Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
I promised a thread on the future of Boards...
Options
Comments
-
Well by mod there I meant give points to posts. How I've seen it set up before you can give or take points from posts, and if you then comment on the thread, whatever points you gave to posts in that thread vanish. Official moderator actions wouldn't fall under the scope of that.AlmightyCushion wrote: »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?
If there was a limited daily pool of "post points", say 3 to start out with, you couldn't give points and post in the same thread, and it was organised in such a way that consistently downmodding one poster would remove your points for a while, I'd say most or all of those problems would be headed off.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.
Broadly I'm describing systems I've seen working for other large sites, which have little to no moderator interaction, and have an excellent quality of debate on all sorts of fairly polarising issues (partisan politics in the US!), in line with the long term sustainability goal. It would need a fair bit of refinement to fit in boards, but I think it could work.
The main thing to get across to posters is that there is no "-1 disagree" option, if they feel strongly enough about a post they should (and probably will) respond in the thread anyway. Of course by doing so they nullify their points given in the thread. Deliberate trolls, spam and people getting abusive are what will be targeted by this, leading to generally decent debate. Its not quite self correcting but as close as I've seen so far.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 29920
We have 5 official directors, Dan, Gerry, Me, Paul and Eamonn. I dunno where you get your facts Boston but they are as accurate as ever.
The company will make a small loss this year I expect, we have invested inwardly in people and servers (4 new ones are being staged to go live).
Paul is a key person inside boards now, and I'm very happy for that in fact. Daft are far from the enemy, believe me I've been pretty vocal about my "beloved community" but even I accept that they are good for us. The idea of a future proofing document for the community was in fact, Paul's.
I've decided to scale it back considerably based on some of the arguments here. I dont want to start writing a book of Law for boards, what I want to get is something like a "Charter" for the whole site, to let everyone know our base goals and how the big bits should interact.
Now, I have an urgent family matter to attend to this week so I'm sorry, I may or may not get much time to write.
DeV.0 -
Only got around to reading your post now Boston. You make a lot of good points.
I would disagree per se. It is very possible to make a loose and flexible definition. But I've a programmer's brain, so I believe that it's possible to take *anything* back to first principles and define it with all the flexibility it needs.If you're planning to define a methodology by which the community can change, adept, expand and grow (expansion is different to growth in my opinion) then surely why we originally existed or what we are at this moment in time is irrelevant. As soon as you nail down what we are, we're something different. Boards is like a river, it can never be stepped in twice.
I think the word "constitution" might be a bad one - not because of what a constitution actually is but because of what it's taken to mean. Most consider it to be a stuffy document with high-falutin concepts and absolutes. In reality a constitution should be an ever-evolving concept which is defined by the community it describes and not the other way around. It's the Irish legal process which makes people think of a constitution as a dictatorial document.
I think this is the entire point. What boards has struggled with so far is change. A new issue or a new concept appears and it starts a ripple through the community which becomes high profile. Eventually it gets resolved and the site changes for the better, but not without a lot of stress and strain. The size of the site now causes these things to occur ever more rapidly and the sheer number of moderators in particular means that "scandal" is occurring on a more frequent basis. Proportionally, no more is probably occurring than ever did. But the site needs a framework by which it can grab change and grab issues as soon as they occur and figure out how to sort them. A 50-page thread in feedback which culminates in whinging and protesting and someone getting a punch on a night out will still come out with a resolution, but there has to be a better way. We need to keep the passion but direct it properly instead of it just resulting in a whole heap of fricition.I don't see how you can plan where a site is going. Well I do, by forcing it down a certain path. If a path is chosen organically, then you can't predict it, too many variables. A better idea, I think, would be to outline where the site isn't going. What it will hopefully never become. Providing a mechanism for changing and expanding is something you can do. just because the future is an open road doesn't mean you can't be prepared for the trip.
There's never been any plan to remove users' right to appeal and in fact it's been recognised that (as I mention above) due to the higher volumes of people on the site a structured approach to handling appeals is required. There are more moderators, more posts, more people, and therefore there are more complaints.Regressive; Removing a users "right" to appeal. It would certainly create the impression of harmony. Hey look how we get on, we never fight but we never talk either. Sometimes you need to burn the forest down so that life doesn't stagnate. While its true the administrators seldom come down against moderators, they will often argue on behalf of users, saying "Thats somewhat harsh" or mediating. They'll never be demodding moderators at the same rate they ban users.
One bonus of having a very large site is that the "clique" gets diluted and there is less personal resistance to "reprimanding" moderators and administrators for their actions.
Sounds like a good idea tbh. Although I'm not mad on the idea that you have a "solicitor" to argue for you.Let users pick their own representative if and when they need them.
This is because of of something (I think) that I posted earlier on - the Irish (though it may not be uniquely Irish) love to try wriggling out of what they've done wrong. If they can point to a flaw in the rules, or a precedent or anything whatsoever which lets them get off the hook, they tend to. They don't look at the moral or the ethical they examine the legal. And boards need to *not* do that. Boards needs to disconnect itself from the idea of static rules and regulations and move towards something more dynamic.
