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

AlmightyCushion

asdasd wrote: »

We seem to be taking Boards as a community that were real but not software bound here, so I want - before the lock - to suggest some software improvements.

1) On a New Thread show a an alert( embedded, or not) of unacceparble topics. For AH that would include Christmas threads at the moment, the user has to agree to the list to get to start a thread. On R&R it would list topics that cannot be ranted about ( religion). This is like an EULA.
2) On a reply the user has to agree to terms ( see below) regarding not using ad hominens, trolling etc. and specific forum rules - you have to agree with these rules before posting.

Now since that will make quick replies a bit awful it would happen

1) The first time a user replies to a thread
2) first time in a forum.
3) For any user banned recently from anywhere, or with infraction points: all the time. This would make any infraction points a bit more of a pain as the alert would come up in all forums and for all posts until the infractions run out.

so that's a software solution. The banning of people for not reading forum specific rules is a bit harsh given that a lot of people read topics from the main page and answer immediately.

Of course this is a bit of work to do, and a bit of a pain to implement, and a bit of re-traingin for the user, and I can understand the implementation difficulties.

However the New Thread alert would be easy enough, and still-birth unwanted threads.

That sounds like a nightmare. Everytime you visit a new forum or reply to a new thread you have to tick this box. First off .00001% of people will read it and secondly it'll just piss people off. If this had been in place when I started posting here the constant prompts would probably have caused me to not bother logging in again.

Boston

seamus wrote: »

Only in relation to cliques.

I've decided we're talking about two different social constructs. Tell me seamus, as just an "ordinary pleb" do you still have access to all those magical secret forums? Do you still stalk the halls of power? As such are you not a member of several cliques, are you not in a position to influence changes on the site or argue against them? Would you think the site / community would be better served if you had no voice?

seamus wrote: »

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.

Yes distinct communities that don't care about each other and infact actively undermine the center. Not a good thing.

seamus wrote: »

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.

Boston wrote: »

Social Structures;

Progressive and Regressive

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.

Now we're back to regressive social structures. You lock things down so that all user complaints are private and no one can gather support. Things are no longer in public. People are free to send pm's and others are free to ignore them. How about instead of locking down how users can air grievances you stop moderators from grouping together to demand public floggings?

Prime example here, moderator way out of line, administrators lock thread. The original poster said nothing in thread to merit the topic being locked; the complaint hasn't been dealt with, but because it looks likely that the moderator in question is at least partially in the wrong, things are moved into the private domain. I see threads like this one talking about change and putting in place social structures to ensure fairness and at the same time I see blatant protectionism. It's hard not to feel its all so much lip service. Why is the poker forum an appropriate forum for discussion of soccer? Who knows? Where can I ask such a question? No where!

bah. Getting derailed into BS at this point.

asdasd

First off .00001% of people will read it and secondly it'll just piss people off.

But people are supposed to stop and read the charter on each forum anyway, at the risk of geting banned. That would take longer.

See the attachment that OH pointed to: fairly discrete.

a similar warning could go into a reply, at the bottom, if you are sure that your reply is not contravening the charter ( that being a link) post.

Only for the first time someone gets into a forum, or the first time after he is banned from a forum.

It could be rolled out for unusual forums first - i.e. R&R, saying "The charter on this forum requires tou agree with the poster". If traffic drops, drop the idea.

Time Magazine

10 pages?! TL;DR.

However, I did clone

seamus

Boston wrote: »

I've decided we're talking about two different social constructs. Tell me seamus, as just an "ordinary pleb" do you still have access to all those magical secret forums? Do you still stalk the halls of power? As such are you not a member of several cliques, are you not in a position to influence changes on the site or argue against them?

Nope. If you want to describe what I have, I have the "ear of the admins" by virtue of the fact that they wanted to be able to ask my counsel if they wanted to and I said OK.

Would you think the site / community would be better served if you had no voice?

