Procedure of De-Modding

copacetic

BuffyBot wrote: »

Again, I don't quite grasp this. What "ideology" would that be? There is one common rule across boards.ie, that's in even formalised on the site guidelines now and that is "Don't be a dick" - and I can't think of one place that doesn't apply to. We'll all fall foul of this at one time or another: it's trying to make sure it's not that often is what really counts

Thanks for your efforts here BuffyBot, it's much appreciated.

I'll just clarify what I meant above.

There are forums with a very individual ethos like Soccer, Poker and After Hours. Where a certain style of moderation keeps the forum running and the users generally happy and could be considered an excellent way of moderating. However an admin or cmod might take individual posts and feel they aren't suitable for a moderator to make. Without any real understanding of how users themselves interact.

i.e if some of the admins were moderating soccer for example there would be no users left and 10 or 20 feeback/helpdesk threads a week (until they were all gone). Shouldn't it be left to the mods of forums like poker/soccer/after hours to decide amongst themselves who is or isn't suitable to continue moderating their forums? If there are concerns do you think any mods would bring them to admins/cmods in future when they may not trust the team above them to handle issues correctly?

Personally I think there was a mistake made with some of the recent cmod appointments for this reason. We've seen in the past the risks of cmods not being familiar with forums in their domain. For example imo there shoud be a cmod in sports who is familiar with the workings of the larger more lively forums.

Even among the admin team themselves there is generally a similar background to most of the admins. Imo we should have tried harder to widen the demographics of both the admins and cmods during all the recent changes.

nesf

copacetic wrote: »

Even among the admin team themselves there is generally a similar background to most of the admins. Imo we should have tried harder to widen the demographics of both the admins and cmods during all the recent changes.

Yeah, I think that a bit sometimes when I look at Politics. 3 of us are Admins, 2 of us are Cat Mods. The thing is that you're also looking at some of the most experienced mods on the site there though. I'm not sure if any of us are "popular" but I imagine most of us are pretty well respected to be honest about it.

BuffyBot

There are forums with a very individual ethos like Soccer, Poker and After Hours. Where a certain style of moderation keeps the forum running and the users generally happy and could be considered an excellent way of moderating. However an admin or cmod might take individual posts and feel they aren't suitable for a moderator to make. Without any real understanding of how users themselves interact.

It's a good point, which I've just countered elsewhere but fits here too. People tend to see the Admins as some kind of hovering cloud, but forget that we use and read the forums too. There are more Admins now than ever, and there are very few forums on the site that at least one Admin doesn't have an involvement in as a reader/poster. So it's not so much that there is no understanding: there is probably more chance of understanding a particular forums "feel" than there ever was before with just one or two active Admins

We'd be very cautious about picking one post out of nowhere and running with it (unless that post was horrendously bad, of course). We'll try to look around as much as possible. We'll look at the past, we'll seek counsel from other Admins who know the subject matter better than others (which is why you won' be intervening in an Airsoft debate, or a complaint on the Programming forum anytime soon without some serious research). We try to build a bigger picture. This is why people sometimes complain the Admins are slow about actioning things: but personally I prefer slow and thorough.

The keys to moderating and knowledge and context, and that applies to Admin-ing too.

Shouldn't it be left to the mods of forums like poker/soccer/after hours to decide amongst themselves who is or isn't suitable to continue moderating their forums? If there are concerns do you think any mods would bring them to admins/cmods in future when they may not trust the team above them to handle issues correctly?

In an ideal world yes, they would - and I say this with the intention of commiting seppuku after I post this, it as it sounds way too like my boss - but sometimes those co-mods can't see the woods from the trees. The Admins have to be the ones making the call.

With regard to whether or not they'd be comfortable bringing issues to the Cmods/Admins in future: well I can't really say. No matter what desicion is made, the chances are the original complainant may not like the outcome, and as such won't do so in the future: in the same way a user reports a post, and the Mod decides there isn't an issue. That user may never report another post on that forum again. It's unfortunate, but unavoidable in the "can't please everyone, all of the time" sort of way, but we can't allow ourselves to become bound by that fear either, otherwise nothing would get done.

We've seen in the past the risks of cmods not being familiar with forums in their domain. For example imo there shoud be a cmod in sports who is familiar with the workings of the larger more lively forums.

Well, not nessecarily. We've never seen the need for them to be subject matter experts. It simply wouldn't be possible because of the number of fora and diversity of topics. No matter who is chosen there will always be a "blind spot" or two. They're chosen because they've proven themselves to generally be level headed and shown good judgement. That's more the key criteria, and there is nothing to say when the next CMod steps down, that their replacement won't be pulled from the ranks of those forums you mention.

Even among the admin team themselves there is generally a similar background to most of the admins. Imo we should have tried harder to widen the demographics of both the admins and cmods during all the recent changes.

Apart from the common thread of the Admins all having been long term users of boards and/or the founders the Admins are actually a massively diverse group of people. We're like minded in the respect that we want boards.ie to thrive, and that certain things have to happen to ensure that comes about - but the opinions on how that comes about are generally just as diverse as the userbase. However, being the apex of a triangle comes with a price: we're the "concentrate" of those views, and of course every desicion we make won't include everyone's opinion or preference. It just isn't practical to do that - and that's why we see many threads about desicions we've made being examined. That's not bad thing, once they're not full of "..but but I wasn't listened to/consulted". Practicality dicates we can't listen to every single diverse viewpoint and incorporate it into desicions. However (taking this thread as an example) we can look at what we've done and see how it can be changed for the future - which is even more important in my opinion.

