Procedure of De-Modding

tbh

Thaedydal wrote: »

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

and they'll say your opinion is wrong. and we get pages and pages of it, and nothing changes.

seamus

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

They don't have to. I'm not an admin, hence it should never be assumed that anything I say has any semblence of admin discussion in it.

If they have to refute any of my statements, do they also have to go onto the CT forum and confirm that no, they do not believe in lizard overlords and NWO conspiracies?

Asking the admins to clarify if my opinion is their opinion is ridiculous. I'm not an admin, ergo my opinion is not an admin opinion.

Clarified.

Nevyn

They dont' have to but they may choose to, the invitation had been offered, as you said you don't speak for them.

oh and nice choice of dismissal tactics and tbh I don't' care if 9 out of 10 admins believe in chemtrials, that doesn't effect the site or how posters are treated on it.

Nevyn

tbh wrote: »

and they'll say your opinion is wrong. and we get pages and pages of it, and nothing changes.

Funny some people call that a discussion, you know the point of this site, other wise why bother with politics discussions or abortion discussion, why because during them better understandings may be reached.

tbh

Thaedydal wrote: »

other wise why bother with politics discussions or abortion discussion, why because during them better understandings may be reached.

I don't. And I don't because, in terms of politics and abortion, it's never a discussion, it's one poster or group of posters trying to impose their opinions on another poster or group of posters. It's pointless.

copacetic

seamus wrote: »

Asking the admins to clarify if my opinion is their opinion is ridiculous. I'm not an admin, ergo my opinion is not an admin opinion.

Clarified.

I'm sure at lot of people would be interested in whether the admins agree though seamus? Imo it's been great to have your input here as you are much less likely to sugar coat things and as an ex admin may give us an insight into the kind of thinking behind some of their decisions.

With your excellent history it was obvious that there was more to your statement that a simple opinion. However you ignored a few reasonable replies, waited for the lol and the jpg, then jumped on them.

Imo you weren't trying to get a discussion going with that statement, you were trying to get a bad reaction in an attempt to show how crazy everyone else was.

Nevyn

I disagree as I have gained a better understanding of other people's positions in such discussions and when you do that you find your self able to comprimise more and I have.

tbh

Thaedydal wrote: »

I disagree as I have gained a better understanding of other people's positions in such discussions and when you do that you find your self able to comprimise more and I have.

cool! what compromises have you made as a result of this thread?

seamus

copacetic wrote: »

However you ignored a few reasonable replies, waited for the lol and the jpg, then jumped on them.

Imo you weren't trying to get a discussion going with that statement, you were trying to get a bad reaction in an attempt to show how crazy everyone else was.

Are we looking at the same thread? Go back and read post 137.

IITYWYBMAD

tbh wrote: »

I don't. And I don't because, in terms of politics and abortion, it's never a discussion, it's one poster or group of posters trying to impose their opinions on another poster or group of posters. It's pointless.

There are situations where an opinion is based on facts that are incorrect. In cases like that, debate can inform and change opinions.

What you are proposing is a situation where threads would have a single post from each user, each post setting out his/her POV, and no debate, because, as you say.....debate is pointless....so why bother?

I do remember ecksor trying to introduce a policy, some years back, whereby FB posts could only be answered with a Yes or a No. DeV shot that down straight away, as..guess what? It stifles debate.

tbh

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

There are situations where an opinion is based on facts that are incorrect. In cases like that, debate can inform and change opinions.
.

I believe that this is one of those situations. The reality, I believe, is that while boards would like to be able to accept user direction, it can't anymore. Most of the posts that are critical of boards on this thread assume that user and moderator opinion is necessary. . Maybe it isn't. But I don't see any opinions changing, all I see is heels getting dug in.

IITYWYBMAD

tbh wrote: »

I believe that this is one of those situations. The reality, I believe, is that while boards would like to be able to accept user direction, it can't anymore. Most of the posts that are critical of boards on this thread assume that user and moderator opinion is valid. Maybe it isn't. But I don't see any opinions changing, all I see is heels getting dug in.

That's a very fair post, so what would you propose would change these entrenched opinions? I think you may find that the answer is actually in what you posted....

Nevyn

tbh wrote: »

cool! what compromises have you made as a result of this thread?

Well my opinion on your opinionshas certainly be compromised, so I shan't be responding to any more of your tangents.

tbh

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

That's a very fair post, so what would you propose would change these entrenched opinions? I think you may find that the answer is actually in what you posted....

I propose that people get a reality check I don't know if this is site opinion or not, but I think that the "old" boards where mods and users were consulted is gone now.