The beauty of boards is that everyone has a voice, it's effectiveness depends on how you use it. It has little to do with being part of a clique or being well known. A one-post newbie with a well-written essay here on feedback will have just as much support and audience as DeVore. My specific voice is nothing special. If I wasn't posting here, someone else would be posting something similar. I don't think the removal of my voice would have any impact on boards, positive or negative.

Yes distinct communities that don't care about each other and infact actively undermine the center. Not a good thing.

There's your pessimism coming in. Distinct communities who don't care about eachother won't actively affect eachother. Ideally there would be no "center".

Now we're back to regressive social structures. You lock things down so that all user complaints are private and no one can gather support. Things are no longer in public. People are free to send pm's and others are free to ignore them. How about instead of locking down how users can air grievances you stop moderators from grouping together to demand public floggings?

Since when do moderators "demand" public floggings?

Can you not see that you're pretty doing the opposite and demanding public floggings for moderators?

And since when does someone need to "gather support" when they have a personal complaint? If you have a problem with a ban or other action, you sort it out yourself.

General complaints can be made in public - here on feedback. That really goes back to my earlier point - the effectiveness of any such complaint is down entirely to the skill of the orator.

moderator way out of line, administrators lock thread. The original poster said nothing in thread to merit the topic being locked; the complaint hasn't been dealt with, but because it looks likely that the moderator in question is at least partially in the wrong, things are moved into the private domain.

What would you like to see happen in such cases? <Moderator>, you were way out of line, I'm overruling you and demodding you? Do you think that instills much confidence about the moderation system and do you think the other 500 moderators are going to think, "Yeah, that's cool"? Serious question, I don't see what purpose is served by flogging moderators in public. Or users for that matter. In fact, if I saw any company or institution reprimand a staff member or volunteer in public, I would think very little of them.

I see blatant protectionism.

How do you know nothing was done? You don't. And you've no right to know either.

Why is the poker forum an appropriate forum for discussion of soccer? Who knows? Where can I ask such a question? No where!

You can ask here. Start a thread, work away.

Rev. BlueJeans

seamus wrote: »

You can ask here. Start a thread, work away.

He could, but by virtue of the fact that moderators cannot receive a public dressing down (as you expressed quite well here, but which I for one disagree with wholeheartedly I'm afraid-as too many here *are seen* to get away with too much), any replying admin would be both constrained, and perhaps unwilling to publicly say, well, yes "Mod X was hella wrong, I shall be taking this up with him, and action is assured".

Action may well be assured, but seeking transparency doesn't have to equal placating the baying mob, pissing off the volunteers etc.

Fact is, people are watching, and without getting into this one instance, a user was told to eff off, and no action was seen to be taken. If that were any user, their pants would be around their ankles, and their head in the stocks before you could say "deathgiver3000".

There is too much emphasis on moderation here, much of which again is driven by users of course. However, policies such as the one you outline only feed the fire IMO.

Btw, I beg to differ where you feel boards would be no better or worse with or without you-you brought a lot to the table during your time here.

asdasd

Can you not see that you're pretty doing the opposite and demanding public floggings for moderators?

I actually think that is a problem with the helpdesk format. Moderators are generally doing their best, there are mistakes made, in a public forum like the HelpDesk the admins then have to decide to publically rebuke a moderator.

It cant be expected to happen much, so - at the certain risk to transparency, and to justice seen to be done - I would take all appeals to PM. see my first post on this thread.

Overheal

Or some Private System that works the way Help Desk does, except that you may only view stickies and those threads you are involved with (unless youre an admin, naturally)

It would not be my first or second choice (I advocate more transparency), but I think thats what youre suggesting asdasd?

Steve

Overheal wrote: »

Or some Private System that works the way Help Desk does, except that you may only view stickies and those threads you are involved with (unless youre an admin, naturally)

It would not be my first or second choice (I advocate more transparency), but I think thats what youre suggesting asdasd?

Interesting that you should post that - such a forum actually exists for mods that need to discuss sensitive issues with admins.

It mightn't be a bad idea to offer the same service as an alternative (in addition to) to helpdesk.

