go to a forum that deals with that topic even though they haven't posted there before.

I would say that depends on the forum if the slant on the topic is covered by the remit of the forum then it has a place there if it wanders too much then it should be moved/directed to the more suited forum.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Equally, I think a discussion on feminism in tLL might not necessarily attract the same amount of people who have dissenting views than it would in politics.

ROFL

Dude have you read any of the threads in there on feminism?
There are very different and descenting views in there on that topic trust me.

But a discussion on feminism will have different posters and differnt slant and flavour if it is starting in tLL, AH, politics, humanities, philosophy, GC and that I think adds to the site rather then detracts from it.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Again, this isn't necessarily wrong in itself, but I simply observe that in narrowing the audience there is reduced scope for real debate.

I think you will get more debates with different flavours depending on the forum and that is a good thing imho, I do miss the type of debate which used to be had in humanities and I am glad to see a new mod working on restoring that forum.

I think humanities is the cross roads for those who do post elsewhere normally who will come out and the play with others there.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

And that is a good thing, which keeps the blood pumping in a lot of fora. However, it seems to me that not many people are willing to do this, preferring to post where more people will agree with them rather than where their arguments will be fully met. Fewer and fewer posters, it seems to me, are looking for a genuinely heated debate with someone who shares a polar opposite view.

I think that the type of heated debate has changed.
We have a lot more people who don't get attack the post not the poster and
we have people who take things more personally on the other side of that as well.

So it's not that people disagree but how they express that, there is a difference between dicussion and debate. One explores the points and difference and the other attacks them to see if they have merit for if they do they will still stand.

The type of exchanges on the site have to be more of a discussion type debate then an argumentative type debate in some places, it is certain a shift in communication dynamics which can catch people out as the nature of discussion in politics is very different to that in parenting.

While the non personal points scoring argument style debate may have been the prevailant style on the site due to the type of community which started it, that had changed.

I do think that certain forums should always have that, politics humanities ect but there has to be scope for discussions which are not in that style too.

One example was around the last CC elections there was a thread started int he d15 forum on local candidates and there were people posting there about the local issues who would not post in the politics forum due to the nature of the cut and thrust of the forum.

The idea was for a different type of dicussion, did it take from the politics forum? I don't think it did, did it provide a different type of platform for a different style of discussion by those who are not well versed in politics but wanted to inform themselves and have a discussion, yes.

As long as there is a clear tie and slant to the discussion which falls under the remit of the forum and it's a different type discussion then that I see as being a good thing.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I suppose the point I'm making is that as there is now a wider range of opinions from a wider range of posters, it would be a shame to hide them under a bushel so to speak. I also think it is harder to disagree with someone who you see as a fellow poster in X forum than it is to disagree with a randomer, especially when you know they are wrong.

I think you are seeing the diversifying of the site as meaning it is harder to find the types of discussions you want.

I think they are there but they are no longer in one central place and the tone of them will differ due to where they are, which I think is a good thing as it makes the site more inclusive of more people.

johnnyskeleton

Thaedydal wrote: »

ROFL

Dude have you read any of the threads in there on feminism?

One or two, in fact I seem to recall one started by yourself which went along the lines of "I'm a feminist beauce I think women are great". Which is fine in one sense (i.e. women are great) but it does, would you not accept, gloss over the whole "all sex is rape" and similar arguments?

I'd happily argue the pros and cons of feminism (in fact, as I recall, I did have a debate about the meaning of feminism with a [if you'll forgive my expression] raving feminist in Humanities a while back) and it just wansn't the same as posting in tLL* so I think there is something lacking from those particular debates.

*As an aside, I think tLL is far more deserving of its own forum than, shall we say, certain other fora.

Thaedydal wrote: »

But a discussion on feminism will have different posters and differnt slant and flavour if it is starting in tLL, AH, politics, humanities, philosophy, GC and that I think adds to the site rather then detracts from it.

