Procedure of De-Modding

Fajitas!

tbh wrote: »

it should - but it won't. Human nature. Can the people who don't get what they want live with it tho, that's the real question.

It's all too easy to say "Oh, human nature, never happen, no point in trying" - I'd argue that it's not all that predictable, and to be honest one might be surprised.

You get a group of people together with an interest in Boards, for the progression (Not nit-picking, not trolling, not being a dick) of Boards, and you'd be surprised what you'd come out with.

--amadeus--

tbh wrote: »

it should - but it won't. Human nature. Can the people who don't get what they want live with it tho, that's the real question.

A good decision is one where any reasonable person when presented with teh same data, the desired outcomes and teh thought process used in making the decision will understand why that decision was made even if they don't agree with it.

So if you're eating a marmite sandwich I might walk in and say "uuugggh, why are you doing that - marmite is disgusting"

And you might say "well I'm hungry, I like marmite, it's good for me and tehre was nothing else in"

I still won't like teh marmite sandwich but I know why you're eating it and I see why it's a good decision.

Same with this - if teh Admins tell us what they want to achieve, tell us the decision and explain teh data and reasoning behind it then - even if we don't agree - we should be able to suport it. Esspecially if teh data is data we provide.

BuffyBot

Well, my problem with that would be, how do I know if my feedback is being taken on board, and if it is, how it's being taken up - which I find discouraging, I'm hesitant to give feedback if it's not going to be received... if you get me?

There will just have to be some trust, be it in the Admins, or the Mods themselves who'll end up commenting and helping to decide on the eventual process. As quite a few have commented on this, and even more of them have read it, I doubt peoples input will be lost in the process

tbh

Fajitas! wrote: »

It's all too easy to say "Oh, human nature, never happen, no point in trying" - I'd argue that it's not all that predictable, and to be honest one might be surprised.

You get a group of people together with an interest in Boards, for the progression (Not nit-picking, not trolling, not being a dick) of Boards, and you'd be surprised what you'd come out with.

I never said there was no point in trying. I was just trying to make the point that no matter what happens as a result of all this, there are still going to be people who are not happy with the way boards is run. Eventually, even ACT will have to say "there's not really anything else that can be done". And that will be read as "we got what we want, and we don't care about anything else". Will there then be a "re-act" group? how many members will that have to have before we listen again?

tbh

--amadeus-- wrote: »

A good decision is one where any reasonable person when presented with teh same data, the desired outcomes and teh thought process used in making the decision will understand why that decision was made even if they don't agree with it.

So if you're eating a marmite sandwich I might walk in and say "uuugggh, why are you doing that - marmite is disgusting"

And you might say "well I'm hungry, I like marmite, it's good for me and tehre was nothing else in"

I still won't like teh marmite sandwich but I know why you're eating it and I see why it's a good decision.

Same with this - if teh Admins tell us what they want to achieve, tell us the decision and explain teh data and reasoning behind it then - even if we don't agree - we should be able to suport it. Esspecially if teh data is data we provide.

fair points, but it also implies that if the admins DON't tell you the reasons, you won't trust them. They are not going to be able to give reasons in a lot of cases - what happens then?

what I mean is - this is a private website, run by a benevolent junta. You have to face the facts that there are going to situations where you want answers and you just won't get them.

Fajitas!

Yes, obviously there's always going to be people shouting about how their not happy with something, bits and pieces here and there - But sometimes they're right.





Just replying to this here, because it's here and I'd rather not leave it look like I don't have a reply, but I'd rather not dilute this topic any further - Pop back into the social group and we can hash it out further

tbh wrote: »

Eventually, even ACT will have to say "there's not really anything else that can be done". And that will be read as "we got what we want, and we don't care about anything else". Will there then be a "re-act" group? how many members will that have to have before we listen again?

I think you've gotten some of the ideas behind what's being said in ACT wrong - I don't think it'll be a case of "we got what we want, and we don't care about anything else". If you read through, the members or ACT are speaking up because they want Boards.ie to work better, as in, to be a good, working community. I don't think there'll be a clause for the ACT group shagging off, as long it can try and help Boards.ie and provide solutions and resolutions.

Hagar

If you can ask questions and get answers most of the time you will accept that there are certain times when you cannot be given answers for genuine reasons. But if it is impossible to get answers most of the time nobody will believe the "genuine reasons" explanation.

tbh

Fajitas! wrote: »

I think you've gotten some of the ideas behind what's being said in ACT wrong - I don't think it'll be a case of "we got what we want, and we don't care about anything else".
[/SIZE]

just to say - I accept that totally - but there's going to be someone with a problem that you don't want to help them with. And that's how they'll see it.

