Discussion on the Help Desk

BuffyBot

Just to clarify: there is no "leash" and comments like that aren't helpful.

Previously, there were complaints by users of too many Admins becoming involved in threads and users feeling ganged up upon/drowned out etc etc.

So we took that Feedback on board, and have taken a much more structured approach, interjecting in limited cases, and limited numbers - and now we're being criticised for that.

I'm hoping that illustrates some of the difficulties here: there is a certain amount of "damned if we do, damned if we don't". When one group complains, we react: this then causes another group to complaint that we're not doing what they feel is right. Which leaves us doing what I constantly say we try to do - strike an acceptable balance. However, no matter which way we go someone will not like it.

However, it's not some conspiracy or anything like it. Just us trying to be responsive to Feedback that was previously given to us

So now, can we go back to the point in question?

_blank_

tbh wrote: »

You're basically saying that the admins had been told not to reply. I'd like to know who you think told them that.

Themselves.

leninbenjamin

sceptre wrote: »

Now, condescension. I realise some of you are going to ignore this part as I'm probably on one "side" of the discussion. Regardless of whether it's the side of light or the dark side I brought my own cookies though so that's OK.

To be blunt, the above post is almost a perfect case study of the root cause of a lot of people's grievances here.

Your sentences are somewhat convoluted so I don't fully understand the point you were trying to make, however, those type of throwaway comments aren't helpful. I don't understand what your intentions were, but it's very easy t construe it as dismissive, impolite and sends out the wrong message.

And as for the less defensive bit, you realise it has to work two ways? If an admin is going to instantly dismiss a point with some vaguely insulting analogy they aren't exactly leading by example.

LoLth

parsi wrote: »

I've mentioned before that prehaps HelpDesk should have a "Friend of the Court" type person.

Everyone who posts in HD has a grievance. The only people who can respond on that thead are the "Defendants" and the Judges. The OP doesn't have anybody to back him up or help him better formulate his case or even someone who can point to a different occasion on which the isue was resolved in a different fashion.

In short - the OP posts, may get smartassed replies, responds and gets more replies - assuming that his response is approved.

It's extremely onesided and this feeling of onesidedness can only be exacerbated by the poster being in a stressful position (trying to rescind a ban..).

I can see why you would think that and certainly that is a failing of the restrictions. However, when a user has a complaint, I would argue that it is very rare that they get a smartassed reply from an admin or from a mod. If they do, then this would be an exception. I am open to correction on this of course. Generally mods know not to give abuse to a user anywhere on boards and especially in helpdesk. A mod telling a user to go away in not so nice terms is actually treated harsher than a user saying the same to a mod. maybe the mods find this unfair? My opinion would be that mod/cmods and admins have responsibility with that comes authority and it is unfair for a figure in authority to treat someone in a manner that they themselves would find lacking. now, having said all that, if the user in helpdesk is genuinely stirring the pot or just looking to cause trouble for a mod, then they get pretty much the amount of time dedicated to them that they deserve. The admins that have dealt with this situation thus far have been pretty much 100% sure before deciding though so its not just hit and miss.

I have answered several "I'm banned!" requests on the helpdesk and so far havent had to call in a mod for his opinion. I have asked the poster if htey have discussed the ban with the mod and in two cases so far the poster has gone off to do so and responded to let me know that its all sorted now.

Even those banned for shilling get a fair go. they are told exactly why htey have been banned. If they apologise and explain that they didnt know etc they are directed to hello@boards.ie if they wish to continue or the ban is lifted and they agree not to do it again. admittedly the latter is a rare case, in my limited experience so far, but it has happened.

LoLth

Des wrote: »

Glad to see the Admins have been let off the leash

thanks. nice to see my attempt to answer the calls for admin openness are appreciated.

GuanYin

In my experience, town hall meetings (large groups of people shouting each other down on the floor - ie. feedback) rarely achieve anything unless someone is willing to ignore all the slights and insults, avoid responding in kind and filtering through all the noise and focusing on the one or two people who actually are emitting the signal.