/end waffle

copacetic

nesf wrote: »

Yeah, I think that a bit sometimes when I look at Politics. 3 of us are Admins, 2 of us are Cat Mods. The thing is that you're also looking at some of the most experienced mods on the site there though. I'm not sure if any of us are "popular" but I imagine most of us are pretty well respected to be honest about it.

absolutely nesf, it's hard to word it without appearing to be saying the current admins/cmods are all useless. I'm not saying that at all. Just that we should pay more attention to what forums are driving the size of boards and adjust our structure to take more(or at least some) account of it.

I didn't mention politics as it is well covered above the actual mods as you mention.

copacetic

BuffyBot wrote: »

It's a good point, which I've just countered elsewhere but fits here too. People tend to see the Admins as some kind of hovering cloud, but forget that we use and read the forums too. There are more Admins now than ever, and there are very few forums on the site that at least one Admin doesn't have an involvement in as a reader/poster. So it's not so much that there is no understanding: there is probably more chance of understanding a particular forums "feel" than there ever was before with just one or two active Admins

I'd agree it's certainly got better, but even if we agree there are very few forums that admins aren't involved in, then of that few some of the largest forums on boards shouldn't be among them. Which is the case at the moment.

BuffyBot wrote: »

Well, not nessecarily. We've never seen the need for them to be subject matter experts. It simply wouldn't be possible because of the number of fora and diversity of topics. No matter who is chosen there will always be a "blind spot" or two. They're chosen because they've proven themselves to generally be level headed and shown good judgement. That's more the key criteria, and there is nothing to say when the next CMod steps down, that their replacement won't be pulled from the ranks of those forums you mention.

I certainly don't think they have to be experts, but there are similar forums to take cmods from. Eg in sports, rugby, gaa and soccer would have similar issues. airsoft and shooting would and A/R/T and Cycling would. Imo we made good choices covering the second two, but forgot the first grouping (where probably 50% of the posts on sports come from). Poker is a different issue altogethr imo as it's in the wrong cat to begin with.

BuffyBot wrote: »

Apart from the common thread of the Admins all having been long term users of boards and/or the founders the Admins are actually a massively diverse group of people. We're like minded in the respect that we want boards.ie to thrive, and that certain things have to happen to ensure that comes about - but the opinions on how that comes about are generally just as diverse as the userbase. However, being the apex of a triangle comes with a price: we're the "concentrate" of those views, and of course every desicion we make won't include everyone's opinion or preference. It just isn't practical to do that - and that's why we see many threads about desicions we've made being examined. That's not bad thing, once they're not full of "..but but I wasn't listened to/consulted". Practicality dicates we can't listen to every single diverse viewpoint and incorporate it into desicions. However (taking this thread as an example) we can look at what we've done and see how it can be changed for the future - which is even more important in my opinion.

I'm just not sure we are as diverse as we think we are. Not to put to fine a point on it, it's mostly a group of soc/rec nerds. No sports nerds/motors nerds/poker nerds (with devs step back).

You may feel the admin disagreements (and I'm sure they are doozies) are as diverse as the userbases but I don't think they are. A large proportion of the userbase is disenfranchised if you will the higher up you go. I'm not saying we should vote in admins, but if we did the admin team would look very different. Say a vote limited to users and only voting in current mods, and entirely based on first past the post. Obviously the large forums would have a large say in the results and we'd find a soccer mod, poker mod, after hours mod etc as an admin.

It's not a way I'd do it, but it's a good way to think about are the admins representing the users. Obviously you are limited by who is willing to do it, but maybe we should try a little harder to diversify?

Anywho, many thanks for your effort BuffyBot, I've taken too much of the running here I think for now..

nesf

copacetic wrote: »

Poker is a different issue altogethr imo as it's in the wrong cat to begin with.

Yeah, it should be a subforum of Mathematics tbh.

yahoo_moe

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I'm just loath to see a situation where a Mod is removed from their post while all the users they used to mod are left wondering what went wrong since everything seemed hunky dorey.

At the same time though, I think it's important to see things from the Admins'/site owners' point of view and realise that they have to put guidelines in place. And every mod has to be answerable to these standards. Sure if users were in charge of deciding these standards, the trolls could really appear here in force and destroy forums like Soccer and PI.

copacetic wrote: »

I just don't see the need and also don't believe the policy is enforced as you outlined. It also seems to be directly at odds with the policy of 24hrs notice introduced last year?

There's obviously been breaches of trust from ex-mods during heated situations in the past so I don't see how such precautions can't be taken still. Although whoever suggested that mod powers could be stripped while access to the mod forum could be retained while the issue was being resolved seemed to have the right idea.

And the 24-hour policy seems to relate to resignations, no? Forceful demodding like we're discussing here shouldn't have the exact same process imo, partly due to the threats mentioned above.

BuffyBot

Just to remind folks to keep this non-specific: I've just had to delete one post, which I really don't want to do. We've actually had some good contributions up to this point which I think will be pretty useful in the future

Podman

BuffyBot wrote: »

I guess what people would like is some sort of disciplinary procedure for cases such as this? Almost like some kind of quasi-employment situation.

If democracy can't work - do we formalise the whole situation? But who then makes the ultimate desicion? What happens when we've reached the end of the line with any popular mod and people still don't like that decision?

It's not like we like being bad guys, or that we want to annoy people - but we have to strike as much of a balance as possible, and sometimes that involves making hard, unpopular choices.

If people can contributing to this thread can come up with some sort of "happy medium" solution, I'll happily present them to the rest of the Admin team for discussion - but we have to be realistic about what we can expect, and also the actions that we take.