I think you'd be the first to admit that when a debate like that goes stale it's because, while there are a lot of posters who would like to post on that topic, there is too much inertia towards a particular view in certain fora.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think you will get more debates with different flavours depending on the forum and that is a good thing imho, I do miss the type of debate which used to be had in humanities and I am glad to see a new mod working on restoring that forum.

Come on donegalfella, although I don't think he (or she) is going to restore banter to that forum.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think humanities is the cross roads for those who do post elsewhere normally who will come out and the play with others there.

Post your controversial views there then, I'll respond mutatis mandatis.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think that the type of heated debate has changed.
We have a lot more people who don't get attack the post not the poster and
we have people who take things more personally on the other side of that as well.

No one wants to encourage the ad hominem type of arguments, but my view is that we simply don't have the same places for people with different views to argue. Clearly, myself and yourself disagree on a number of points but I don't think I've ever undly attacked your views (correct me if I'm wrong). Equally, you've never unfairly critised my views. But yet, outside of the occasional feeback thread, we don't ever cross swords so to speak. I think that's a great shame and I think it's to the detriment of boards.ie.

Thaedydal wrote: »

So it's not that people disagree but how they express that, there is a difference between dicussion and debate. One explores the points and difference and the other attacks them to see if they have merit for if they do they will still stand.

I won't deny that a lot of people don't like the way I post, but equally they can't say that I did something wrong. That's what I do, like it or not. I fight unrepentantly for what I perceive to be right. So, while I appreciate that you argue certain points, if I disagree I will pick you up on it, and I wouldn't expect any less of yourself. It's a shame, therefore, that you will post in fora that I have no interest in, and vice versa.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I do think that certain forums should always have that, politics humanities ect but there has to be scope for discussions which are not in that style too.

I welcome a variety of different discussions, but I hate to see forums where only a certain type of discussion is tolerated. I accept that the SOC fora are as guilty of this as anyone else, but to be honest I've lost a lot of interest in boards.ie of late, because it seems to be a real territorial place. Not that I'm against mixing it up, but sometimes it seems kinda pointless.

Thaedydal wrote: »

The idea was for a different type of dicussion, did it take from the politics forum? I don't think it did, did it provide a different type of platform for a different style of discussion by those who are not well versed in politics but wanted to inform themselves and have a discussion, yes.

I suppose on one level there are too many fora and that is an issue, but on that point I think it's good that there are different slants on the same topic, but I think that if boards.ie goes down the road of pandering to these groups then it will die a death. Just my view of course.

Amhran Nua

Not sure if these ideas are too specific for this thread, but here's my two cents anyway... I don't think boards can be modelled on a government or a wiki, because it has essential characteristics that make it fundamentally different from either of those, anonymity, ease of access, etc. There are two models of ongoing forums like these: community moderated and directly moderated. Both systems have advantages, but the community moderated model is the most self sustaining. I'll try to explain a bit further.

A similar site to boards is politics.ie, where moderator interaction is very rare, and it runs on a reputation system. This has been fairly effective in bringing people to the site and engaging them in discussions, surprisingly without the place being overrun by trolls. Boards might have a wider catchment, but if you adjust the reputation system slightly, you can make posts with enough negative reputation invisible, unless someone specifically clicks on it. This works very well in huge sites like slashdot, which attract far more than their fair share of trolls.

Moderator interaction in this self regulating model is reduced considerably, in some cases entirely, which helps with the overall development of the site. In serious cases mods can step in, such as in the case of libelous comments.

Money. Aside from subscribers (and you could tier access in that area, with various benefits accumulating for either longer initial subscriptions or more expensive ones), advertising is the main source of income for most of these sites, so you need an advertising account manager (a professional sales rep on the road) to deal with that, you need your adverts to be contextual, put Galway adverts in the Galway forum, and you need to raise the profile of the ads.

Right now I have a google advert telling me about self catering. Thats no good for you, no good for google, and no good for the self caterers.

Away and beyond advertising, there are numerous areas where competitions, fundraisers, partnerships with other websites and affiliate programmes can generate income, but you need to be creative and imaginative to make that happen.