For example, if facebook made a change in policy, we might see groups being formed, but we're pretty sure they are pointless. Why? Because there's no ethos of facebook taking user direction. Maybe that's the way boards is now - a business first, and a community second- like amadeus (was it? or copa. sorry) made the point about the pub having the lock in. IF a pub has a lock in every friday night for six years, and then stops, the regulars would probably be pissed off about it, but what can they do?

tbh

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well my opinion on your opinionshas certainly be compromised, so I shan't be responding to any more of your tangents.

typical response in fairness

Sherifu

5starpool sums it up perfectly. It's hard for me to take the admins seriously anymore. How many times can you keep ballsing up big decisions and remain in power. Only in Ireland.

I don't know if we need procedures or better communication(probably both) or something else. Something needs to change.

Nevyn

Boards.ie isnt' facebook, and you an keep your condescension I've enough thanks.

tbh

Thaedydal wrote: »

Boards.ie isnt' facebook, and you an keep your condescension I've enough thanks.

maybe it is now?

One would have thought if you'd had enough, you'd stop replying. Obviously not

Nevyn

Sherifu wrote: »

5starpool sums it up perfectly. It's hard for me to take the admins seriously anymore. How many times can you keep ballsing up big decisions and remain in power. Only in Ireland.

It's not all the admins, and I don't think it's fair to ask people who have also contributed greatly to the site over the years to fall on swords when mistakes are made or for attempts to hound them out when unpopular decisions are made, we'd not be happy to see people do that to mods, but better communication and consideration I don't think is too much to ask.

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

It's not all the admins, and I don't think it's fair to ask people who have also contributed greatly to the site over the years to fall on swords when mistakes are made or for attempts to hound them out when unpopular decisions are made, we'd not be happy to see people do that to mods, but better communication and consideration I don't think is too much to ask.

QFT its most certainly not all the admins.

IITYWYBMAD

tbh wrote: »

I propose that people get a reality check I don't know if this is site opinion or not, but I think that the "old" boards where mods and users were consulted is gone now.

For example, if facebook made a change in policy, we might see groups being formed, but we're pretty sure they are pointless. Why? Because there's no ethos of facebook taking user direction. Maybe that's the way boards is now - a business first, and a community second- like amadeus (was it? or copa. sorry) made the point about the pub having the lock in. IF a pub has a lock in every friday night for six years, and then stops, the regulars would probably be pissed off about it, but what can they do?

And I think this 100% vilifies the point made earlier with regards to Admin input. This is your opinion, it's a million miles from site policy, as neither you or I are in a position to dictate what site policy is in this regard.

But I also believe that you have missed one key point. The issue at hand is communication. It actually does not matter that this site is a business first and a community second (although I think to rate them in that manner is completely erroneous) as one cannot exist without the other.

I can state for a fact that the "powers that be", be they corporate investors or original Admins, would believe that there is no corporate entity without the community.

That is not to say that the site cannot change, of course it has to change and like any entity growing pains are experienced. Key to managing this change, in my and others experience, is communication. Sure, isn't this site is built on communication?

To extrapolate your facebook hypothesis a little further, if all of facbooks users decided to stop using facebook (unlikely I know, but just bear with me), do you think they would still entrench themselves with the "were not listening" opinion? I also find your opinion a little ironic, given the actions by the owners less than a year ago

Wibbs

tbh wrote: »

For example, if facebook made a change in policy, we might see groups being formed, but we're pretty sure they are pointless. Why? Because there's no ethos of facebook taking user direction.

Really? They changed their tune and changed their setup when there were enough complaints about not being able to fully close down and delete ones account. They changed their tune and changed their setup when people realised their content could be used for direct facebook advertising purposes. They have changed their tune many times in response to users issue(even though they sometimes needed some external pressure to do so). Signing up to facebook today and the opt outs and ins of today are quite different to even a year ago.

Cogent and considered viewpoints are never pointless. If they have value they will gain support and things will change. I could never comprehend the mindset that worked on the principles of "that's the way it is" and "sure what can anyone do about it" The fact is this very site and this very community would never have happened if DeV and the other guys thought like that. Even registering the very name as a .ie domain wouldnt have happened with that mindset.

tbh

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

And I think this 100% vilifies the point made earlier with regards to Admin input. This is your opinion, it's a million miles from site policy, as neither you or I are in a position to dictate what site policy is in this regard.

correct.

But I also believe that you have missed one key point. The issue at hand is communication. It actually does not matter that this site is a business first and a community second (although I think to rate them in that manner is completely erroneous) as one cannot exist without the other.

yes, that's true, and it's what I've said all along. The admins need to be very clear about the direction of the site, and people can stick or twist based on that. IF it's a business, grand. If it's a community, grand.
But my street is a community, and so is Dublin. My experience of one is very different from my experience of the other. On a personal level, it's nicer to stick local. If I want to sell something, I'd be crazy to limit myself to just the people on the street.