The system is the best available at the moment, and to that effect it works. Occasionally however there is a huge amount of opinion against the odd decision.. How about, in those cases, letting the dust settle and then returning to (all) the issues later on? And from scratch if necessary.

Also, what about some kind of kudos system for Mod Decisions, whereby public support is registered and taken into consideration if a de-modding is on the table? No reason not to extend this to the users, cmods and admin too.

The reasons for Mod decisions should be outlined briefly in the thread, so as not to spark off a bunch of complaints, but rather focus the decision squarely on the original problem.

Warnings are a good idea, if appropriate, before a de-mod. First in private, then in public if they are ignored.

Mahatma coat

8 Pages of backpeddalin and lies, all predicated on the premis that the Admins consult BEFORE actions get taken, which we know to be Bollox

I can testify from personal experience thas not how it happens.

and it does seem to be a wagoncirclejerkin moment again.


Why cant we have an outline of the procedures

seamus

chompy wrote: »

The system is the best available at the moment, and to that effect it works. Occasionally however there is a huge amount of opinion against the odd decision.. How about, in those cases, letting the dust settle and then returning to (all) the issues later on? And from scratch if necessary.

Also, what about some kind of kudos system for Mod Decisions, whereby public support is registered and taken into consideration if a de-modding is on the table? No reason not to extend this to the users, cmods and admin too.

The reasons for Mod decisions should be outlined briefly in the thread, so as not to spark off a bunch of complaints, but rather focus the decision squarely on the original problem.

Warnings are a good idea, if appropriate, before a de-mod. First in private, then in public if they are ignored.

Why does every single decision need to go to a committee? This sounds like one big waste of time. Adding more complexity to the system simply means that there are more holes to pick at.

A user getting banned is of no relevance to other users. A mod getting demodded is of no relevance to other mods except their co-mods. Nobody else's opinion on the matter is of any relevance and they don't have to be listened to.

Unfortunately boards itself has fostered the idea that everyone is entitled to express their opinion, but some people seem to have gone off and decided that everyone's opinion must be heard and registered about single topic. People are free to go off and have a rant about it, start their thread about it, but nothing changing shouldn't be taken as an offence just because 50 loudmouth malcontents didn't get their way.

As said before, this site isn't a democracy, and even if it was, a single thread or two complaining about an issue wouldn't be democracy either.

When there is a large swell of hate/anger about a decision, believe me when I say that the issue is given second (and third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh) consideration, but ultimately a decision has to be made and a stop has to be put to it. Some people refuse to respect that decision and continue to bitch. It's at that point that those people need to put up with it or go somewhere else. If someone doesn't respect the decision being taken, despite it having been given second consideration, then nobody is forcing them to stay here and put up with it.

I'm not saying that any part of the moderating hierarchy should ignore suggestions and complaints, but there's a fine line between having a valid complaint and simply mouthing off because you feel your opinion is worthy of constant consideration above everyone else's. People need to accept that no matter how right you think you are, if you're not in control, you express your opinion and then suck it up if it's ignored.

copacetic

A user getting banned is of no relevance to other users. A mod getting demodded is of no relevance to other mods except their co-mods. Nobody else's opinion on the matter is of any relevance and they don't have to be listened to.
.

Thats not true seamus, it's got massive relevance as other users or mods may be in for the same ill treatment in the future. Of course they don't have to be (and frequently aren't) listened to, but to say their opinion is worth any less that an an arbitrary grouping of other users is unfair. It's especially of interest to other mods (who give up a lot of valuable time to boards) to know how they may be treated in return.

Unfortunately boards itself has fostered the idea that everyone is entitled to express their opinion, but some people seem to have gone off and decided that everyone's opinion must be heard and registered about single topic. People are free to go off and have a rant about it, start their thread about it, but nothing changing shouldn't be taken as an offence just because 50 loudmouth malcontents didn't get their way.
.

How may people does it have to be 100, 1000, 10,000? At what stage are they no longer loudmouth malcontents and just concerned users who won't be intimidated into shutting up?

As said before, this site isn't a democracy, and even if it was, a single thread or two complaining about an issue wouldn't be democracy either.

When there is a large swell of hate/anger about a decision, believe me when I say that the issue is given second (and third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh) consideration, but ultimately a decision has to be made and a stop has to be put to it. Some people refuse to respect that decision and continue to bitch. It's at that point that those people need to put up with it or go somewhere else. If someone doesn't respect the decision being taken, despite it having been given second consideration, then nobody is forcing them to stay here and put up with it.

.

Why should people have to go somewhere else seamus? The people making decisions don't 'own' boards any more than the people disagreeing. Boards is the users, not a small group of people that 95% of users don't know.


I could just as easily say that it you don't like people disagreeing with decisions then go somewhere else where everyone will agree with everything you say. Then no one will complain when you make one monumental **** up after another.

I'm not saying that any part of the moderating hierarchy should ignore suggestions and complaints, but there's a fine line between having a valid complaint and simply mouthing off because you feel your opinion is worthy of constant consideration above everyone else's. People need to accept that no matter how right you think you are, if you're not in control, you express your opinion and then suck it up if it's ignored.

Thats one way of looking at it, however a lot of people would disagree. Your options for someone who doesn't like how things are done is to either leave or shut up?

_blank_

copacetic wrote: »

Your options for someone who doesn't like how things are done is to either leave or shut up?

Not just seamus, in fairness.

Don't like how we're doing things, fine then, go elsewhere, we'll find other people who'll be quiet.

And you know what? It's happening. People ARE fecking off. Good people. People who have built communities here. And the communities are going with them.