In short, you're not going to actually accomplish anything in this thread.

I'm new to the mod team so I don't really know how things are run around here right now, but I would suggest if you are all really serious about resolving these issues and accomplishing something, you should maybe set up a thinktank. Maybe a small equal number of users and admins and mods who are generally respected by all and let them trash it out. The caveat would be the resolution would need to be accepted in advance by all, assuming all parties leave the thinktank in agreement.

Create a forum, make it read only, have a thread here for the townsfolk to shout from the cheap seats, but let a few reasonable, level-headed members discuss the issue and resolve in a non aggressive (and non passive aggressive) manner. If feedback has taught us anything it's that an unlimited number of people posting at each other solves nothing.

_blank_

GuanYin wrote: »

Create a forum, make it read only, have a thread here for the townsfolk to shout from the cheap seats, but let a few reasonable, level-headed members discuss the issue and resolve in a non aggressive (and non passive aggressive) manner. If feedback has taught us anything it's that an unlimited number of people posting at each other solves nothing.

You are talking about the Debate forum here, and I think that's a perfect solution to this.

LoLth

@Guanyin , possibly absolutely correct. However, I dotn see the harm in trying it here first and then , if this descends into chaos which I am hoping it wont as there are enough people who really do want to see a result, we can adjourn and to the fishbowl thread idea you have suggested.

Just selecting who represents the mods would probably be a huge task let alone finding representatives to equitably act as a proxy for the users.

I'm willing to give the townhall Q&A a go.

Nevyn

As it stands the conversation in help desk is between the admins the poster and the cmods as back up and the mod is at the far end of the process. I have had a poster lie about me personally and my actions after their ban and the post rebutting not approved cos the cmod was dealing with it. Mods should have the right to reply in helpdesk, currently we don't.

Earthhorse

The current discussion seems to be between keeping Help Desk as is or replacing it with a Help Desk forum per category. I would actually call these per category forums Feedback and I'll explain why in a bit. I think it's worthwhile broadly outlining the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches.

Advantages of Per Category Feedback Forums

1) Transparency: This isn't just a buzzword; it's a key principle in building trust. In any dispute resolution trust is key. Indeed, it enables resolution as parties don't get side-tracked into guessing games regarding the other parties motives. And the more that is out in the open the harder it is to play such games.

2) It's discoverable: At the moment, boards has hundreds of forums subdivided into thirteen categories. Under one of these categories, sys, there is one forum for these kinds of issues, Help Desk.

We are often told how few of the posts on this site are complaints in nature. That's great; provided of course that the reason for this is that people have no complaint to make. They may do, but either simply cannot find the one forum tucked away in the corner or are confused between it and Feedback (three posts moved from the current front page of Feedback suggests that indeed such confusion exists). We don't know for sure though, and it doesn't do to speculate.

Here's what we do know; the more discoverable something is the more likely people who need to use it will use it. This is why you have a Proceed button at the top and bottom of your page when buying something on Amazon (under the reasonable assumption that once you start buying something you want to finish buying it). It's why there's a Log Out link on virtually every page you visit on boards once logged in. Because logging out is important. So too is good dispute resolution.

3) It's a living cultural and etiquette archive from which we can all learn: One of the great things about "old" Feedback, and one which I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned to date was the fact that people could learn what our culture was, what we were cool with and what we weren't so cool with, simply by reading Feedback threads. Not difficult. And much more organic than a charter. It allows people to understand what's okay and what's not and even question it. That can only improve their experience of using the site.

4) It's culturally (or community) sensitive: There seems to be little argument over the fact that boards has morphed over the last year or two, at least, from being one community to being a set of communities. Whilst these communities can't said to be split entirely along category lines it's about as accurate a split as you're ever going to get. Certain shared values within these communities, which a good cmod will be aware of, means that they can rule more fairly and accurately on any issue before them.

5) It's collaborative: One of the great pluses of doing anything online; you can get input from so many different sources. It can be confusing, sure - cacophonous at times - but it'd be foolish to dismiss it as a result. Most of the time, in such decisions, it won't make a difference. But the more voices that are heard the more likely you are to stumble across a useful suggestion which you would not have had that voice been silenced.