Legal issues. I'd reduce your exposure to legal threats by selecting a jurisdiction that offers the most protection, whether it be the US or Russia, and base the site and company there. Make the company independent of the site, and set it up such that in the case of the company going bankrupt due to legal judgements, the site itself is not affected. Tricky, but doable, and the internet allows you to shop around for the best places to do that.

Villain

Oh god no don't let Boards end up like Politics.ie, that place can be get really crazy at times

tbh

I seem to recall dev posting before and saying the location of the servers wasn't relevant. Something about electrons on the screen, or words to that effect.

Amhran Nua

Villain wrote: »

Oh god no don't let Boards end up like Politics.ie, that place can be get really crazy at times

Theres usually a good standard of discussion though. On community moderation, for example abuses could be prevented by say adding a script that says if (same three or more users) neg mod (same user) (two or more times in a row) -> remove mod priveleges from (same three or more users) for a month. Once its in place all it would need is fine tuning.

Nevyn

Rep was tried on the site and so was karma both failed due to the system being abused.

Amhran Nua

Thaedydal wrote: »

Rep was tried on the site and so was karma both failed due to the system being abused.

Was it tried in the absence of moderation and with the hiding of posts though? And as mentioned, abuses can be snagged by the software.

Another thing I'd recommend for the organisation as a whole is to get involved, get involved, get involved. Right now the entire community can be punished for the wrongdoing of one poster, leaving the site very exposed to anyone that badly wants to cause damage to it.

Inequitable legislation can be changed, has been changed, and will be changed in the future, and the existing situation is anything but equitable. Form contacts with other Irish forum and site owners to put pressure on the government to adjust the laws as they stand, cultivate media contact who will be favourable to covering this, and make clear the wider benefits of free expression and the removal of a chilling effect on the growth area of the 21st century for the Irish economy, the internet.

Nevyn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Another thing I'd recommend for the organisation as a whole is to get involved, get involved, get involved.

We have a way for posters to do that it is called the report posts function and posters reporting posts which break the forum and site rules is frankly invaluable to forums and the site as a whole.

Mods do their bit but mods can't reading ever single post in every thread in busy forums. We rely on and encourage posters to report posts.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Right now the entire community can be punished for the wrongdoing of one poster, leaving the site very exposed to anyone that badly wants to cause damage to it.

I have NEVER seen that happen in all my time on this site and I can't see it happening going forward and if it was to happen I would be someone who'd be vary vocal about how wrong it is and would be a right pain in the arse to the admins about it.

Amhran Nua

Thaedydal wrote: »

We have a way for posters to do that it is called the report posts function and posters reporting posts which break the forum and site rules is frankly invaluable to forums and the site as a whole.

Mods do their bit but mods can't reading ever single post in every thread in busy forums. We rely on and encourage posters to report posts.

Sorry, to clarify I mean politically, get involved in changing the actual laws of Ireland. Common carrier status should be extended to sites like boards, at least to an extent. Where its clear that neither the owners nor the wider community intended to damage the status of a person or a business, neither should be held responsible. If you go down the road of "making it possible" = "being held responsible", you could hold kitchen knife manufacturers responsible for injuries caused by same. A very strong case for legislative change could be built on that basis.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I have NEVER seen that happen in all my time on this site and I can't see it happening going forward and if it was to happen I would be someone who'd be vary vocal about how wrong it is and would be a right pain in the arse to the admins about it.

Again a reference to the real world as it were, I think there was a court case a while back?

Another quick word on advertising, setting goals is very important as well, if you get ten million page views a year, and you want €200,000 coming in, thats only two cents per page view. Higher traffic or more directed areas you could charge more per view than more diffuse forums. Theres a lot that could be done but a good sales strategy is the foundation of the money question.

Nevyn

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

One or two, in fact I seem to recall one started by yourself which went along the lines of "I'm a feminist beauce I think women are great". Which is fine in one sense (i.e. women are great) but it does, would you not accept, gloss over the whole "all sex is rape" and similar arguments?