It's a very sad state of affairs, and the head in the sand approach at top level "Everything is ok, it's only a small rabble who are being loudmouths, we can treat them like crap, because there are 270,000 other people there to step into their shoes".

Lads, Boards is big because it works. It worked for ten years, and it would have worked for ten more, until it started to be tweaked and changed and then you started pissing people off by treating them like cogs in a wheel who could be easily replaced by quieter cogs.

Well here's an idea, instead of continually replacing "broken" cogs, why not try oiling the gears once in a while?

seamus

copacetic wrote: »

Thats not true seamus, it's got massive relevance as other users or mods may be in for the same ill treatment in the future. Of course they don't have to be (and frequently aren't) listened to, but to say their opinion is worth any less that an an arbitrary grouping of other users is unfair.

If it sets some kind of precedent, it's worth discussion and overturning it if it's wrong. When it doesn't, it's not.

"Arbitrary grouping of other users" is painting a picture that's simply incorrect. "Arbitrary" is close to "random" instead of the fact that those making the decisions have shown themselves to be capable of making those decisions and have been chosen specifically because their ability in such matters is demonstrably better than the ability of others.

So yes, their opinion is worth more than some arbitrary grouping of other users.

How may people does it have to be 100, 1000, 10,000? At what stage are they no longer loudmouth malcontents and just concerned users who won't be intimidated into shutting up?

When they have the ability to present their case in a reasonable manner. You're not dealing with despots or dictators here. You're dealing with reasonable people who will listen to, engage in and accept reasonable discussions. You're not dealing with people who can be bullied into constantly second guessing every decision because someone's mate has been banned for acting the tit.
Those in charge take decisions which will benefit all users or which are beneficial in the context of the community as a whole. Unless it can be demonstrated that a decision is detrimental to the community as a whole, then the admins have made the right call.

Bringing up laughable notions such as intimidation only further weakens any illusion of this being a reasonable discussion.

Why should people have to go somewhere else seamus? The people making decisions don't 'own' boards any more than the people disagreeing. Boards is the users, not a small group of people that 95% of users don't know.

Who are you trying to convince? You think the admins enjoy slogging through pages and pages of sniping and bitching bull****? Do you really think that if a bad decision was made that they would put up with all of this crap just to save face? This isn't politics, there's no glory outcome from this.

They stick with these decisions because they've not been given any reason to show that it was wrong in the first place. End of. It's nothing to do with transparency or accountability or any other such bull**** buzzwords.

Thats one way of looking at it, however a lot of people would disagree. Your options for someone who doesn't like how things are done is to either leave or shut up?

Read my post again.

You don't like something, you suggest how it can be made better. If the people in charge don't like your suggestion then you either accept it or go elsewhere. Now, you can keep tweaking and refining your suggestion, but twisting the decision into some form of conspiracy against the normal user is bordering on lunatic.

If there's a failing in the system, expose it and show how to fix it. But a decision which you don't like isn't necessarily a failing.

seamus

Des wrote: »

Well here's an idea, instead of continually replacing "broken" cogs, why not try oiling the gears once in a while?

Because a broken cog is still broken and will continue making lots of screeching noise, no matter how much oil you throw on it.

All I've really seen are suggestions about turning admin processes into one big mod committee meeting. Things are happening == I don't like not being told about it. Everybody being told about it == things stop happening. Being told about **** which doesn't concern me == I don't care. Not being told about **** which doesn't concern me == why not, I should be.
There's no winning with some people.

This is exactly the same kind of thing that's been happening on boards since the first mod was introduced, all that's changed is the scale. Now instead of one user getting annoyed about it and walking out, you have 50 or 100. These are usually "high-profile" people because high-profile people by definition are the most comfortable (and comforted) by the site and so that spurs them on to use it more and become more high-profile.

Then the parameters change to suit a more general population and some comfortable users are no longer comfortable and they get pissed off and leave.

That's life.

The suggestion will no doubt be made that I'm "one of them", but believe me if I saw a decision which I thought was taken lightly or which I thought was going in the wrong direction, I'd be right there giving them hell with everyone else.

copacetic

seamus wrote: »

"Arbitrary grouping of other users" is painting a picture that's simply incorrect. "Arbitrary" is close to "random" instead of the fact that those making the decisions have shown themselves to be capable of making those decisions and have been chosen specifically because their ability in such matters is demonstrably better than the ability of others.

So yes, their opinion is worth more than some arbitrary grouping of other users.
.

I'd disagree, to me it's not been at all clear that all the people chose have the ability and certainly not that they are demostrably better. Yourself and a few others I would have said that of but others I personally would have said were the worst possible choices.

seamus wrote: »

Those in charge take decisions which will benefit all users or which are beneficial in the context of the community as a whole. Unless it can be demonstrated that a decision is detrimental to the community as a whole, then the admins have made the right call.
.

Thats a crazily high standard seamus, so unless a decison ruins boards entirely then it's the right one? It does appear to be the standard people are working off, but it's wrong. Boards is very diverse and decisions badly affecting or ruining one large forum for istance are important, even if they don't directly affect the rest of boards.

seamus wrote: »

Bringing up laughable notions such as intimidation only further weakens any illusion of this being a reasonable discussion.
.

I don't believe it's laughable at all seamus, and I'm not sure what is/isn't reasnable about anything I've said.

seamus wrote: »

Who are you trying to convince? You think the admins enjoy slogging through pages and pages of sniping and bitching bull****? Do you really think that if a bad decision was made that they would put up with all of this crap just to save face? This isn't politics, there's no glory outcome from this.