Disadvantages of Per Category Feedback Forums

1) It's messy: Yeah, I said it. Not everything about the old Feedback model was great. One of the things was the clamour. boards has grown so much we can expect a lot of noise on these new Feedback forums. It can be mitigated by good moderation, sure, but you won't be able to entirely eliminate it.

2) It's more work (from a technical point of view): tbh has said elsewhere that, in effect, cmods are already dealing with a lot of complaints raised above mod level in their category (he can correct me if I've taken him up wrong there). So it wouldn't be extra work for them. But if it's decided, at any point, that these forums are to behave differently from others (disabling Quick Reply, say) then it might be more work for the guys. I don't know a lot about vBulletin, hence my use of the word "might".

Advantages of Current Help Desk Forum

1) It's controlled: This isn't a backhanded compliment; an attempt to portray the good as bad. It is a lot more ordered, allowing people to feel like their complaint hasn't been buried under a sea of objection and made irrelevant by cul-de-sac, off topic meandering.

2) It allows only interested parties to speak: This is something I'm mostly a fan of when the issue at hand is quite sensitive or intricate. On such matters, the rest of us should be silent. Though at times defining interested parties can be a difficult thing, most of the time we can see that the people on board have covered most points we would have and us adding to the debate only adds volume rather than content.

Disadvantages of Current Help Desk Forum

1) It's slow: You don't have to look past the illustrative cases outlined in this thread and the one it was split from to know this is true. The pre-moderated nature of it makes it thus. The time lag allows tension to build. Conversely, good resolution dispute mechanisms dissolve tension, ideally quite quickly.

2) It's opaque: An admin asks the OP did they PM the mod. There is no response on thread. For all we know anything could have happened. Why should we know? The real question is; what does it cost us to know? The answer is nothing and the benefit of this is that the issue is seen to be resolved. Perception is very important in building trust for those observing the procedure; remember, they are the ones likely to use it in the future.

3) It disallows open participation: You might not miss out on that participation, but how will you ever know if you don't allow it? And if you do allow it and it adds nothing why can't it simply be ignored? So this restriction on input is of little benefit in the majority of cases.

4) It allows users to make accusations against other users without recourse: I wasn't actually aware of this until a few mods pointed this out. I've avoided being emotive in this post to date but that is actually disgraceful and no one should stand over it.

Why call them Feedback rather than Help Desk Forums?

This is something I touched on earlier and wanted to return to. The Help Desk metaphor is actually a really poor one. What is a Help Desk in real life and when do people come across it? My phone is broken; call Help Desk. I can't access the network; call Help Desk. I have a complaint regarding someone else's behaviour; call Help Desk? Hardly. Go to HR. Talk it out with them or with their manager. Talk about it with their colleagues. Call these category sub-forums Rec Feedback, Soc Feedback etc.

What becomes of current Help Desk?

It becomes exactly that, a Help Desk. People can get Social Groups renamed there. They can talk about problems accessing their account. It should deal with the technical issues its name implies.

What becomes of current Feedback?

It becomes general Feedback for the site. Threads like WindSock's one about a post archive. Or Faceman's milestone Thank You post. Far more along the lines of what, I believe, the admins have always wanted it to be.

What happens if I have an issue that isn't related to a particular forum or category?

Like being harassed or bullied by another user? At the moment, although such issues are, I'm sure, dealt with as best they can, I think things could be improved. The idea of a User Rep was suggested before and not entirely dismissed. A private forum where only interested parties can talk, but talk very openly, about events would be better, though I accept that it may be difficult to implement this under vBulletin's structure and that it's also a little off topic (I figured people would ask so I thought I would outline my answer).

That's the broad thrust of what I feel would be an improvement over the current procedures you have in place. Thanks to BuffyBot for splitting this thread from the other and Lolth for engaging with us. I hope I've outlined my opinions clearly (if not, please ask me to clarify) and that at least some of those goes toward improving people's experience on boards.