Ah but you see I am not a feminist because women are great, or greater then men, I happen to think most men are great too and there are such things as sex positive feminists.

It seems you are making assumptions about certain forums and those who post there and so are missing out on good discussions and debates.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'd happily argue the pros and cons of feminism (in fact, as I recall, I did have a debate about the meaning of feminism with a [if you'll forgive my expression] raving feminist in Humanities a while back) and it just wansn't the same as posting in tLL* so I think there is something lacking from those particular debates.

There are different types of feminist philopshy and different people espouse them so you can't say all feminists are the same there are pro choice and pro life feminists to point out two very different sides of that idealogical stand point.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

*As an aside, I think tLL is far more deserving of its own forum than, shall we say, certain other fora.

TLL and the GC are very different from BGRH and the Noc.
(tLL should be in soc imho and hopefully it will get moved there)

Bgrh and the Noc are silly themed forums, they are fun they are not about serious discussion at all and posters are frequently encouraged to go explore other forums so much so there is a running gag off literally pointing a poster in the direction of a more appropiate forum like so
Politics

---

>

They are tbh the same in my mind as The Coocoo's Nest and I would have post count turned of for both of them just like the nest if I had my way.

tLL and GC I think are a wonderful step to discussing and exploring gendered issues in more safe spaces. There has been some wonderful threads in both
on health issues and other gender issues which make people stop and think or encourages people to share so that they know they are not alone.

They promote awareness, sharing and support of posters in away that humanities was never meant to do.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think you'd be the first to admit that when a debate like that goes stale it's because, while there are a lot of posters who would like to post on that topic, there is too much inertia towards a particular view in certain fora.

I haven't see that I have seen threads pretty much deadlocked with good points on both sides, but what I have seen in humanities is debates going stale because they have been done over and over and you get the same people lining up the same arguments.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Come on donegalfella, although I don't think he (or she) is going to restore banter to that forum.

I don't think that forum needs banter (esp not of the soccer forum type) has needed steering and it's standards being upheld, which I am hoping he will do well and with his own style.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Post your controversial views there then, I'll respond mutatis mandatis.

I stopped posting in humanities due to having already said my piece time and again on certain topics esp those considered controversial ( did that enough re abortion to be called a baby murder avocate ) and I think with a lot of the posters who are on the site a long time they have had those debates done over enough that they don't feel the need to do them again esp when the quality of debate in there was in decline, I am hoping that changes.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No one wants to encourage the ad hominem type of arguments, but my view is that we simply don't have the same places for people with different views to argue.

I think we have the place we always had I just think we need the cobwebs and tumble weeds cleared out and some good discussions started and what makes a forum active seem to be it being seen as active that a lively and active thread hits the front page or new posts search and that draws people in.

Again how the posters make the forum they post in and draw more people into the forum by adding content and being active.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Clearly, myself and yourself disagree on a number of points but I don't think I've ever undly attacked your views (correct me if I'm wrong). Equally, you've never unfairly critised my views. But yet, outside of the occasional feeback thread, we don't ever cross swords so to speak. I think that's a great shame and I think it's to the detriment of boards.ie.

Ha such flattery, there are those who would disagree with you and think that me posting more would be to the detriment of boards

But tell you what I will keep an eye on where you are posting over the next two weeks and if something interests me and I have time I will join in.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I won't deny that a lot of people don't like the way I post, but equally they can't say that I did something wrong. That's what I do, like it or not. I fight unrepentantly for what I perceive to be right. So, while I appreciate that you argue certain points, if I disagree I will pick you up on it, and I wouldn't expect any less of yourself. It's a shame, therefore, that you will post in fora that I have no interest in, and vice versa.

Again that is fine when the debate is non personal and rational in some cases with certain topics they are more suited to a less confrontational type discussion due to what is being shared on thread and the emotive natures of those topics.

We had some one try and used hard core debating skills in the parenting forum recently it didn't' go well.