I agree and also believe transparency is important - as important as accountability, they are symbiotic. That's why no mod should, imo, should post anything in private (a moderating pm or ban or infraction message for example) that they would not be prepared to be made public should the need arise.

Overheal

Most discussions that happen between mods I only assume are done in private forums because the PM system is too limited. Its hard to track a conversation between 5 or 6 mods over PM. For the less sensitive stuff, a lot of the mods have been good in their own ways about involving users though, you have to admit. Ive rarely been in a forum where users werent first asked before any real changes where made to a forum's moderation.

For that I have been fairly content with the way things have been going up to now. Im just saying anything that shifts us into less transparency, will bother me. And I assume anything dealing with more transparency, will bother the mods.

Boston

seamus wrote: »

Nope. If you want to describe what I have, I have the "ear of the admins" by virtue of the fact that they wanted to be able to ask my counsel if they wanted to and I said OK.
The beauty of boards is that everyone has a voice, it's effectiveness depends on how you use it. It has little to do with being part of a clique or being well known. A one-post newbie with a well-written essay here on feedback will have just as much support and audience as DeVore. My specific voice is nothing special. If I wasn't posting here, someone else would be posting something similar. I don't think the removal of my voice would have any impact on boards, positive or negative.

I think you're wrong. I think your massively underplaying things intentionally or otherwise. I also think you're over estimating the ability of your average user to put forward a coherent argument in favour or against anything. This humble country boy from a small town persona isn't convincing seamus.

seamus wrote: »

There's your pessimism coming in. Distinct communities who don't care about eachother won't actively affect each other. Ideally there would be no "center".

Well case in point is that happened between the poker forum grouping and the cuckoo's nest grouping. You were an administrator back then, surely a lesson was learned about the dangers of people thinking that all of boards is their private sandbox.

seamus wrote: »

Since when do moderators "demand" public floggings?

Probably since the beginning. It hasn't stopped. I see no point in getting into specifics.

seamus wrote: »

Can you not see that you're pretty doing the opposite and demanding public floggings for moderators?

And since when does someone need to "gather support" when they have a personal complaint? If you have a problem with a ban or other action, you sort it out yourself.

General complaints can be made in public - here on feedback. That really goes back to my earlier point - the effectiveness of any such complaint is down entirely to the skill of the orator.

Sorry seamus, I'm getting caught up in some double talk here. You admonish the public nature of complaints against moderators in one paragraph and in the next you hold up the freedom of public appeal as a lofty and noble thing. Where do you actually stand?

As for gathering support, on that thread I linked to I counted three moderators arguing against a single user resulting in the thread being locked for no other reason then one of the moderators making a complete ass out of himself by throwing petrol onto the fire. Why shouldn't a user have someone to argue their case for them in the same way a moderator has an administrator? If all opinions are equal and all users have the same impact (As you claim above) then why not allow everyone a say.

seamus wrote: »

What would you like to see happen in such cases? <Moderator>, you were way out of line, I'm overruling you and demodding you? Do you think that instills much confidence about the moderation system and do you think the other 500 moderators are going to think, "Yeah, that's cool"?

It used to work that way. I don't see why a moderator gets the right to private rebuttal when a user is literally told in public "you can go **** right off". Where's the concern about the impression that creates among thousands of users? One moderator treats users badly is it right to condemn all moderators? probably not. But if no one says publicly "We don't accept this behaviour". Then users are perfectly entitled to think the system is rigged and not trust in it.

seamus wrote: »

Serious question, I don't see what purpose is served by flogging moderators in public. Or users for that matter. In fact, if I saw any company or institution reprimand a staff member or volunteer in public, I would think very little of them.

Well there you go, why is there a need to make an example out of anyone? Your work place analogy doesn't fit boards.ie moderators tbh.

seamus wrote: »

How do you know nothing was done? You don't. And you've no right to know either.

If I were to draw conclusions based on publicly held facts, I'd conclude that moderators are never reprimanded even when in the wrong. Only through experience do I know this is not that case. Please don't champion a system which propagates user ignorance while simultaneously decrying users for not being understanding.

