Procedure of De-Modding

Hank Scorpio

tbh wrote: »

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

If i wanted to post what i really thought about all this i can see myself being banned, so i`ll leave it hanging, i think people are well aware of the real situation behind this little incident anyway. Also i dont like posting my opinion when posts are getting deleted by admins to save face.

IITYWYBMAD

tbh wrote: »

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.

And I think this point is key. What is comfortable for you, suits you. What is comfortable for others, suits them.By extrapolation, it would be unfair for you to expect others to conform to your view of the world, just because you believe that that is the way it is. I'm not saying don't have an opinion on it, but what I am saying is that you should be prepared to listen to what other peoples views/experiences are in relation to (for example) what community means to them, and you should also be open to the opinion that it's not always a battle between right and wrong, that sometimes different opinions can both be correct. There is scope for that!

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.

I would disagree with you that there is a "new definition" for community, even involving this site. I think you are intrinsically linking evolution with change (in the context of this website) and that cannot be done in a global sense, as evolution and growth, does not always mean change.

I agree with this, but I think that the right communication is needed.

I believe that most of us are now in agreement.

I don't want the admins to say "guys, we're listening" when it's impractical for them to listen.

I cannot think of single instance when this would be applicable, maybe you could give me one.

Totally take your point about them communicating change better, but not as a sop to those of us who remember the old days.

And I really think that you do some posters a disservice by connecting the two. I've never seen a point argued from a POV of historical melancholy.

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?

Again, your point is a bit extreme. I don't think anybody is expecting access to anywhere they should not have access to. Again, it a communication weakness, and I think most people can see that.

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?

No, but then again, I don't think that that's a scenario that anybody would want, nor is it in anyway likely.

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.

I don't think it's different. I think it addresses your premise that "if facebook made a change in policy, we might see groups being formed, but we're pretty sure they are pointless" in that it demonstrates that in some cases, people power works. You cannot deny that, but you can try and twist the argument around to "well that's not what I meant". As an aside, I believe, that one of the major issues we have from a Mod>UP...perspective, is the inability of a lot of people to say, "I was wrong" without the the perceived loss of face. If we had more discussion and inclusion around potentially inflammatory decisions, we would have a lot less threads like these.

seamus

5starpool wrote: »

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

I can see how it came across like that, but I can assure you it wasn't intended like that. There's posting purely to evoke an emotional response, and then there's posting to invoke a debate. I don't do it often, so maybe I haven't got the subtlety down.

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

It's probably because we're not discussing anything specific but the debate arose from a specific incident and I know exactly which side I'm on and why.

Maybe I'm the one who's being intractable and unreasonable, but (obviously) I don't believe so. I just believe that this has been made a far bigger issue than it is by virtue of where and on whom the action was taken, so it annoys me that so much screen space is wasted on it and so much hassle is caused over it.

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.

I already know of one mod who has stepped down due to the behaviour of some of this "union"'s members, and a number of others who are either on the brink of it or who have resolved to ignore the mod forum altogether.

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

It's probably because we're not discussing anything specific but the debate arose from a specific incident and I know exactly which side I'm on and why.

Maybe I'm the one who's being intractable and unreasonable, but (obviously) I don't believe so. I just believe that this has been made a far bigger issue than it is by virtue of where and on whom the action was taken, so it annoys me that so much screen space is wasted on it and so much hassle is caused over it.
I already know of one mod who has stepped down due to the behaviour of some of this "union"'s members, and a number of others who are either on the brink of it or who have resolved to ignore the mod forum altogether.

I think it's too much of an issue to "box off", by saying it's because of who it was. I think there are a number of questions raised by the action we are not referring too, and it seems to have raised a number of questions by mods and users alike. To say this is a ****-storm because of who it was is to only admit part of the issue.