--amadeus--

We've spiralled way OT again now but ACT doesn't really have an agenda as such. It's a group of people (some with long standing grudges against the hierarchy some who are still in teh hierarchy and all points between) who all saw teh same thing happening and got together to thrash out root causes of teh problems and bounce around ideas. To my mind it's always been looking at the policy level - how decisions are made, how Admins / CMods / Mods and Users interact, that sort of thing rather than "hey, I got banned, can ACT argue my case?". We're a pressure group, not the A-Team

An interesting (if geeky) public discussion might be on working out *how* Admins should go about making big decisions. Again I'm not talking about day to day operational decisions I'm talking about bigger, policy stuff. Because there doesn't seem to be much consistency. For example teh changes to teh Privacy and Terms of Use was a case study in how it should be done.

A clear and well thought out proposal is preented to Mods
This proposal is chewed over for a period of time and changes are made based on the feedback
This revised doc goes to teh wider public again for discussion
Final version implemented

I know there are still some outstanding issues but that is textbook on how to get good decisions made and supported. Contrast that with how the DRP was introduced.

Fajitas!

+1 to --amadeus--'s post.

tbh wrote: »

just to say - I accept that totally - but there's going to be someone with a problem that you don't want to help them with. And that's how they'll see it.

I really would prefer if this wasn't being debated on this thread, as I said, I'd rather this isn't diluted any further.

ACT has set down what it's aims are, it's not there to fight the power. It's not about any one users fight or problem, it's trying to help/resolve.

Hagar

I must say I don't agree with the terms "grudge" and "pressure group".

I haven't seen any evidence of anyone with a grudge, yes there are people with issues that they feel are unresolved but that is not a grudge, particularly where they are prepared to enter into dialogue to bring resolution to those issues.

The term pressure group always has connotations of lobbying politicians and underhand deals. A representative body putting forward genuine concerns is not a pressure group. We are not seeking change for our personal benefit we are just trying raise awareness and seek solutions for issues that are effecting the whole community.

The Muppet

--amadeus-- wrote: »

We've spiralled way OT again now but ACT doesn't really have an agenda as such. It's a group of people (some with long standing grudges against the hierarchy some who are still in teh hierarchy and all points between) who all saw teh same thing happening and got together to thrash out root causes of teh problems and bounce around ideas. To my mind it's always been looking at the policy level - how decisions are made, how Admins / CMods / Mods and Users interact, that sort of thing rather than "hey, I got banned, can ACT argue my case?". We're a pressure group, not the A-Team

An interesting (if geeky) public discussion might be on working out *how* Admins should go about making big decisions. Again I'm not talking about day to day operational decisions I'm talking about bigger, policy stuff. Because there doesn't seem to be much consistency. For example teh changes to teh Privacy and Terms of Use was a case study in how it should be done.

A clear and well thought out proposal is preented to Mods
This proposal is chewed over for a period of time and changes are made based on the feedback
This revised doc goes to teh wider public again for discussion
Final version implemented

I know there are still some outstanding issues but that is textbook on how to get good decisions made and supported. Contrast that with how the DRP was introduced.

Hagar wrote: »

I must say I don't agree with the terms "grudge" and "pressure group".

I haven't seen any evidence of anyone with a grudge, yes there are people with issues that they feel are unresolved but that is not a grudge, particularly where they are prepared to enter into dialogue to bring resolution to those issues.

The term pressure group always has connotations of lobbying politicians and underhand deals. A representative body putting forward genuine concerns is not a pressure group. We are not seeking change for our personal benefit we are just trying raise awareness and seek solutions for issues that are effecting the whole community.

there you go even the group itself appears not to have a defined role or policy. It's a dangereouse route to take as there is possibility of some form of split taking place.

As TBH said above this site has always been run by a benevolent junta, Many of the members of Act have pushed that line here and on other forums on the site.

I asked earlier what has changed and didn't really get an answer. IMO what has changed is that the rules that were once applied to ordinary members are now being applied across the board and that is causing a bit of a ripple.

I think the admins are right to set high standards for moderators whose role should be to facilitate and moderate the discusssion on their forums.


BTW I am not a new user, I am on a temporary account at the moment.

Sherifu

Thaedydal wrote: »

It's not all the admins, and I don't think it's fair to ask people who have also contributed greatly to the site over the years to fall on swords when mistakes are made...