I've no right to know anything about boards.ie. I'm acutely aware of this fact. The powers the be would be well within their rights to allow a magic eight ball settle all disputes and also to keep that a secret. Yet; though all of us have no right to know, some of us most definitely are "in the know".

What it comes down to is that I want to be able to say X is a crap moderator without someone coming along and site banning me for my troubles, just so that the 500 or so moderator clique doen't feel put out.

seamus wrote: »

You can ask here. Start a thread, work away.

Why don't you start a thread. If the creation of boards with boards and the muddying of forums scopes is fine with you, maybe I'm the one out of step.

Steve

Boston wrote: »

Why shouldn't a user have someone to argue their case for them in the same way a moderator has an administrator? If all opinions are equal and all users have the same impact (As you claim above) then why not allow everyone a say.

Sorry , I take exception to that, admin's don't side with mods, in fact they are effectively our mods and can and have infracted / banned / demodded when it was deemed fit.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Do you really think that it's appropriate to publicly admonish someone who has freely put hours / weeks / months of their time into a forum? If you were an admin here, would you do that? really?

asdasd

It would not be my first or second choice (I advocate more transparency), but I think thats what youre suggesting asdasd?

I was suggesting PM's only, your suggestion of a thread that involves the Admins, mods and user who is mounting a defence is better.

asdasd

Transparency is not going to work here because moderators are not Police. They are not paid, for one (very important) thing.

I may be picking this out of my ass but as far as I know about 50% of cases before the courts result in acquital. In any case it is not that high.

Why would a moderator take tha responsibility if 50% of his decisions are overruled. A police man is paid for that.

Boston

Steve wrote: »

Sorry , I take exception to that, admin's don't side with mods, in fact they are effectively our mods and can and have infracted / banned / demodded when it was deemed fit.

When you click on my profile, you can see every infraction and ban I've received. I can't see any of yours. I don't post in the forums you moderate, so why do you get to see this? Administrators do side with moderators publically, and against them privately.

Steve wrote: »

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Do you really think that it's appropriate to publicly admonish someone who has freely put hours / weeks / months of their time into a forum? If you were an admin here, would you do that? really?

I don't think its right that someone should be able to hide behind the fact they are a contributor to protect themselves from valid criticisms. I can't do it, why should you? I don't get to say "Hey, I freely put in months/years of my life into this site, I deserve special treatment". You said "admonish someone", but what you really meant was "admonish a moderator". It probably isn't right to publicly admonish someone whose genuinely contributed to the site, even worse to do so because a group of users/ mods want blood. There are dozens of ways that people add value to this place, and I don't know where the idea that being a moderator was the most important one came from.

But that is what we do here. If it isn't right then why do it at all?

Steve

Boston wrote: »

When you click on my profile, you can see every infraction and ban I've received. I can't see any of yours. I don't post in the forums you moderate, so why do you get to see this? Administrators do side with moderators publically, and against them privately.

Actually you have posted in a forum I moderate but that's not important in the bigger picture. The reason I can see your infractions is purely to enable me to make a decision on whether you have previously caused trouble elsewhere and to enable me to make a decision on if what you are posting is likely to be deliberately troublesome or not. I 'need' to be able to see that in order to do what I do, you can't see mine or anyone else's because there is no reason that I can see that you could benefit from seeing that.
FYI, viewing your ban history is not as straightforward as clicking on your profile and from my point of view would require you to have posted something questionable before going to the bother of doing it.

By 'you' I mean anyone in the above, this in in no way personal.

I don't think its right that someone should be able to hide behind the fact they are a contributor to protect themselves from valid criticisms.

Neither do I if the criticism's are valid

I can't do it, why should you? I don't get to say "Hey, I freely put in months/years of my life into this site, I deserve special treatment".

you don't have to be a moderator to have contributed your time here - it's how you contribute that matters.

You said "admonish someone", but what you really meant was "admonish a moderator".

OK, I admit that's true but I'm posting from my point of view which at this time happens to be as a mod.