The right and wrong of the ban (for example) is what's important. It doesn't matter that there's no "No personal abuse" rule in the Music forum (again, for example). If you act like an asshat, you get banned. We all know how to act like decent human beings, you fail to do that, you get banned.
Does it stay open for abuse? Absolutely. But then so does the current system. Moving away from legal precision is *fairer* because then appeals are handled on its own merit and not based on some ambiguous wording, loophole or precedent.
So from that POV a user representative being "appointed" by the user (if they wish) is a nice idea because all it really does is give the user the opportunity to ask someone else to take a fresh look at it and decide for themselves about the rightness or wrongness of the case.
I'm assuming you mean "two-fifths"?Paul Kenny, (I assume the same Paul Kenny from iona tech) appears to have a strong role. Boards.ie is already 2 thirds run by people with no link to the community. The sales rep running the site scenario doesn't seem that unlikely. And no, daft don't actually "run" the site at all. Sitting on the board of directors is not the same thing as being in charge. If there's one thing that daft know, it's the importance of keeping your userbase happy and not treating them as exploitable objects. Despite its enormous size, daft have never gone down the "stick advertising everywhere and irritate our visitors" route that the likes of myhome did.
I personally would have zero concers that Daft want to turn boards.ie into a sales platform or "turn" it into anything specifically at all. In fact you've already outlined why attempting to "turn" boards into something will fail.
Anything I didn't quote means that I broadly agreed...0 -
asdasd; cumulated profits, not one year profits.
Seamus; I'll reply in more detail later.We have 5 official directors, Dan, Gerry, Me, Paul and Eamonn. I dunno where you get your facts Boston but they are as accurate as ever.
DeV.
Sorry I meant two fifths, not two thirds. Unless something very recent has happened Gerry is not a director, John (Cloud) is. Neither Gerry nor Jerry were directors as of the end of April this year (But are share holders). I don't know whether you mean my "facts are bang on or way off the mark, but I only know the state of play prior to the daft.ie take over. This link indicates I'm at least right about 2007.
Theres something like 506 shares sold of which the break down is 5x76, 20, and daft own 106.
Ps, whose Sandra and why did she have a stake in the company.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 29920
Sorry when I wrote "Gerry" I meant "John" (as in Breslin).
The directors are John, Dan, Tom, Paul and Eamonn, but Dan Tom and John have the right to appoint 2 more directors... right now we are happy as things are.
The difference between two thirds and two fifths is considerable and shouldnt need explaining
DeV.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
If you have a loose and flexible definition then what points does it serve? Isn't the desire to nail down what boards is for the future? If we define boards.ie as "A medium through which people communicate thoughts and feelings", what does that do to safe guard anything? A forum grinding to a halt under server loads with google-adds every other posts and spambots on the mailing list is still "A medium through which people communicate thoughts and feelings". You make the point that a constitution should be an ever evolving thing, but just look at after hours ban on Christmas postings. A bunch of people said "I don't like X", and then we're in a sudden situation were prefectly harmless topics of discussion are banned. The reason is because people are collectively stupid. The idea behind the charter or constitution is to protect people when down the road their is no single person at the wheel. Fluffy definitions are worse then no definitions at all because it allows for a wide scope of interpretation while supporting the stance that the interpratetation is in keeping with what boards.ie is.I think this is the entire point. What boards has struggled with so far is change. A new issue or a new concept appears and it starts a ripple through the community which becomes high profile. Eventually it gets resolved and the site changes for the better, but not without a lot of stress and strain. The size of the site now causes these things to occur ever more rapidly and the sheer number of moderators in particular means that "scandal" is occurring on a more frequent basis. Proportionally, no more is probably occurring than ever did. But the site needs a framework by which it can grab change and grab issues as soon as they occur and figure out how to sort them. A 50-page thread in feedback which culminates in whinging and protesting and someone getting a punch on a night out will still come out with a resolution, but there has to be a better way. We need to keep the passion but direct it properly instead of it just resulting in a whole heap of fricition.
Theres too much of a focus on one all encapsulating solution. There are problems with the current conflict resolution mechanisms. The two main conflict sources are user - moderator friction and moderator - moderator friction. Both are nothing to do with change. I've already expressed my opinion on how the moderator forum operates; it obviously (to me anyway) isn't serving it's intended purpose. The user moderator friction isn't helped by the helpdesk style; equally the site isn't going to be helped if you end up jumping through a dozen checks and appeals everytime a user badly needs a bad. If moderators start being required to fill out forms B13 and A45 everytime they take action, the quality of moderation will drop and we'll only be left with the anally retentive.
With regards to change, the current "framework" seems to be to keep major changes a secret as long as possible and then steam role them through with consulation. Which frankly, is perfectly fine on a private site, but call a spade a spade and accept the friction it causes. The greatest leaps forward in history happen when strong leaders do what they feel is best regardless of whether or not they are thanked for it. The only way to avoid friction is to consult people before changes. Theres no magic to it, its that simple.There's never been any plan to remove users' right to appeal and in fact it's been recognised that (as I mention above) due to the higher volumes of people on the site a structured approach to handling appeals is required. There are more moderators, more posts, more people, and therefore there are more complaints.