They pull out the 'collective admin decision' card often enough here or in the help desk so forgive me if I begin to treat them as a single entity. If they screwed up a few times I think they should be seriously examining what went wrong & perhaps considering their position. I'm not sure if they're accountable to anyone though. The 'new' admin situation & power structure still confuses me a bit.

Thaedydal wrote: »

...or for attempts to hound them out when unpopular decisions are made, we'd not be happy to see people do that to mods, but better communication and consideration I don't think is too much to ask.

I don't know about hounding. A lot of poster sentiment seems to be against them in this thread alright. They seem to have come down very hard on a well respected and well liked mod/poster in the most recent case. That may have something to do with posters rounding on them. I agree that better communication/consideration isn't a lot to ask for.

Hagar

The Muppit wrote: »

there you go even the group itself appears not to have a defined role or policy. It's a dangereouse route to take as there is possibility of some form of split taking place.

You mean we allow people to have different opinions?

Sorry about that.

I'll just go and beat my opinion into the other guys, shouldn't take long, back in a minute... :rolleyes:

tbh

Hagar wrote: »

You mean we allow people to have different opinions?

Sorry about that.

I'll just go and beat my opinion into the other guys, shouldn't take long, back in a minute... :rolleyes:

the last thing this thread needs is more sarcasm, in fairness. no grudges, remember??!

Hagar

Or back seat mods.

tbh

Hagar wrote: »

Or back seat mods.

just making a point, not a statement. This stuff matters to me.

Hagar

It matters to all of us. That is why we are here.
There is room for diversity of opinion and even diversity of expression of that opinion.

Let's avoid being sidetracked.

tbh

Hagar wrote: »

I
There is room for diversity of opinion and even diversity of expression of that opinion.
.

is there? is that how you deal with a dissenting opinion? sarcasm?

The Muppet

Hagar wrote: »

You mean we allow people to have different opinions?

Sorry about that.

I'll just go and beat my opinion into the other guys, shouldn't take long, back in a minute... :rolleyes:

The role of any group should be clearly defined, either it's a pressure group or it's not. Obviously there will be differing opinions within the group but the group should have a defined role and speak with a single voice , otherwise it's just a rabble and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

"And "don't be a dick". Civility costs nothing":)

Hagar

The group isn't speaking here. Did you think it was?

Nobody who has posted so far has been officially representing the group, we are all just posting as individuals, just as you are.

I can't help myself, if I see a snowball just sitting there a little voice makes me throw it.

IITYWYBMAD

tbh wrote: »

is there? is that how you deal with a dissenting opinion? sarcasm?

I don't believe it was a dissenting opinion, it was an attempt to obfuscate the actual issue.

This is not a discussion on the make-up of a social group, and to try and steer the debate in that manner is wrong.

I'm not saying don't have that debate, I'm just saying that it would drag this thread totally off kilter.

IITYWYBMAD

The Muppit wrote: »

The role of any group should be clearly defined, either it's a pressure group or it's not. Obviously there will be differing opinions within the group but the group should have a defined role and speak with a single voice , otherwise it's just a rabble and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

"And "don't be a dick". Civility costs nothing":)

I think Hagar has pretty mush answered your point in relation to the make up of the group. As you seem to not know what is being discussed by the group, I don't really think you are in a position to be saying if the group should be speaking with 1 or 100 voices. For your information, nobody here is speaking on behalf of any group, so the group has spoken with zero voices so far.

Why don't you click on the link in my sig, to see clearly what the role of the group is. Alternatively, PM one of the guy's for access.

PhilipMarlowe

The Muppit wrote: »

As TBH said above this site has always been run by a benevolent junta, Many of the members of Act have pushed that line here and on other forums on the site.

I asked earlier what has changed and didn't really get an answer. IMO what has changed is that the rules that were once applied to ordinary members are now being applied across the board and that is causing a bit of a ripple.

I think the admins are right to set high standards for moderators whose role should be to facilitate and moderate the discusssion on their forums.

I don't know what (if anything) has changed but IMO this site has always operated under the ideology or ethos of "Speak softly and carry a big stick". A lot of what I can see that might be causing concern stems from timing. Knowing when to speak softly.. knowing when to wield the stick.

The Muppet

Hagar wrote: »

The group isn't speaking here. Did you think it was?

Nobody who has posted so far has been officially representing the group, we are all just posting as individuals, just as you are.