They stick with these decisions because they've not been given any reason to show that it was wrong in the first place. End of. It's nothing to do with transparency or accountability or any other such bull**** buzzwords.

Read my post again.

You don't like something, you suggest how it can be made better. If the people in charge don't like your suggestion then you either accept it or go elsewhere. Now, you can keep tweaking and refining your suggestion, but twisting the decision into some form of conspiracy against the normal user is bordering on lunatic.

If there's a failing in the system, expose it and show how to fix it. But a decision which you don't like isn't necessarily a failing.

Personally I really don't understand how admins stuck to some of their past decisions. Honestly; absolutely stunned. However it's hard to debate or show 'where they were wrong' when people are prevented from even discussing such decisions directly.

IITYWYBMAD

copacetic wrote: »

.....Personally I really don't understand how admins stuck to some of their past decisions. Honestly; absolutely stunned. However it's hard to debate or show 'where they were wrong' when people are prevented from even discussing such decisions directly.

I believe that this is the nub of the issue, and is what causes most of the noise.

For example, if you look at the case that we are not looking at here, the "evidence" available seems to suggest that a loyal and hard-working mod, was targeted and embarrassed into a position because of an issue unrelated to the issue at hand. The "evidence" offered to warrant his initial "slap on the wrist" appears flimsy, to say the least, and most reasonable users (be they posters or mods) would arrive at the conclusion that this guy was targeted for personal reasons.

I'm not saying that that is the case. I am saying that that is the appearance of what happened.

If it is boards.inc intention of going down the road of "if you don't like it, f**k off", well then so be it.

But to go through the illusion of "give us your feedback" when feedback is the last thing you want, is both unfair and dishonest. That goes for feedback you invite, and also that which is forced upon you.

seamus

copacetic wrote: »

Thats a crazily high standard seamus, so unless a decison ruins boards entirely then it's the right one? It does appear to be the standard people are working off, but it's wrong. Boards is very diverse and decisions badly affecting or ruining one large forum for istance are important, even if they don't directly affect the rest of boards.

I mean detrimental in the dictionary sense - i.e. harmful. Any decision which does more harm than good is detrimental.

copacetic

seamus wrote: »

I mean detrimental in the dictionary sense - i.e. harmful. Any decision which does more harm than good is detrimental.

I got you alright, I guess my issue is around the 'boards as a whole' bit. I'd imagine the vast majority of regulars users are one or two forum people, they don't know about boards as a whole. They know 'their' forum. Be it after hours, poker, soccer or wherever. A decision may greatly affect their forums without causing much of a blip on boards as a whole.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

seamus wrote: »

A user getting banned is of no relevance to other users. A mod getting demodded is of no relevance to other mods except their co-mods. Nobody else's opinion on the matter is of any relevance and they don't have to be listened to.

lol

5starpool

Whatever about other peoples views on this, here is my take on a few things.

As mod I saw no need, nor had I any desire to be involved in a lot of the decision making on the site. The main things I had an issue with were, in no particular order:

1. Very little admin admittance that they could have handled things better when they clearly could have. If this is because they genuinely believe that nothing is/was wrong then so bee it.
2. Some new processes etc for mods that were just not needed. Was there really so many things that people were just doing that needed to be codified? If it ain't broke don't fix it.
3. Any of the big sh*tstorms of the past where a lot of people felt there was some admin errors (whether that be rashness, rudeness, or otherwise) seem to be repeated in each new sh1tstorm. I don't agree with Seamus's assessment that these are a bunch of malcontents in general that are voicing these perceived wrongs.
4. Several times I (and I have seen other people voice the same) have been getting the feeling of being spoken down to or totally ignored. I would not stand for that in work, never mind here where I expect people to be civil at least at the mod/admin layer, and although mostly they are there are enough examples of admins rubbing people up the wrong way to make it more than isolated exceptions.

There are other little things as well, but those may well just be in my head so I won't articulate them. To paint anyone who voices objections to the ways things are done in certain situations as a rabble rouser or troublemaker is just ridiculous.

Over the years a lot of the people now being referred to as troublemakers (or similar) have been great additions to their communities and the site at large imo, and to dismiss their opinion, even if only by silence as seems to be the case this last week or so, is wrong.

This silence seems to me a case of admins trying to decide a position but can't, or else pure indifference. Either way, the fact that there seems to be only one admin voice (irrespective of poster) is bad imo, and silence only makes this whole matter worse.

How many mods need to protest? How many to resign? How many users to shout does it take for people to get an answer?

Overdramatic? Perhaps, but too dismiss my, or anyone elses opinion with a "go elsewhere if you don't like it" is hardly constructive, and you are the second former admin (or former smod in the other case, same difference though imo) to use almost those exact same words. A cynic might say that it is voicing what some current admins may be thinking but cannot say.

tbh

5starpool wrote: »

3. Any of the big sh*tstorms of the past where a lot of people felt there was some admin errors (whether that be rashness, rudeness, or otherwise) seem to be repeated in each new sh1tstorm.

there's no getting away from this. Either the mods need to be told to accept admins decisions (and stick or twist based on that) or the admins need to find a way to communicate better.

_blank_

tbh wrote: »

the admins need to find a way to communicate better.

This.

In my opinion there should be an "Admin" account, so there can be no instances of a particular Admin who has a demonstrable "bad history" with a user/mod to be the one sending the communication.

If it came from a "central" account, then it may be a bit better

Hagar

Des wrote: »

This.

In my opinion there should be an "Admin" account, so there can be no instances of a particular Admin who has a demonstrable "bad history" with a user/mod to be the one sending the communication.