I know a number of mods who have stepped down, or who are on the brink of stepping down, as a direct result of the action taken, which sparked this thread. But, thankfully it's not a stepping down contest :-}.

tbh

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

And I think this point is key. What is comfortable for you, suits you. What is comfortable for others, suits them.By extrapolation, it would be unfair for you to expect others to conform to your view of the world, just because you believe that that is the way it is. I'm not saying don't have an opinion on it, but what I am saying is that you should be prepared to listen to what other peoples views/experiences are in relation to (for example) what community means to them, and you should also be open to the opinion that it's not always a battle between right and wrong, that sometimes different opinions can both be correct. There is scope for that!

I agree. but the fact is some opinions on this site matter more than others. That's just the way it is.

I would disagree with you that there is a "new definition" for community, even involving this site. I think you are intrinsically linking evolution with change (in the context of this website) and that cannot be done in a global sense, as evolution and growth, does not always mean change.

I would argue that evolution does by definition mean change. Whether that change is good or bad is subjective, but it's definitely changed. There have been a number of changes made to accommodate a larger user base.

I believe that most of us are now in agreement. I cannot think of single instance when this would be applicable, maybe you could give me one.

I'll give you three.
1. The users want a mod who was demodded to be remodded
2. The users want to be able to post pics of topless girls in a private forum
3. The admins need to quickly implement a new policy concerning commercial reps


[/quote] And I really think that you do some posters a disservice by connecting the two. I've never seen a point argued from a POV of historical melancholy.
[/quote]

boards today is not the boards of yesterday, where the admins would ask about something before they did it. It's impractical for them to do it now, and in fairness, nobody ever expected Dev to do it, it was just nice to feel involved. Maybe we are now at the stage where we cannot expect that anymore.

I don't think it's different. I think it addresses your premise that "if facebook made a change in policy, we might see groups being formed, but we're pretty sure they are pointless" in that it demonstrates that in some cases, people power works. You cannot deny that, but you can try and twist the argument around to "well that's not what I meant". As an aside, I believe, that one of the major issues we have from a Mod>UP...perspective, is the inability of a lot of people to say, "I was wrong" without the the perceived loss of face. If we had more discussion and inclusion around potentially inflammatory decisions, we would have a lot less threads than these.

People power works because facebook needs users. If there was 100K users who wanted new policies, but 200K who objected, it makes sense for the 200K to get their way. But there's nothing to stop facebook, on a point of principle, saying "screw it, we're doing it our way, and if it fails, it fails". I think we're kinda getting off topic now tho.

IITYWYBMAD

tbh wrote: »

I agree. but the fact is some opinions on this site matter more than others. That's just the way it is.

Of course that is the way it is, and I don't think that anybody would disagree, but it should not stifle debate, nor should it be used as a reason to stifle debate, in fact it should promote it.

I would argue that evolution does by definition mean change. Whether that change is good or bad is subjective, but it's definitely changed. There have been a number of changes made to accommodate a larger user base.

From a website perspective, it does not. Look at your previous UTV comments, as an example. That guy does not care less if the site has 100 or 100,000 posters, all he is interested in is getting his information. To him evolution !=change.

I'll give you three.
1. The users want a mod who was demodded to be remodded
2. The users want to be able to post pics of topless girls in a private forum
3. The admins need to quickly implement a new policy concerning commercial reps

How are they in any way a situation where (to quote you) "it's impractical for them to listen". ? Of course they can listen, they do not have to take the opinion on board, but to dismiss any reasonable opinion, as "impractical" for anybody to listen to, is simply wrong. We may not like the answer, but we(all users) should be afforded the courtesy of being listened to.

boards today is not the boards of yesterday, where the admins would ask about something before they did it. It's impractical for them to do it now, and in fairness, nobody ever expected Dev to do it, it was just nice to feel involved. Maybe we are now at the stage where we cannot expect that anymore.

Your missing the point. I don't think anybody expects a situation whereby every decision is questioned and responded to, however, as recently as last week, opinion was been sought of TOU, and as recently as last quarter DeV, was informing and debating issues around change, on this very board.