I can't help myself, if I see a snowball just sitting there a little voice makes me throw it.

That's part of the problem isn't it. Nobody, not even members of the group is too sure of what it is really about.

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I don't believe it was a dissenting opinion, it was an attempt to obfuscate the actual issue.

So you're all for accoutability and transparancy yet get defensive when questions are asked about the group is that it? All my post have been clear, there was no attempt to obfuscate the issue , whatever the issues are?

Licksy wrote: »

I don't know what (if anything) has changed but IMO this site has always operated under the ideology or ethos of "Speak softly and carry a big stick". A lot of what I can see that might be causing concern stems from timing. Knowing when to speak softly.. knowing when to wield the stick.

I agree but as I see it some of the members of the group never expressed any issue with the that policy until it started to be applied equally across the board.

Hagar

Just one more post and you can go and read them yourself.

IITYWYBMAD

The Muppit wrote: »

That's part of the problem isn't it. Nobody, not even members of the group is too sure of what it is really about.

The only way I can answer that, is to say you are wrong.

So you're all for accoutability and transparancy yet get defensive when questions are asked about the group is that it? All my post have been clear, there was no attempt to obfuscate the issue , whatever the issues are?

You must have misunderstood me. My comment was not a reference to the clarity of your post, it was a reference to the ramification of discussing your post here, in this thread.

Why don't you start a thread asking the questions you want answered? I can guarantee you that your questions will be answered in as clear a way as possible, by those who know the answers. Alternatively, do as I said above.

I agree but as I see it some of the members of the group never expressed any issue with the that policy until it started to be applied equally across the board.

Maybe you could take this point to another thread aswell, as I don't think you are entirely correct on that.

The Muppet

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

The only way I can answer that, is to say you are wrong.



You must have misunderstood me. My comment was not a reference to the clarity of your post, it was a reference to the ramification of discussing your post here, in this thread.

Why don't you start a thread asking the questions you want answered? I can guarantee you that your questions will be answered in as clear a way as possible, by those who know the answers. Alternatively, do as I said above.



Maybe you could take this point to another thread aswell, as I don't think you are entirely correct on that.

My suspicion is that there is a bit of a witch hunt afoot and ordinary users are being asked to join somthing without having full disclosure of what it is they are signing up to. Terms like "Grudge" and "Pressure Group" only add to my suspicions.

Now that I have enough. posts to access the group I will join and find out for myself.

Fair enough If I'm off topic here I will raise my questions elswhere.

I am entirely correct on my last point, a quick search will prove what i said is correct. I'm here sin 2003 so have had seen plenty of the boards is not a democracy posts.

Onle last point which may beoff topic but is imo relevant , I'm not really up to date at whats happening behind the scenes. I am aware of what happened in soccer and think that situation was badly handled by both sides. The Mod in question is valued contributor there but did overstep the mark on occasion and made some poor decisions as many of us do (changing a certain thread title for example) . I hope he continues to contribute to the forum in some capacity whatever way this pans out in the end

Wibbs

The Muppit wrote: »

My suspicion is that there is a bit of a witch hunt afoot and ordinary users are being asked to join somthing without having full disclosure of what it is they are signing up to. Terms like "Grudge" and "Pressure Group" only add to my suspicions.

Jeez way to fan flames eh? :rolleyes: People can join and people if they dont like what they read or just simply think "meh, load of me arse" can just leave. No harm no foul. Indeed people have already done that and good luck to them too. If you can find another "secret" forum on here with that much openness or even within sniffing distance of that lot please let us all know. It may be worth joining. Cant really see your issue at all TBH.

Now that I have enough. posts to access the group I will join and find out for myself.

Cool and jump in make a contribution or think no way or meh or call us quislings or whatever and stay or leave. Entirely your choice.

The Muppet

Wibbs wrote: »

Jeez way to fan flames eh? :rolleyes: People can join and people if they dont like what they read or just simply think "meh, load of me arse" can just leave. No harm no foul. Indeed people have already done that and good luck to them too. If you can find another "secret" forum on here with that much openness or even within sniffing distance of that lot please let us all know. It may be worth joining. Cant really see your issue at all TBH.


Cool and jump in make a contribution or think no way or meh or call us quislings or whatever and stay or leave. Entirely your choice.

I made that post before I had access to the group so didin't really know what sort of issues there are, I was not trying to fan any flames. My suspicion was correct.


I don't really agree with many of the issues but I will hang about for a while as I'm genuinely interested in seeing how things develop if thats ok.