If it came from a "central" account, then it may be a bit better

Not very transparent though, the "Admin who has a demonstrable "bad history"" could very well be the unidentified admin posting via the "Admin" account and who would know?

Presumably all admins would be able to post via this account. That would entail 19 people having the password, no offence but nobody wants that security nightmare.

Podman

How about the "central" account where at least two Admins are required to sign on the big decisions?

themadchef

chompy wrote: »

How about the "central" account where at least two Admins are required to sign on the big decisions?

If admins feel mods are "walking a thin line" (for want of a better phrase) then tell them, crystal clearly what your issues are with them. Engage them, dont patronise them. I dont think a central account is a good idea as people will say they are hiding behind it.

A little bit of direct talking and a bit of respect for the mods who put in the time. Not too much to ask after all they give voluntarily. It's so much more about respect and less about bureaucracy.

leninbenjamin

seamus wrote: »

A user getting banned is of no relevance to other users. A mod getting demodded is of no relevance to other mods except their co-mods. Nobody else's opinion on the matter is of any relevance and they don't have to be listened to.

A use banned is someone other users can no longer have a discussion with. And indeed it is relevant to other users because it partially determines the acceptable actions that can be taken by a user. Admins on many occasions previously have said how each case is different and has to be treated on it's own merits. By definition then this means the ruleset or charter isn't entirely complete, so obviously this means there is some feedback mechanism in place that impacts the users and their future actions, even if indirectly.

A mod getting demodded is relevant to other mods because it obviously impacts their own duties in relation to the forum. They share the tasks involved in moderating, so how they execute said tasks will be severely impacted. Even if a replacement mod is elected immediately, there is still a change that needs to be processed and acted on.

I understand where you're coming from, but that's an exceptionally narrow minded stance, and tbh I'm quite unhappy that an admin would have such complete disregard for the users in their decision making.

BuffyBot

Just deleted a couple of posts to keep the thread on track folks.

I've been in touch with the user in question about his query

4zn76tysfajdxp

seamus wrote: »

A user getting banned is of no relevance to other users. A mod getting demodded is of no relevance to other mods except their co-mods. Nobody else's opinion on the matter is of any relevance and they don't have to be listened to.

Kiera

Maison Panicky Pool wrote: »

What crawled up his arse, they're winning 2-0

Handsome Bob

Kiera wrote: »

What crawled up his arse, they're winning 2-0

The boss dragged him off the pitch and told him that he wasn't needed anymore.

seamus

So, "lol" and some picture of an idiot are about the only rebuttals to my comment?

What happened to...you know...communication?

Please explain to me why one user's ban is any business of any other user. In general, we're not talking specifically here.

Wibbs

Maybe try reading leninbenjamin's last post as a kick off. As for lol and the GIF? A (moving) picture paints a thousand words.

If you cant see why your statement made people go eh wut? I really dont know.

Handsome Bob

seamus wrote: »

Please explain to me why one user's ban is any business of any other user. In general, we're not talking specifically here.

Posters should be respected because without them there is no boards. Their opinions matter and should be listened to because if they become disillusioned, it inevitably makes boards a worse place to come to. Dare I say it, a place not worth coming to.

If a poster feels another poster has been hard done by then they have a right to say it through the proper channels. What do you want dissenting voices to do, to be nice and quiet when they feel someone has been wronged, and still keep up the quality of their contribution to boards.ie?

If I'm managing and guiding a team, I'm not going to tell them to mind their own business when a decision is made that affects their fellow co-worker. Why? Simply because it's going to demoralise that team (if they feel their opinion isn't valued), and negatively impact on the quality of the work they produce.

What you are suggesting Seamus is akin to what I have outlined above. Hell the resignation of three highly respected mods is a perfect example of what I'm saying.

Fajitas!

What happened to...you know...communication?

This;

Nobody else's opinion on the matter is of any relevance and they don't have to be listened to.

seamus

Thanks, I obviously missed that.

It was a throwaway comment designed to start some sort of discussion on the topic, I was disappointed that no-one had actually addressed it but now I've seen lb's post.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

A use banned is someone other users can no longer have a discussion with. And indeed it is relevant to other users because it partially determines the acceptable actions that can be taken by a user. Admins on many occasions previously have said how each case is different and has to be treated on it's own merits. By definition then this means the ruleset or charter isn't entirely complete, so obviously this means there is some feedback mechanism in place that impacts the users and their future actions, even if indirectly.

And that's the key. Users are only affected if some form of previous unexpected precedent is set. Unexpected is the important word there because the accepted "code of conduct" on boards is wide open enough and left to common sense such that the vast, vast, majority of possible "offences" are obvious to any reasonable person. It's only when someone gets banned for something which wouldn't ordinarily ring "asshat" alarm bells, that there's suddenly a new precedent set.

The same goes for demodding. It's of interest to mods if a demodding results in, "Oh, I didn't think someone would get demodded for that".

However - to address my original statement - if someone gets banned or demodded for something which you would reasonably expect to have that action taken against you, then discussion of that action is irrelevant to other users. It doesn't make a difference how popular they are, how many friends they may or may not have, the same rules apply to everyone.

The obvious problem in the above sentence is "reasonable". There will always be someone who considers any particular ban unreasonable in any case. So someone has to decide somewhere that the reasoning was sound and "This is not up for discussion" and move on. That can be and has been called a lack of transparency, but it's reality. The admins (and the mods!) would be spending all of their time debating mundane and obscure points with people if all bans were all open to discussion from all users.