It probably isn't right to publicly admonish someone whose genuinely contributed to the site, even worse to do so because a group of users/ mods want blood. There are dozens of ways that people add value to this place, and I don't know where the idea that being a moderator was the most important one came from.

I agree, and I never said that being a moderator was important. Boards is it's users - it always will be, people can and will vote with their feet.

But that is what we do here. If it isn't right then why do it at all?

Don't really get that bit but personally I do it because I want to contribute to our community.

Boston

The problem is when valid criticisms are shot down in and effort to protect A) the images of moderator infallibility and Not to rock the boat with the rest of the moderators.

For what its worth I think the private forum where you can only see your own posts is a good idea. If it's run like helpdesk is now except in private, I can't see it being very effective. If it allows administrators the freedom to admonish equally without stepping on egos, then great. I'm well aware that the vast majority of the time they'll still be coming down on the side of the moderators.

seamus

Boston wrote: »

I think you're wrong. I think your massively underplaying things intentionally or otherwise. I also think you're over estimating the ability of your average user to put forward a coherent argument in favour or against anything. This humble country boy from a small town persona isn't convincing seamus.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I've decided this is an optimist -v- pessimist discussion between me and you, and it's very difficult for both sides to see consensus in that case.
And you've met me, I'm not a country boy from a small town.

Well case in point is that happened between the poker forum grouping and the cuckoo's nest grouping. You were an administrator back then, surely a lesson was learned about the dangers of people thinking that all of boards is their private sandbox.

You're saying that we can somehow compensate for people acting like morons? These kinds of things have happened before poker and will continue to happen. It's one of the very reasons why an overal "administration" is needed.

Sorry seamus, I'm getting caught up in some double talk here. You admonish the public nature of complaints against moderators in one paragraph and in the next you hold up the freedom of public appeal as a lofty and noble thing. Where do you actually stand?

I'm not talking about "public appeal", I'm talking about feedback. There's a difference between appealing your case and making a general complaint about what you see is a failing in the rules/system.
Unfortunately a lot of people seem to get confused about the difference between the two and post in feedback about what they perceive to be a failing in the rules simply because they fell foul of it. That's not to say the rules are right, but the poster has to go the right way about expressing that failing.

Why shouldn't a user have someone to argue their case for them in the same way a moderator has an administrator? If all opinions are equal and all users have the same impact (As you claim above) then why not allow everyone a say.

The moderator doesn't have an administrator to back him/her up, and you know that well. The admin hears both sides and makes a call. The admin doesn't "represent" the moderator. Otherwise moderators wouldn't be able to post in HD at all.

But if no one says publicly "We don't accept this behaviour". Then users are perfectly entitled to think the system is rigged and not trust in it.

And once again you're asking for a moderator to be marched into town square with shackles about his legs to be publicly admonished.

If I were to draw conclusions based on publicly held facts, I'd conclude that moderators are never reprimanded even when in the wrong. Only through experience do I know this is not that case. Please don't champion a system which propagates user ignorance while simultaneously decrying users for not being understanding.

You're making out like there's something more serious to know here, like some great injustices are occurring. Your system would require a full-on "warts an' all" approach that revealed every piece of information to everyone about everyone else, lest someone not get the memo about something. Users are told about things that affect them. Moderators are told about things that affect them. Why do they need to know anything else?

Yet; though all of us have no right to know, some of us most definitely are "in the know".

So?

What it comes down to is that I want to be able to say X is a crap moderator without someone coming along and site banning me for my troubles, just so that the 500 or so moderator clique doen't feel put out.

You know that's never happened and never would happen.

Anyway, I'm as done as you on this. We'll never agree on the nature of boards because of our polar viewpoints on community management.

The Recliner

Boston wrote: »

As for gathering support, on that thread I linked to I counted three moderators arguing against a single user resulting in the thread being locked for no other reason then one of the moderators making a complete ass out of himself by throwing petrol onto the fire. Why shouldn't a user have someone to argue their case for them in the same way a moderator has an administrator? If all opinions are equal and all users have the same impact (As you claim above) then why not allow everyone a say.

