Procedure of De-Modding

sceptre

copacetic wrote: »

Well, all the time was an attempt at jest.

Ah:)

My original point was that this, 'demod them quick they are going to ruin the site' thing is nearly entirely fantasy.

Am I wrong, or have all the major such issues that have happened been done either by accident by mods/admins or on purpose by people who weren't being demodded?

That question reads like two opposites to me so I can't give you a yes or no. It's late though so I'm slower than normal and hence might be misreading it (apologies if so).

I think this answers it though:

While it has been rare, all of these have happened on occasion in the past:

• mod/admin made mistake that has screwed up a major thread and caused hassle to fix.
  
• mod deliberately screwed up a major thread or forum without any notice when they wanted out as some sort of grand graffiti effort and caused hassle to fix.
  
• mod deliberately screwed up a major thread or forum after resigning their post but before they were removed from the mod usergroup in the database (sometimes a quite short gap between the two, sometimes a long one) and caused hassle to fix.

The first one of these three is just human error. That happens of course. The other two are plain idiotic vandalism when they occur. We've been lucky in that number 2 hasn't happened in a while.

Assuming what you mean by the question is "do departing mods sometimes, albeit rarely, act the complete muppet ass and decide to screw around with the database as sceptre mentioned above?" then the answer would be "Yes. It has sometimes happened and hence can't be complete fantasy. Actually it's pretty annoying for everyone, especially the forum members when that happens." We'd be foolish if under certain circumstances we didn't always take reasonable precautions to protect the posts people have made. We'd be remiss in our duty to the members of the site as a whole if we didn't do that. The growing group of Boards.ie members deserves that duty of care.

copacetic

sceptre wrote: »

[*]mod deliberately screwed up a major thread or forum after resigning their post but before they were removed from the mod usergroup in the database (sometimes a quite short gap between the two, sometimes a long one) and caused hassle to fix.

Assuming what you mean by the question is "do departing mods sometimes, albeit rarely, act the complete muppet ass and decide to screw around with the database as sceptre mentioned above?" then the answer would be "Yes. It has sometimes happened and hence can't be complete fantasy. Actually it's pretty annoying for everyone, especially the forum members when that happens." We'd be foolish if under certain circumstances we didn't always take reasonable precautions to protect the posts people have made. We'd be remiss in our duty to the members of the site as a whole if we didn't do that. The growing group of Boards.ie members deserves that duty of care.

Interesting, I didn't know this.

I would say that if someone is resigning and wanted to cause a lot of trouble then could do so quite easily before resigning or if a mod was worthy of demodding they would likely be doing this stuff before demodding.

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?

BuffyBot

For instance, a mod can behave in a slightly (but still only slightly) less then conformative way but end up with the respect of those users he mods and those fellow mods he works with.

We do, as much as possible try to consider everyone's style and personality - but of course, the biggest problem is "respect" and "slightly non-conformative" and all other measurements are highly subjective and impossible to measure - and these are the variables we have to do our best to work with

nesf

nesf wrote: »

The thing is that it remains user driven. As a Category Mod I can and do overrule moderator decisions. This only happens when a user or users in that forum complain about a decision or a mod's behaviour. If the users don't complain I never interfere with how the forum is being run. It's still community driven at its core and we only get involved when members of that community are complaining about something.

Further to that, our analysis of mod decisions is purely within the context of the forum, not some generic mod template. What's acceptable varies hugely from forum to forum and this is very much taken into account.


Edit: The protocols are there merely in that they formalise "who to complain to". They don't mandate Admins and Cat Mods to go poking around in forums where the userbase is happy. Unless we're getting legal threats over the contents of the forum or something serious like that is occurring.

So there is a protocol that says that when a moderator decision is questioned or a moderator themselves are questioned that the appropriate authority to go to is the Category Mod and not the Admins?

BuffyBot

BuffyBot wrote: »

We do, as much as possible try to consider everyone's style and personality - but of course, the biggest problem is "respect" and "slightly non-conformative" and all other measurements are highly subjective and impossible to measure - and these are the variables we have to do our best to work with

Surely the ultimate answer to that subjective measure is how the forum is running and the general satisfaction of the Users within that forum?

nesf

Deleted User wrote: »

So there is a protocol that says that when a moderator decision is questioned or a moderator themselves are questioned that the appropriate authority to go to is the Category Mod and not the Admins?

Yup, so long as it's something trivial like challenging a ban or something we deal with it. For something more serious it goes up to the Admins to be dealt with.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely the ultimate answer to that subjective measure is how the forum is running and the general satisfaction of the Users within that forum?