I understand where you're coming from, but that's an exceptionally narrow minded stance, and tbh I'm quite unhappy that an admin would have such complete disregard for the users in their decision making.

I'm not an admin, and as I say above it was more of a throwaway comment than a specific stance or hard and fast rule. The reaction to it however does illustrate a problem - that most people seem to take everything said as gospel. That every single word out of anyone's mouth is the last word on it. So instead of discussing it and going, "well hang on now, that's very simplistic", like you've done, they throw their hands up and inexplicably decide that a single statement is a comprehensive review of a person's stance, and set in stone.

If anyone had read any of my previous posts on feedback, they'd have spotted how incongruous that statement is from my other posts, when it's taken in isolation.

And this is one of the things I'm getting at. For some reason, when a issue flares up, it all becomes about what's said at that specific time. Instead of stepping back, taking the post in a general sense, every post is given specificity and tiny holes are picked in it to try and discredit it. That's not a discussion, that doesn't solve anything, all that does is make the respondent feel like they were right, but nothing actually gets accomplished.

If I'm managing and guiding a team, I'm not going to tell them to mind their own business when a decision is made that affects their fellow co-worker. Why? Simply because it's going to demoralise that team (if they feel their opinion isn't valued), and negatively impact on the quality of the work they produce.

Just to address this - If I'm managing and guiding a team and I have to fire a team member for conduct which would reasonably expect them to get fired, then yes I'm going to tell the rest of the team to mind their own business if they try to argue with me about it. Why? Because I'm the manager and it's my decision, it's not a democratic one.

If the action I'm taking is *not* reasonable given the "offence", then I would equally expect the entire team to explain that to me.

Nevyn

Some times a statement is just so wrong it's hard to take it on board and when you do there is often no point trying to explain to a person how wrong it is, no point trying to explain colour to the blind.

Look we take people on trust and we look at their forum like a racehorse.
Your statement struck me as being 'off' from you if I take your forum into consideration, you do get more slack but
such statement do cos consternation. The same thing goes with any mod or post or admin, we take into consideration our past interactions with them, by they active interactions or passive ones, we see how the treat others and how they act and react, and if there is a trend that causes concern then there is one.

As for your claim that you made that statement to prove a point or to have a discussion it well, it didn't seem it at the time and if you are declaring that to be the case now then no one likes to be baited in such a fashion.
And what ever your reason for making that statement, that statement not the reasons will stay with people a hell of a lot longer.

New circumstances crop up all the time on the site, seen it a lot of late as we have a shift in demographics and the blanket statement of no one should be concerned with any one else ban is not how communities work.

tbh

Thaedydal wrote: »

Some times a statement is just so wrong it's hard to take it on board and when you do there is often no point trying to explain to a person how wrong it is, IN YOUR OPINION, no point trying to explain colour to the blind.

FYP. Cause this is all this is. Opinions. Realistically, the website isn't run by comittee. Or it is, but it's a small committee.
Someones opinion has to be taken as the "boards" opinion.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

Just to address this - If I'm managing and guiding a team and I have to fire a team member for conduct which would reasonably expect them to get fired, then yes I'm going to tell the rest of the team to mind their own business if they try to argue with me about it. Why? Because I'm the manager and it's my decision, it's not a democratic one.

Its a middle management way of doing things, not to be confused with leadership or indeed actual management.

If the action I'm taking is *not* reasonable given the "offence", then I would equally expect the entire team to explain that to me.

Yet if they try to argue they'll be told to mind their own beeswax? Slightly at odds there, only coming down to what you personally see as reasonable. Plus if the team do try to argue the point it would be logical to assume that what you felt was reasonable may not have been in some way, or their faith in you or your definition of reasonable is in some doubt. Which would describe much of what is happening in some quarters.

seamus

Thaedydal wrote: »

And what ever your reason for making that statement, that statement not the reasons will stay with people a hell of a lot longer.

Exactly my point. Reactionary responses, irrational and unreasonable. People who are unable to consider the argument as a whole and instead cherry picking statements out of context and interpreting them to suit their own ends but without any though behind what that cherrypicking will achieve.

Like journalists, only worse.

The statement isn't actually all that "out there", for the reasons I point out above - a ban is of no-one else's concern unless the ban itself was unreasonable. And the vast majority of cases where people argue against a ban has nothing to do with how reasonable the ban was.

Slightly at odds there, only coming down to what you personally see as reasonable. Plus if the team do try to argue the point it would be logical to assume that what you felt was reasonable may not have been in some way.

As I mentioned above, some people will argue anything and everything for any reason. As a team manager, I would recognise that person and let them vent but their arguments would slowly lose impact because eventually it would just become noise.

Anyway, I've said my bit now, I can see that no-one else is reading except for the bizarre concept of the volunteers' union that some people have decided is necessary.

If you manage to cause anything except more rows and force more moderators to leave because of backstabbing and infighting, I'll tip my metaphorical hat to you.

--amadeus--

An excellent post seamus.

I actually agree 100%. Communities work on teh basis of precedence. If your local always has a lock in on Friday nights then no one falls to the ground in shock when the barman is still pulling pints at 2 in teh morning. If the landlord suddenly throws everyone out bang on time on Friday then people are going to wonder what on earth is going on. They'll have a chat about it. A few normal weeks and people forget. But the more it's repeated (and the more random and / or personal it seems) the more strange it will seem and teh more it will be talked about.

Now the landlord is within his rights to say "my pub, my rules". He's within his rights to say "I made an exception before but I don't *have* to do that". And if people like the pub enough and enough of thier mates go there then they'll grumble but they'll still go. They'll put up with arbitrary rules and seemingly inexplicable behaviour because the benifit is greater than the cost.