We tried that before it was the old feedback and it rarely worked except for the fact that it was great craic

What it comes down to is that I want to be able to say X is a crap moderator without someone coming along and site banning me for my troubles, just so that the 500 or so moderator clique doen't feel put out.

Can you actually have a clique that is 500 strong, personally I don't think that is workable, there are far to many differening personalities and opinions for that

There is a group of moderators and in any moderator discussion there is usually a huge difference of opinions, some will agree others will not just like in most things on Boards

Rev. BlueJeans wrote: »

as too many here *are seen* to get away with too much)

There are 500+ mods, mistakes will be made and people will get worked up but to say too many get away (or are seen too) with too much is a bit much to be honest

Given the amount of forums and the amount of Mods the amount of complaints is miniscule

Could these complaints be handled differently or better, of course they could and there have been some good suggestions for that in this thread but I think you are in danger of tarring a lot of Mods with something that just isn't true (I don't think you meant to do that but just pointing it out)

Fact is, people are watching, and without getting into this one instance, a user was told to eff off, and no action was seen to be taken. If that were any user, their pants would be around their ankles, and their head in the stocks before you could say "deathgiver3000".

The post was infracted on thread so action was seen, maybe not enough but that is a different matter

Boston

What it comes down to is that while you may see problems with the current system, there's no desire to redress the imbalance in the system to fix the problems. Either increase transparancy or decrease it for everyone.

You know that's never happened and never would happen.

Erm, I'm banned from helpdesk for exactly that reason.

seamus

Boston wrote: »

What it comes down to is that while you may see problems with the current system, there's no desire to redress the imbalance in the system to fix the problems.

And that's where you're wrong. We're disagreeing over the methods of redress, not the desire.

Erm, I'm banned from helpdesk for exactly that reason.

You said siteban, to be fair
And I'm not interested in getting into the specifics, but you were banned for your actions more than your words IIRC.

Boston

seamus wrote: »

And that's where you're wrong. We're disagreeing over the methods of redress, not the desire.

Public floggings for some, miniature Irish flags for others. I think we've discussed as much as we can't until something actually happens.

seamus wrote: »

And I'm not interested in getting into the specifics, but you were banned for your actions more than your words IIRC.

Maybe you know something I don't?

Anyway, off point somewhat.

Wibbs

Boston wrote: »

I don't think its right that someone should be able to hide behind the fact they are a contributor to protect themselves from valid criticisms. I can't do it, why should you? I don't get to say "Hey, I freely put in months/years of my life into this site, I deserve special treatment". You said "admonish someone", but what you really meant was "admonish a moderator". It probably isn't right to publicly admonish someone whose genuinely contributed to the site, even worse to do so because a group of users/ mods want blood. There are dozens of ways that people add value to this place, and I don't know where the idea that being a moderator was the most important one came from.

I agree with you 100% on this point. Personally I have some issue with the "ohh aren't mods great" and "I has a banhammer" from some quarters, users as much as mods. Again what practical way can we redress that balance?

Overheal

If I were to draw conclusions based on publicly held facts, I'd conclude that moderators are never reprimanded even when in the wrong. Only through experience do I know this is not that case. Please don't champion a system which propagates user ignorance while simultaneously decrying users for not being understanding.

Then by all means do more speculating! I dont regard it coincidence when moderators get called out by users in HD or Feedback only to find them being replaced the next week.

Boston

Overheal wrote: »

Then by all means do more speculating! I dont regard it coincidence when moderators get called out by users in HD or Feedback only to find them being replaced the next week.

Few people are as clued into what happens a week or two down the road as you are. We've all seen moderators being given their marching orders. Some even rail against the moderators who replaced them.

Dav

Actually, just want to interrupt there and clarify something: I don't want to get into too many specifics, but therecklessone had asked to step down some time ago but was good enough to stay on till we had a replacement. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the fun and games of last night.

Like I said, I just wanted to clarify that.

Dav

Overheal

I've deleted the commentary.