But that's not really the issue to be honest, and is actually beside the point.

People power works because facebook needs users. If there was 100K users who wanted new policies, but 200K who objected, it makes sense for the 200K to get their way. But there's nothing to stop facebook, on a point of principle, saying "screw it, we're doing it our way, and if it fails, it fails". I think we're kinda getting off topic now tho.

Your example, not mine. But I'm glad you can recognise that sometimes, users do actually have a valid POV, and that that can be taken on board. Again, communication...

tbh

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

How are they in any way a situation where (to quote you) "it's impractical for them to listen". ? Of course they can listen, they do not have to take the opinion on board, but to dismiss any reasonable opinion, as "impractical" for anybody to listen to, is simply wrong. We may not like the answer, but we(all users) should be afforded the courtesy of being listened to.
.

fair enough. I don't like to be listened to if my opinions don't count. Because in that case, it's listening to give the impression that you are being listened to, but you're not. I'd rather the site be straight with me, and let me make my own mind up. I don't have a problem if the site decides that the admins don't need to communicate with the mods or users. I really don't. I do have a problem if they say "post your thoughts here" with the decision already made.

IITYWYBMAD

tbh wrote: »

fair enough. I don't like to be listened to if my opinions don't count. Because in that case, it's listening to give the impression that you are being listened to, but you're not. I'd rather the site be straight with me, and let me make my own mind up. I don't have a problem if the site decides that the admins don't need to communicate with the mods or users. I really don't. I do have a problem if they say "post your thoughts here" with the decision already made.

Personally, I have never voiced an opinion, that I thought would not count. I don't even know how I would approach that.

I also think your post above is full of assumptions, but based on current events, your assumptions could be correct.

tbh

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Personally, I have never voiced an opinion, that I thought would not count. I don't even know how I would approach that.

I also think your post above is full of assumptions, but based on current events, your assumptions could be correct.

you may think it counts as the speaker, but only the listener decides if it counts or not.
And yeah, the post is full of my assumptions. I hope I'm wrong, it's not out of the question We'll see....

Mahatma coat

Seriously people???????

is this just gonna be a few mods and Ex admins bitchin amongst themselves or is someone gonna give some serious FEEDBACK.

this is the Feedbak forum, Users give feedback to the Admins etc

But tis expecte to be a two way street, otherwise whats the F'ing point.


I used to be a regular on another Irish forum that was popular a few years ago, the Owners and admin took the same IYDLIFO position, and guess what, its a small circlejerk of a few hundred (at most) posters wankin on in a cliquey manner.

we all like boards, we all like the community feel, but people are fickle, and not only that people are perceptive, if it loks like its all going to Sh!te people will leave.

Someone said ' so what if 100,000 people leave, they will be replaced in 6 months' bollox, without an established community there will be nothing to keep those new people interested

tbh

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Someone said ' so what if 100,000 people leave, they will be replaced in 6 months' bollox, without an established community there will be nothing to keep those new people interested

nobody said that.

5starpool

seamus wrote: »

I can see how it came across like that, but I can assure you it wasn't intended like that. There's posting purely to evoke an emotional response, and then there's posting to invoke a debate. I don't do it often, so maybe I haven't got the subtlety down.

I was pretty certain you were not doing it to be a troll as you would be one of the last that I would see doing that deliberately, but my point on this is that it can be quite subjective at times. The most recent incident was because of supposed trolling that the mod did not see to be trolling. I won't get into it any further though as it would get this post deleted, and probably not make my point any clearer.

seamus wrote: »

It's probably because we're not discussing anything specific but the debate arose from a specific incident and I know exactly which side I'm on and why.

Maybe I'm the one who's being intractable and unreasonable, but (obviously) I don't believe so. I just believe that this has been made a far bigger issue than it is by virtue of where and on whom the action was taken, so it annoys me that so much screen space is wasted on it and so much hassle is caused over it.