I can state for a fact that the "powers that be", be they corporate investors or original Admins, would believe that there is no corporate entity without the community.

I would hope so, but I think the new definition of community - involving community managers, commercial reps, lots of new posters, lots of new mods, lots of new opinions - is different to how we used to define community.

That is not to say that the site cannot change, of course it has to change and like any entity growing pains are experienced. Key to managing this change, in my and others experience, is communication. Sure, isn't this site is built on communication?

I agree with this, but I think that the right communication is needed. I don't want the admins to say "guys, we're listening" when it's impractical for them to listen. Totally take your point about them communicating change better, but not as a sop to those of us who remember the old days.

To extrapolate your facebook hypothesis a little further, if all of facbooks users decided to stop using facebook (unlikely I know, but just bear with me), do you think they would still entrench themselves with the "were not listening" opinion?

IF all of facebook users decided that, then yes, they probably would change. But if all the users of boards decided to stop using boards unless they could see what's being written in the Admin forums, would it be worth it?
And from a business point of view, if say, 50% of the users left on the same day, would you be worried if you knew you'd replace all of those users within six months?

I also find your opinion a little ironic, given the actions by the owners less than a year ago

I think it's different. I assume you're talking about the big privacy thing on facebook there. (will check out the link, I promise!) Mass user action would of course prompt a re-think. but we don't have mass user action here - the majority of users don't care about any of this, they just want to know how to get UTV through their sky box. So, for example, you'd need to show me an example of how an admin decision -banning a user, removing a page etc can be influenced by user action.

5starpool

copacetic wrote: »

Imo you weren't trying to get a discussion going with that statement, you were trying to get a bad reaction in an attempt to show how crazy everyone else was.

There is another word for this too. Just as well you aren't held to the higher standard.

I usually find your posts well argued and reasonalbe seamus, but there have been a couple of overly dimsissive ones in this thread.

In general I don't care about most bans given out (I'd add demodding too if I knew reasons for more than a small handful) because as you say, most of them are correct.

However it is when it is very wrong to make a specific decision, these flareups occur. Obviously you are not an admin any more and thus not speaking for them, but you are the nearest thing there is to an admin actually giving an opinion or engaging with people on this issue here or elsewhere.

Also, saying that this 'unon', as you call it, would force people out of the site then that is way off the mark. What is forcing people off the site is unreasonable, unaccountable, unapologetic behaviour in a small number of incidents. Trying to paint it as anything else is just wrong.

Also, to --amadeus--, poker is the 4th largest when you take it's big subforums into account (over 600k posts I think).

Tallon

tbh wrote: »

IF a pub has a lock in every friday night for six years, and then stops, the regulars would probably be pissed off about it, but what can they do?

AS mentioned above in the ever increasing circle....... Stop going.... move....

lolo & poker for example

BuffyBot

Guys - can we keep the personal sniping out of it. Let's not let emotive responses derail what's been quite a constructive thread so far.

leninbenjamin

seamus wrote: »

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.

You're right, but there's one problem with that. By taking such a strong stance you deny the right to reply. As this is a community dependent site should admins not be willing to compromise a little for the sake of community, and engage with the unreasonables to facilitate the reasonables?

I have all too often seen good and reasonable points by users not being addressed by mods, admins and users alike because of an outright refusal to engage with the discussion at hand as it has been spoiled by a select few and the admins/mods have taken out the "This is not up for discussion" sign.

Secondly, as the admins determine the current format and future of the site should they not be willing to set an example? If the admins are willing to be reasonable, then how can anybody else be expected to? I really do think the line "This is not up for discussion" fosters the unreasonable side in posters.

seamus wrote: »

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.

Apologies, never knew you stepped down.

tbh wrote: »

For example, if facebook made a change in policy, we might see groups being formed, but we're pretty sure they are pointless. Why? Because there's no ethos of facebook taking user direction.

tbh, like any site or institution dependent on the direct contribution of non affiliated users for their content, functionality and existence, facebook is dependent on user feedback for their policy decisions. For example, they've changed the ToS, how applications function, the privacy policy in recent years all on the back of strong 'user' sentiment. Just goes to show.

Hagar

Tallon wrote: »

AS mentioned above in the ever increasing circle....... Stop going.... move....

lolo & poker for example

If they don't get the TOU sorted out soon Photography is also at risk.

Hank Scorpio

The level of Hypocrisy of some posters here is really tilting

tbh

nuxxx wrote: »

The level of Hypocrisy of some posters here is really tilting

you gonna point it out, or just leave it hanging? I know which is the easy option