One bonus of having a very large site is that the "clique" gets diluted and there is less personal resistance to "reprimanding" moderators and administrators for their actions.
At this point in time I'd like to draw attention to the fact that Seamus's avatar is of a man in a white robe, Anyway; I don't think you're in a position to have a clear view of cliques since your standing on boards.ie is such that no individual or group of individuals would have much success undermining you. They are always going to exist and while its true that theres so many that no one dominates the site as a whole; Cliques certainly can dominate individual forum on boards.ie making them a hostile environment for new members. Cliques are neither good nor bad, however there are good and bad cliques.Sounds like a good idea tbh. Although I'm not mad on the idea that you have a "solicitor" to argue for you.
This is because of of something (I think) that I posted earlier on - the Irish (though it may not be uniquely Irish) love to try wriggling out of what they've done wrong. If they can point to a flaw in the rules, or a precedent or anything whatsoever which lets them get off the hook, they tend to. They don't look at the moral or the ethical they examine the legal. And boards need to *not* do that. Boards needs to disconnect itself from the idea of static rules and regulations and move towards something more dynamic.
The right and wrong of the ban (for example) is what's important. It doesn't matter that there's no "No personal abuse" rule in the Music forum (again, for example). If you act like an asshat, you get banned. We all know how to act like decent human beings, you fail to do that, you get banned.
Does it stay open for abuse? Absolutely. But then so does the current system. Moving away from legal precision is *fairer* because then appeals are handled on its own merit and not based on some ambiguous wording, loophole or precedent.
So from that POV a user representative being "appointed" by the user (if they wish) is a nice idea because all it really does is give the user the opportunity to ask someone else to take a fresh look at it and decide for themselves about the rightness or wrongness of the case.
I don't see why a user rep would have to argue in legalise? There is a system in place on boards.ie, some users know it, most don't. Being able to have an advocate within the system would help reduce moderator - user friction. Having someone removed from the emotions of a situation can't hurt. Take this example of a rightly banned user*. He argues that he contributes greatly to the forums he posts on. This agruement would have alot more weight if he could appoint a moderator as a user representative to support his claims that yes indeed he contributes. As it stands on its own, the arguement appears weak.I'm assuming you mean "two-fifths"? And no, daft don't actually "run" the site at all. Sitting on the board of directors is not the same thing as being in charge. If there's one thing that daft know, it's the importance of keeping your userbase happy and not treating them as exploitable objects. Despite its enormous size, daft have never gone down the "stick advertising everywhere and irritate our visitors" route that the likes of myhome did.
I personally would have zero concers that Daft want to turn boards.ie into a sales platform or "turn" it into anything specifically at all. In fact you've already outlined why attempting to "turn" boards into something will fail.
Anything I didn't quote means that I broadly agreed...
I'm not overly concerned about daft.ie. Eamon Fallen (And I think his brother? ) made a huge success out of something which most people scoffed at. Maybe I have a simplistic view of the word "directors" but I assumed these people are the ones coming up with the long term plans for the site and community. I know they arn't going to be banning deathgiver2000 but I did find it surprising that the names weren't the ones I thought they would be.0 -
It's the programmer purist in me. I hate to think that there's no general theory of everything.If you have a loose and flexible definition then what points does it serve? Isn't the desire to nail down what boards is for the future?
Actually it's a Ghost with a piss stain, but nice attempt at character assassination Joe, especially given your claim afterwards which might as well call me "untouchable". Good to see that you haven't dropped your snide and arrogant streak.At this point in time I'd like to draw attention to the fact that Seamus's avatar is of a man in a white robe,
By and large, the existence of cliques is bad because it creates resistance to change and inaccesibility for newer members. A clique also has difficulty enforcing its own rules on itself.Cliques certainly can dominate individual forum on boards.ie making them a hostile environment for new members. Cliques are neither good nor bad, however there are good and bad cliques.
That was a bit of an aside from me really, just playing out the inevitable boring tit-for-tat arguments that would take place, regardless of user reps. Remove the "legalese" of the ban system and you remove the tit-for-tats.I don't see why a user rep would have to argue in legalise? There is a system in place on boards.ie, some users know it, most don't. Being able to have an advocate within the system would help reduce moderator - user friction.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Only in relation to cliques.Ok, but the premise of your argument is that change is good.
In relation to the moderators, it's a great thing. As I've already pointed out. As you've pointed out, people will naturally group themselves. The general userbase will never become "distant", it wll continually fragment into more distinct communities.How is this a good thing?
I never said it was a false perception, but it's certainly an inconsistent one.Every moderator failing is a private one, every user failing is a public one. A moderator is never made an example of but a user will be. Theres no point in holding your hands up in the air and despairing at where the false perception comes from that "mods will always stand up for each other and the admins will always stand up for the mods" when it's a conscious decision to pick and choose what gets aired in public and what doesn't.
Wibbs makes a good point - the balance needs to be redressed. User failings need to be made private. Not because I want to save the moderators' feelings but because dressing down a volunteer in public will only lead to one thing in 90% of cases and the public spectacle that users often have to go through to have their case objectively heard isn't fair.0
Advertisement