There is a huge difference in saying "I would not indulge in the Santa fantasy with my children as I consider it lying to them and detrimental to the parent child relationship" and in saying "Parents who do Santa are liars".

One style is perfectly acceptable in parenting one is better suited to humanities.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I welcome a variety of different discussions, but I hate to see forums where only a certain type of discussion is tolerated.

I think that the discussions are always going to be shaped by the forum they are in and if you find that to be restrictive then again a different type discussion can be started in humanities, I've seen that happen from parentings, PI and tLL over the last few months.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I accept that the SOC fora are as guilty of this as anyone else, but to be honest I've lost a lot of interest in boards.ie of late, because it seems to be a real territorial place. Not that I'm against mixing it up, but sometimes it seems kinda pointless.

I think you get out of it what you put into it, I think that we have seen a shift in how posters are treated, with the influx of those who found the likes of bebo first they see the platform about interconnecting personally rather then it being about information and about dicussion and debate.

I joined board due to the discussions and debate, not to make friends or go to beers or take part in a online community, yes I have benefited greatly in my life due to those things but they were not the primary reason posters like you and I joined up.

We did so to have intresting, smart discussions about topics which we weren't able to indulge in the real world, or what ever reasons.

So there has been with some people a shift in focus and reason as to why they are signing up and I would hate for the site to be all fluff and no substance and I do think that needs to be addressed. Some chocolate icecream is nice now and then but the meat of the site had been good discussion and yes it has diversified in the type of dicussion across certain fora but there should be a certain place for the type of discussions which drew a lot of us here in the first place.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I suppose on one level there are too many fora and that is an issue, but on that point I think it's good that there are different slants on the same topic,

The site has certainly changed and gone are the days when you were going to see 40% or even 20% of the site reading a good debate in humanities or politics. It's just to big. Gone for the most part are the experiences which tied people together of all hearing about an event happening on the site and watching the thread unfold or reading it afterwards was at least 50% of the active users.

We do have people who stick to two or three forums and that is all that they use boards for and that makes them happy and that is for them their boards experience be it what ever topics which floats their boats.

This does mean that common shared experiences which once was the glue which held this place together is on the decline and something has to be done to top that up. This is were I think that the boards.ie brand can come into it's own if it's managed properly.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

but I think that if boards.ie goes down the road of pandering to these groups then it will die a death. Just my view of course.

What groups are being pandered to and how?

I know it can be frustrating seeing tumble weeds in humanities when the more
'chocolate icream' forums seem have a lot of posts and a lot more activity but I don't see how that is pandering, the posters which like that sort of thing are doing their own thing and tbh I don't think a lot of them would want a different experience of boards which you and I once knew and seem to miss.

All we can to is start and run with the type of debate and discussion we want to take part in. The site is our platform provided for us to use by the admins as long as we don't abuse it and abide by the rules.

We make the community, we make the forums live with our posts and being active in them, sure they provide the soil but we tend them and shape them and make them grow. Boards.ie is an organic living garden a each forum a flower bed, so plant what you want, make sure it is in the right place, tend it and it will grow.

You want better and more intresting debates, well make it happen, start a thread post in it, invite people you want to take part to do so via pm or put a link in your sig. Forums need to be tended and not just by the mods to make them a success and that is not for the admins to do or the mods.

Be the change you want to see on boards.

epic length post, take that wibbs :P

Rev. BlueJeans

Nice post, Thaedydal.

DeVore

Amhran Nua wrote: »

A similar site to boards is politics.ie, where moderator interaction is very rare, and it runs on a reputation system. This has been fairly effective in bringing people to the site and engaging them in discussions, surprisingly without the place being overrun by trolls. Boards might have a wider catchment, but if you adjust the reputation system slightly, you can make posts with enough negative reputation invisible, unless someone specifically clicks on it. This works very well in huge sites like slashdot, which attract far more than their fair share of trolls.