That's why we are polarised on this one. A situation has evolved where there are clearly sides (not just on a specific incident, but on a range of behaviours), and this is not a good thing to have. The where and the how is less important than you might think. Obviously it is a bigger issue for the likes of me because of this, but there are quite a few people who are on the same side as me who do not think the decision in the latest incident was an incorrect one given the circumstances, but objected to the way it was done on issues like the personnel involved as well as the initial approach language.

This has spiralled into a much larger issue than the LL though, with a lot of focus being placed on new instructions being handed down to people, and a lot of people finding those instructions unnecessary or unreasonable.

seamus wrote: »

I already know of one mod who has stepped down due to the behaviour of some of this "union"'s members, and a number of others who are either on the brink of it or who have resolved to ignore the mod forum altogether.

Do you mean people who disapprove of this group, or people who are in it?

If it is those that disapprove of it then they are stepping down or ignoring the mod forum because they think everything is great currently and don't like people dissenting? Really? I get that no one likes infighting, but is debate not healthy for any society or community?

If you mean people in the group, then that is a result of what is happening and being said, not because it exists. I don't think this is the definiton you meant though.

I don't have your information sources so I can't say either way, but any community that has a small group making decisons for the masses that doesn't question things they think are wrong is an unhealthy one imo.

seamus

5starpool wrote: »

Do you mean people who disapprove of this group, or people who are in it?

I mean people who aren't (or may not be) in the group, but who have been affected by the group's actions on the mod forum.

If it is those that disapprove of it then they are stepping down or ignoring the mod forum because they think everything is great currently and don't like people dissenting? Really? I get that no one likes infighting, but is debate not healthy for any society or community?
...
I don't have your information sources so I can't say either way, but any community that has a small group making decisons for the masses that doesn't question things they think are wrong is an unhealthy one imo.

While debate is healthy, there are a number of people who are not allowing *any* decision to be made without the admins being continually questioned, prodded and criticised and every single decision being called self-serving or misguided.
This is what's causing the consternation in the mod forum.

Mahatma coat

tbh wrote: »

nobody said that.

OK then you can clarify this

tbh wrote:

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?

cos it looks like you said it

Nevyn

We all have ignore functions.

tbh

you're saying that this:

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?

equates to this:

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so what if 100,000 people leave, they will be replaced in 6 months

yeah?

fair enough.

Mahatma coat

OH FFS its a semantics issue

is the point the same in the two sentences?????

I think it is, forgive me for pickin an arbitrary figure for what I guessed to be about half the users of boardsm as soon as all the little search functions are fixed I will look up the EXACT figure for you.



Why the urge to distract on tangents, finaly had a chance to read over the Points you made??

tbh

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OH FFS its a semantics issue

is the point the same in the two sentences?????

I think it is, forgive me for pickin an arbitrary figure for what I guessed to be about half the users of boardsm as soon as all the little search functions are fixed I will look up the EXACT figure for you.



Why the urge to distract on tangents, finaly had a chance to read over the Points you made??

it's not the same at all. Mine is a hypothetical situation pointing out the differences between a business-driven business model, and a community-driven business model.

you paraphrased my point and used it in a different context. It's not the same at all.

The rest of your post I didn't really understand.

Mahatma coat

the rest of my post was about
forums disaperaring up their own holes when Mods and admins get together in a circleerk to defend stupid decisions and chastise all who question

the fact that you are still replyin to this thread shows that you didnt get that

Mahatma coat

anyway its still a shockinly arrogant statement to make, on a par with Seamus in the earlier pages of this thread

tbh

Mahatma coat wrote: »

anyway its still a shockinly arrogant statement to make, on a par with Seamus in the earlier pages of this thread

it's not a statement of policy and it never claimed to be.

tbh

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the rest of my post was about
forums disaperaring up their own holes when Mods and admins get together in a circleerk to defend stupid decisions and chastise all who question

the fact that you are still replyin to this thread shows that you didnt get that

when that happens to boards, I'll agree with you. Until then, vive la difference.