+1. Some people seem to put the cart before the horse on this point. General user contentment is or should be by far the biggest yardstick. The mods on the ground in the vast majority of cases have a feel for that and that vibe varies from forum to forum. What flies in soccer say wouldn't fly in PI. One size does not fit all.

copacetic

BuffyBot wrote: »

We do, as much as possible try to consider everyone's style and personality - but of course, the biggest problem is "respect" and "slightly non-conformative" and all other measurements are highly subjective and impossible to measure - and these are the variables we have to do our best to work with

It's difficult of course, but is an attempt to do this across boards an ongoing thing? Are all mods now expected to conform to whatever this new standard of respect is? Are admins themselves expected to conform?

Again it's hard without going into specifics but if lack of respect shown to sitebanned trolls and what would generally considered 'banter' on the forum in question are the new standard for demodding, would this not automatically lead to a host of demoddings? and de-adminings* for that matter?

In the past I've personally been very unhappy with the level of rudeness, arrogance and condescension generally shown to users by both some mods and some admins. In fact some appear to revel in it. Are these issues now also to be addressed? If mods are held to a higher standard than users (and rightly so), should admins and cmods not be held to a higher standard than mods? Is this higher standard codified anywhere? Both in their actions and attitude to users below them in the foodchain.

Are any other mods or admins on their last chance? Have they been informed? It would seem fair to anyone in that situation that has given so much of their time to boards to be given a fair amount of time and consideration to either step down or moderate their own behaviour. Especially mods of forums with a much different ideology that most/any of the admin or cmod team are familiar with.


(*may not be an actually word. )

TL/DR - Is Terry watching his back?:D

BuffyBot

Surely the ultimate answer to that subjective measure is how the forum is running and the general satisfaction of the Users within that forum?

For the most part yes. However satisfied users on the forum aren't always a yardstick that's usable. A popular mod, may do bad things - and those concerned about them won't always express their concerns in a public forum, for fear of public backlash. These kind of things get escalated to us in other ways: so we can't always use public perception of popularity as a guage. I'm not saying that it isn't useful, it just can't be used as a be-all and end-all.

It's difficult of course, but is an attempt to do this across boards an ongoing thing? Are all mods now expected to conform to whatever this new standard of respect is? Are admins themselves expected to conform?

Mods are expected to act in a certain way. We're not saying they need to be angels, all the time: but yes, there is an expectation there which has been rather loosely applied in the past. We could firm it up, and perhaps we will in the future - but as it's still a relatively new-ish expectation, we want to see how it beds down.

Again it's hard without going into specifics but if lack of respect shown to sitebanned trolls

Actually, you'll find that most banned users get a *lot* more respectfully treated than they did 12 months ago. We've made a concious effort to do that, and that's ongoing.

and what would generally considered 'banter' on the forum in question are the new standard for demodding, would this not automatically lead to a host of demoddings? and de-adminings* for that matter?

Sorry, I'm not clear what you're asking here

In the past I've personally been very unhappy with the level of rudeness, arrogance and condescension generally shown to users by both some mods and some admins. In fact some appear to revel in it.

Then, you should have used the appropriate channels. Now, there are CMods to contact, and even if you didn't feel comfortable with a particular CMod, or even a particular Admin, you could have contacted another Admin. By the simple virtue of there being more Admins than ever, they are a lot more accessible to the userbase because they have more time to be. And for the most part, they're human and completely PM'able.

Are these issues now also to be addressed? If mods are held to a higher standard than users (and rightly so), should admins and cmods not be held to a higher standard than mods?

They are being addressed and will be addressed. Like any complaint about a Mod, they'll be looked into and if we feel it is nessecary.

Is this higher standard codified anywhere? Both in their actions and attitude to users below them in the foodchain.

We've issued guidance about how Mods should deal with users, and again we may develop that into a greater "how to" guide. On the flip side, we have to be realistic about people's time: Mods (as you know) are volunteers and don't always have time to dedicate to an ongoing training plan. We would lose just as many good mods by putting an unreasonable demands on their available time as through any other means.

Are any other mods or admins on their last chance? Have they been informed?

Yes, there are and yes they have.

It would seem fair to anyone in that situation that has given so much of their time to boards to be given a fair amount of time and consideration to either step down or moderate their own behaviour.

Exactly what we have done before, and endeavour to do when at all possible.

Especially mods of forums with a much different ideology that most/any of the admin or cmod team are familiar with.

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

leninbenjamin

copacetic wrote: »

In the past I've personally been very unhappy with the level of rudeness, arrogance and condescension generally shown to users by both some mods and some admins.

This is one of the most important statements in the thread so far imo. Much of the confrontation that occurs on this site does so because of a lack of respect for the other parties, this breed's contempt and the result is that you then you have a major escalation like in the case of Lloyd.

Quite a selection of admins, mods and users alike need to learn to cop on and be more aware of how their statements and actions may be perceived. I know it's a tire old cliche, but it's one thing to enforce the letter of the law and another to promote the spirit of the law.

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