Sorry I have to be brief as I'm packing and preping for the Politics mods and I trip to Brussels. Ironic that the discussion of our progress into the new world is impinged on by our progress into the new world

Anyway, I'm not sure pointing at Politics.ie is the best idea, I find the discussion there polarised with the diametric poles snapping at each other while the middle ground people seem to have deserted it. I hate to say it but I suggested them for the journalists trip too and the response was "why, theres no one there whose view's we could influence or change". Which said it all tbh...
That arises (imho) because the hardliners are allowed to clash robustly, which seems like a good idea but when you consider it, it doesnt create a "safe" feeling for those who are not so set in stone about their opinion. You kinda feel like you have to armour up before going in there...


To address your point specifically, I do agree that a Post-Rep system has advantages over a Poster-Rep system, it would likely be gamed less in order to garner high (or low) rep since it wouldnt be reflected in the account, but it does also leave gaps and stutters in the discussion (particularly when someone makes a great response to a nasty post, the nasty post dissappears and it looks like the responder is talking to himself).

But its certainly something that has crossed my mind and isnt off the table.

Moderator interaction in this self regulating model is reduced considerably, in some cases entirely, which helps with the overall development of the site. In serious cases mods can step in, such as in the case of libelous comments.

Yep, I see where you are going with that. As I said, it has pros and cons (as you pointed out).

Money. Aside from subscribers (and you could tier access in that area, with various benefits accumulating for either longer initial subscriptions or more expensive ones), advertising is the main source of income for most of these sites, so you need an advertising account manager (a professional sales rep on the road) to deal with that, you need your adverts to be contextual, put Galway adverts in the Galway forum, and you need to raise the profile of the ads.

Personally I'm very opposed to Pay-To-Talk but we hope to provide so much "value" to the subscribers in the next 12 months that people will choose to subscribe, as they do now. We hope to give them more.

We already do the "relevant ads" thing. If you go into the Poker forum, you will pretty much solely see poker ads. We charge more for that too. So yeah, I agree with you but we are already ahead of you there.

Right now I have a google advert telling me about self catering. Thats no good for you, no good for google, and no good for the self caterers.

Away and beyond advertising, there are numerous areas where competitions, fundraisers, partnerships with other websites and affiliate programmes can generate income, but you need to be creative and imaginative to make that happen.

Yup, we think so too, but we'll do it in keeping with Boards way, ie: opt in/out for the members here. So far people seem to really like them and I think we have the balance pretty well at the moment.

Legal issues. I'd reduce your exposure to legal threats by selecting a jurisdiction that offers the most protection, whether it be the US or Russia, and base the site and company there. Make the company independent of the site, and set it up such that in the case of the company going bankrupt due to legal judgements, the site itself is not affected. Tricky, but doable, and the internet allows you to shop around for the best places to do that.

Where the servers are, is irrelevant. The offence occurs when the digital stream is converted into recognisable charaters on the screen.. ie: in the republic. Also the offence in some cases can be considered to have happened when the Submit button is pushed.
The one thing that doesnt seem to matter is where the servers are located.

The Betfair ruling gives us at least SOME protection from libel now. We arent responsible until its brought to our attention and then we have a "reasonable length of time" to respond and take action. This is good but not great.


DeV.

DublinWriter

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Legal issues. I'd reduce your exposure to legal threats by selecting a jurisdiction that offers the most protection, whether it be the US or Russia, and base the site and company there. Make the company independent of the site, and set it up such that in the case of the company going bankrupt due to legal judgements, the site itself is not affected. Tricky, but doable, and the internet allows you to shop around for the best places to do that.

Not doable at all I'm afraid, unless the boards of directors of Boards Ltd up-sticks and physically move to the States.

The legal buck will always stop with the legal trading entity/owner in their own jurisdiction - where the servers are physically is a secondary consideration.

AlmightyCushion

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Was it tried in the absence of moderation and with the hiding of posts though? And as mentioned, abuses can be snagged by the software.

The hiding of comments that get demoted can be a terrible idea. People on the opposing sides of debate just demote the other sides comments even if it was a well thought out and good post. The side that has the most users agreeing with it will "win" the debate because all the other sides posts are hidden.