Mahatma coat

when it happens to Boards most of us wont be here to witness the event, thats will be why it happens.

Anyway Enough Prickin about , Is anyone Going to give the Users some
FEEDBACK

--amadeus--

Well so much for reasoned, sensible debate with a calm and rational exchange of civilised views...

Jazzy

i still think all this is pointless. there might be a new procedure or some new length of red tape put over the hole but ultimately it wont make a difference. the same people are going to try and make the same rubbish decisions and in a few months there will be something else that will spark up something similar to this thread.

the old gaurd are firmly in place now and they will back each other up to the hilt when it really comes down to it. i think as feedback, the mods and admins should try and mirror their position to the dail and how that really works beneath the skin. the similarities in my eyes are incredible. if someone educated was to do a comparison study on the inner workings of power groups in ireland i reckon it would make for fascinating reading.

at the end of the day, the issue as to why this was brought up is pants on head retarded and some people werent human enough to address it properly and instead brought in procedure to really screw the whole thing up. its about what people want to do instead of what they should do, but i fear the shades of grey there cant be navigated by those who hold the maps

PhilipMarlowe

The petty, personal bickering is tiresome.

I've read a lot of beautiful posts from people on here recently and it's no surprise to me that the disenfranchised come across as being passionate while the people they feel don't listen to them continue to be clinical in their responses.
The lawmakers seem to want a formula for everything when in my opinion the place is populated by square pegs and round holes. Some room has to be left for seat-of-the-pants decision making and the greater tolerance that derives from that. Yes, you'll make errors of judgement but, because you're not conforming to points 1 to 99 on "the big list of things that must be done" while making that decision, you can more easily put your hand up when you get it wrong.

My personal experience of (some) admin -> mod communication isn't wonderful and leads me to have empathy... However, the concept of a separate place to discuss transparency and accountability seems more than a little ironic to me too?

--amadeus--

Licksy wrote: »

The petty, personal bickering is tiresome.
...
My personal experience of (some) admin -> mod communication isn't wonderful and leads me to have empathy... However, the concept of a separate place to discuss transparency and accountability seems more than a little ironic to me too?

I agree 100% with pretty much everything you've said. In particular the two bits I've quoted.

As for teh seperate place to discuss transparency and accountability my understanding is it's open in all but name - I don't know anyone who's been refused access and there is at least one person in there arguing the Admin line, which is good.

But when you have a community group that feels disenfranchised they can either get petty and bicker, whinge and moan (see large parts of this thread). Or they can try and do something about it. It would be impossible to have a conversation and get to the bottom of the issues (or even agree on what the issues are) if it was being talked about in here for example. It would just degenerate into mud slinging. Instead a virtual break out room (woot, HR speak FTW!) was created where people can argue about it and see if they can come up with some suggestions.

Feel free to join and have a nosy around if you don't believe me

IITYWYBMAD

Licksy wrote: »

...

My personal experience of (some) admin -> mod communication isn't wonderful and leads me to have empathy... However, the concept of a separate place to discuss transparency and accountability seems more than a little ironic to me too?

Long time admirer of your POV, and I would consider you one of the more balanced mods, so I would be interested in your view.

When you consider that the current questioning of Mod/Admin decisions warrants deletion of posts (such as in this thread and others) and/or banning of users for questioning said decisions, what do you consider would be the most appropriate forum that would allow open discussion on transparency,without incurring the mire of the "powers that be"?

tbh

I'm tellin ya lads, boardscon 10 ftw. A weekend in a hotel, Admins Q+A, meet the comm managers, forum meetups - face to face discussions.

just throwing it out there pm me for ticket prices

4zn76tysfajdxp

Or...