_blank_

great post mate

tbh

great post earthhorse.

Just to clarify:

"tbh has said elsewhere that, in effect, cmods are already dealing with a lot of complaints raised above mod level in their category (he can correct me if I've taken him up wrong there)"

If I said "a lot" I mean a lot of the complaints that are raised, not that there are lots of complaints. I can't really speak for the other cmods tho, because the in the sci cat, I've had to deal with maybe four complaints total. Modding the rec feedback forum, or whatever cat soccer is in, would be a tough gig...[but then, the cmods are dealing with those complaints anyway]

but that's not to take away from your post, which was great. as I believe I have said

Earthhorse

tbh wrote: »

"tbh has said elsewhere that, in effect, cmods are already dealing with a lot of complaints raised above mod level in their category (he can correct me if I've taken him up wrong there)"

If I said "a lot" I mean a lot of the complaints that are raised, not that there are lots of complaints. I can't really speak for the other cmods tho, because the in the sci cat, I've had to deal with maybe four complaints total. Modding the rec feedback forum, or whatever cat soccer is in, would be a tough gig...[but then, the cmods are dealing with those complaints anyway]

Yes, sorry, I took it the way you have explained, though I see how it could be read the other way. The important point I was making was that it doesn't ad to their workload but thanks for clarifying.

Xavi6

LoLth wrote: »

the latter part of this statement concerns me. Is this your idea of what a user would think? is this your perception of the helpdesk in general?

Bit of both tbh.

As has been said, the process of PMing a mod, PMing a Cmod, getting posts approved etc is too long winded and ends up being pointless for the most part when the outcome is generally the same, i.e. "Suck it up".

If I was a regular user I wouldn't even bother with Help Desk.

_blank_

Xavi6 wrote: »

Bit of both tbh.

As has been said, the process of PMing a mod, PMing a Cmod, getting posts approved etc is too long winded and ends up being pointless for the most part when the outcome is generally the same, i.e. "Suck it up".

If I was a regular user I wouldn't even bother with Help Desk.

I agree.

LoLth, the problem with the whole DPR is that it just takes too long.

From the Mod side, which I'm on obv, it's too cumbersome, here's a real life example, it actually happened.

Initial Ban. 1 Week.

PMs between me and the banned person - I had some RL stuff to do, so I couldn't continue the conversation, I told the user this, and I directed them to the DPR.

The user went straight to HD.

Admin told the user to contact the CMods.

In the meantime, I had bounced the situation off the CMod in the Mod Forum for the Forum, and he agreed with me. Now comes the first communication breakdown.

2 days after the initial ban and Mod forum conversation, the other CMod PMd me for comment, so I told that CMod about the conversation in the Mod Forum, and also filled in the details.

both CMods obviously agreed with the ban, because the user posted again in the HD thread, asking the Admin to look into it now. 30 hours(!) without any more input, so the user, rightly imo, bumped. Ten more hours passed and an Admin came back, and told the user that the ban stands.

This whole process took 4 and a half days, of a 7 day ban. The roundabout way of dealing with complaints like this makes users think that it's just not worth the hassle, it makes ME think that if I get a weeks ban from a forum that I don't agree with, then there is absolutely no point in appealing using the DPR, because by the time there is any resolution, one way or the other, then so much time will have passed that it just isn't worth it.

The user has five more posts after that, looking for clarification and asking more questions, and has seemingly been ignored. This isn't on.

Now, I realise that there was a shítstorm after the issues last week, but surely at least one or two Admins could be appointed to oversee HD and conclude any open issues in there.

The DPR is, in my mind, to discourage users from appealing, and to sweep problems under the carpet.

If I get a ban from somewhere tomorrow I probably wouldn't be arsed with the whole appeals process because it takes too long and isn't helpful.

The DPR was designed to help the Mods/CMods/Admin, with no thought for the user side of things.

Four days to complete the appeal process for a 7 Day ban is way too long, no matter what the outcome.

And a wall of silence after the final judgement has been handed down isn't really nice either.