But enough arbitrariness, enough inexplicable decisions and enough of teh bar staff being rude to customers and that cost escalates to teh point that it is no longer worth paying. The benefit isn't high enough.

So the customers just get a few cans in and drink at home with a smaller group of friends. It's not the same as teh pub, not as many people but they know everyone and because they can make thier own rules the capriciousness and attitude of teh pub landlord is no longer a problem.

A handful of mods resigning is no big deal to Boards - I could count 20 or more who'd be delighted to take my old place on ART. A group of 60 or 70 "mouthy malcontents" is nothing in a userbase of 280,000. Even Lolo going wasn't that big a deal - it was a niche, private forum.

But Poker? 5th biggest forum on teh site?

How many communities have to hive themselves away before someone says "you know what, maybe there is a problem here"

Nevyn

tbh I don't get the point of your post, why do you feel the need to include that caveat?
Seamus has stated he is no longer an admin, I assume that this mean he does not have access to the admins forum and is not privy to dicussions there so has no input and that he is speaking personally and to that with so am I.

A user getting banned is of no relevance to other users. A mod getting demodded is of no relevance to other mods except their co-mods. Nobody else's opinion on the matter is of any relevance and they don't have to be listened to.

I think this statement is wrong very wrong and trust transactions have to be two ways
as is accountability. No matter who posted that statement in this thread or forum I'd refuste it.

tbh

Thaedydal wrote: »

tbh I don't get the point of your post, why do you feel the need to include that caveat?

because you are saying that something is wrong, but there's no way to objectively measure that.
You may think it's wrong, but the admins would argue that it's right.
So it just comes down to opinions.

Nevyn

seamus wrote: »

Exactly my point. Reactionary responses, irrational and unreasonable. People who are unable to consider the argument as a whole and instead cherry picking statements out of context and interpreting them to suit their own ends but without any though behind what that cherrypicking will achieve.

So you think it's a good idea to provoke people so you can then point and dismiss them cos they are provoke able and take a swipe calling them irrational and unreasonable?

seamus wrote: »

The statement isn't actually all that "out there", for the reasons I point out above - a ban is of no-one else's concern unless the ban itself was unreasonable. And the vast majority of cases where people argue against a ban has nothing to do with how reasonable the ban was.

So now you have "addded no-one else's concern unless the ban itself was unreasonable", if you had of put that in, in the first place then you would not have provoke the reaction you wanted.

It seems that most of the issue of late re thedemodding was not the unreasonable nature of it, but manner in which it was handled, which when added to the running forum has gathered even more concern.

seamus wrote: »

As I mentioned above, some people will argue anything and everything for any reason. As a team manager, I would recognise that person and let them vent but their arguments would slowly lose impact because eventually it would just become noise.

So those of us who have been complaining should just shut up?

seamus wrote: »

Anyway, I've said my bit now, I can see that no-one else is reading except for the bizarre concept of the volunteers' union that some people have decided is necessary.

We all know a LOT more people both those with accounts and those with out read threads then post in them. Well that is unless as well as being taken of the main feed for the site ie the ALL feed, feedback has also be restricted to those who are logged in.

As for what you terms a 'union', the founding premise of the site was for like minded people with a common interest to have a place to communicate.

seamus wrote: »

If you manage to cause anything except more rows and force more moderators to leave because of backstabbing and infighting, I'll tip my metaphorical hat to you.

You opinion has been noted, and filed thanks.

Nevyn

tbh wrote: »

because you are saying that something is wrong, but there's no way to objectively measure that.
You may think it's wrong, but the admins would argue that it's right.
So it just comes down to opinions.

Well then can we call an answer from the admins on it then.
Do they agree with the statement:

A user getting banned is of no relevance to other users. A mod getting demodded is of no relevance to other mods except their co-mods. Nobody else's opinion on the matter is of any relevance and they don't have to be listened to.

tbh

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well then can we call an answer from the admins on it then.
Do they agree with the statement:

sorry, should have said admins "may" argue that it's right. It's not fair to claim seamus is speaking for the admins - especially now - just like it's not fair to say that you - or i - are speaking for the mods. Seamus has earned the right to be treated like a normal user.

But even still, you can't say that his opinion is wrong, just like you can't say yours is wrong. They are different, but both are valid.

Nevyn

I agree only the admins can clear it up and I didn't assume seamus was speaking for them hence the invitation for them to clarify.

I am not going to get into philosophical discussion on the subjective wrongness of opinions.
The everyone is wrong stuff doesn't fly when it comes to the standards communities set for themselves, not going there, it's good way of distracting and detracting from discussion but I will pass.

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

Thanks, I obviously missed that.

It was a throwaway comment designed to start some sort of discussion on the topic, .

seamus wrote: »

Exactly my point. Reactionary responses, irrational and unreasonable. People who are unable to consider the argument as a whole and instead cherry picking statements out of context and interpreting them to suit their own ends .

I've taken both of your comments in context. If you do not want reactionary responses, maybe you should consider what you are saying a bit more. At best your "throwaway" comment was condescending, and is completely at odds with your apparent yearning for communication...it would be hilarious, if it was not so ironic.

tbh

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am not going to get into philosophical discussion on the subjective wrongness of opinions.

well then don't call someone else's opinion wrong

The everyone is wrong stuff doesn't fly when it comes to the standards communities set for themselves, not going there, it's good way of distracting and detracting from discussion but I will pass.

I don't really understand this.

Nevyn

No, if my opinion is that thier opinion is wrong I will say so.