Amhran Nua

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

The hiding of comments that get demoted can be a terrible idea. People on the opposing sides of debate just demote the other sides comments even if it was a well thought out and good post. The side that has the most users agreeing with it will "win" the debate because all the other sides posts are hidden.

Depends on how its scaled. If you make a minimum of say 5 demotions to make a comment invisible (and it could be seen at that, like being ignored, until specifically clicked) and combine that with a script to make sure the same three or four people aren't stalking someone around demoting them (which also means you can't keep demoting, as a group, someone arguing against you in a debate), it could work fairly well. It does work on sites like slashdot, at the end of the day. If someone replies to a hidden comment, its normally the case that they quote part of that comment, so it doesn't break the flow of the thread either. Another refinenement would be to give the users a number of daily points for this moderation based on the number of positive mods they have received.

There are lots of different ways something like that could be set up. Another example, you can't mod in a thread you have commented in.

AlmightyCushion

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Depends on how its scaled. If you make a minimum of say 5 demotions to make a comment invisible (and it could be seen at that, like being ignored, until specifically clicked) and combine that with a script to make sure the same three or four people aren't stalking someone around demoting them (which also means you can't keep demoting, as a group, someone arguing against you in a debate), it could work fairly well. It does work on sites like slashdot, at the end of the day. If someone replies to a hidden comment, its normally the case that they quote part of that comment, so it doesn't break the flow of the thread either. Another refinenement would be to give the users a number of daily points for this moderation based on the number of positive mods they have received.

The big problem is it will have to differ from forum to forum. 5 demotions could be ok on a relatively small forum but it would be too few on a bigger forum (like after hours for example).

Anywho, I've just never been a fan of demoting comments. When ever a site allows it I always either click the view button for every demoted comment or set the threshold to 0. I've just seen way too many instances where good posts have been demoted for reasons other than the quality of the post. A system like that is just too open to abuse.

It can make a big difference to things like spam though. I'd like to have a system here where users can flag a post as spam and after x amount of flags it's deleted or hidden or something. Although it could be abused.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

There are lots of different ways something like that could be set up. Another example, you can't mod in a thread you have commented in.

That brings up it's own issues though. What happens if I post a mod warning on thread, that means I can't mod a thread I just modded? What happens in a forum where there is only one mod or the other mods aren't about? A good mod should be able to keep their personal bias out of their moderation of a thread. I've banned people before who were on the same side of a debate as me, hell I even banned people for posts that while I agreed with the overall point they were trying to make, they made it in an abusive/trollish/dickheadish way.

Rev. BlueJeans

Most people will probably click a post hidden in that manner anyway, out of a sense of morbid or otherwise curiosity.

seamus

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Anywho, I've just never been a fan of demoting comments. When ever a site allows it I always either click the view button for every demoted comment or set the threshold to 0. I've just seen way too many instances where good posts have been demoted for reasons other than the quality of the post. A system like that is just too open to abuse.

And bloody hell, do Irish people like to abuse things just for the craic.

If you watch contentious debates such as those on AH or Politics, eventually you see the thread polarise into one side versus another.
As you go through it, you see the same people always thanking posts which are "for" their point of view, regardless of the logic or skill contained in the post. So logically if there was a "No Thanks" button (which is what you're effectively proposing), they will "demote" every single post which doesn't conform to their point of view, regardless of quality and then it becomes less about the debate and more about point-scoring.

You can also extrapolate this further - in most debates, you usually have one side who is more vociferous than the other, who seems to respond with more fervour (and sometimes hate). This is usually (not always) the side with the weaker argument - they use faith and passion to fill the gaps in their argument. So you can logically expect them to spend more time demoting the other side's posts than the reverse. And what you have is that often the side with the weaker argument "win" the debate because they simply care more about it. Which is a bit mad, because the validity of your argument has nothing to do with how much you care about it.

The promote/demote stuff is fine for factual formats or advice formats. But for discussion formats, I can't see it adding as much as it will take away.