BuffyBot

As has been said, the process of PMing a mod, PMing a Cmod, getting posts approved etc is too long winded and ends up being pointless for the most part when the outcome is generally the same, i.e. "Suck it up".

If I was a regular user I wouldn't even bother with Help Desk

+ Des

That's actually something I've also been thinking about, and I've mentioned in the Admins forum prior to this: so we're definitely aware of it as being a perception, and more importantly, an actual issue.

It might work for us, but it's not something that works so well for the end user. My thoughts were along the line that it was designed with us in mind (as in the non-users) when really it needed to be designed with the user are the core, even if it inconveniences the levels above them a bit.

nesf

Xavi6 wrote: »

Bit of both tbh.

As has been said, the process of PMing a mod, PMing a Cmod, getting posts approved etc is too long winded and ends up being pointless for the most part when the outcome is generally the same, i.e. "Suck it up".

If I was a regular user I wouldn't even bother with Help Desk.

I agree it's too long winded. The thing is though most complaints get "Suck it up" precisely because the user did actually break a rule and the moderator didn't act incorrectly.

The vast majority of complaints I see are where someone is complaining about a ban or infraction that was very much appropriate.

_blank_

In that case nesf, if the vast majority of complaints are going to have that outcome, surely a simpler, less long winded way of reaching that conclusion is the way to go.

This has two good points attached.

1. Less time wasted by everyone jumping through hoops, when the final outcome is obvious.

2. The actual issues that have merit are dealt with in a timely fashion, and no-one is left with a bad memory. A mistake was made, but it was sorted in a short time. That's better than taking 4 days in anyone's book.

nesf

Des wrote: »

In that case nesf, if the vast majority of complaints are going to have that outcome, surely a simpler, less long winded way of reaching that conclusion is the way to go.

This has two good points attached.

1. Less time wasted by everyone jumping through hoops, when the final outcome is obvious.

2. The actual issues that have merit are dealt with in a timely fashion, and no-one is left with a bad memory. A mistake was made, but it was sorted in a short time. That's better than taking 4 days in anyone's book.

It is simple. The user gets a PM back from myself and Scofflaw within a few hours telling them that the moderator was correct. It gets long winded if the user chooses to appeal this decision to the Help Desk, and generally if the mods and CMods agree on a topic it's very unlikely to be overturned because well, if we made mistakes constantly we wouldn't stay in the CMod role long now would we?

Our current turnaround is at most 24 hours to 36 hours on most issues at CMod level at the moment (excluding some complicated ones where a large amount of minor complaints about a forum's moderation is being questioned). Generally much shorter than this (i.e. could be 10 minutes if myself and Scofflaw are online and free when you make your complaint). This is about as good as one can expect given we're not paid to be online to answer queries to be honest.

Zaph

nesf wrote: »

The vast majority of complaints I see are where someone is complaining about a ban or infraction that was very much appropriate.

This is very true. It was mentioned earlier, perhaps even on this thread, that quite a few posters will PM to apologise and will accept their infraction/ban. I even had one guy recently who came back after a ban and apologised to the other posters in the forum. It's mainly the ones who have a misplaced sense of injustice who invariably end up in Help Desk. The simple reason so many appeals fail there is that there were no grounds for an appeal in the first place. However, it is important to have an appeals process in place for those occasional posters who have genuine grounds for appeal and wish to do so in a rational manner. And I agree with the earlier point that the system is too slow, and as a result it is letting down these users who perhaps should have their punishments reduced or quashed. That's not good enough, so now we just need to find a way that works a whole lot better.

Steve

Earthhorse pretty much did the nail on head thing in his post, the only thing I would add is that whatever system we end up with is open, honest and people can learn from it.

Open: No appeals are handled behind closed doors (pm), this removes the incentive for mods to be nasty to users and vice versa. People in my experience will be a lot more vitriolic when they believe what they are saying is private - it's a different story when they have to post their arguments in public in full view of their peers.

Honest: If it's public then there can be no accusations of cronyism or victimisation when matters are dealt with. The facts and reasoning are there for all to read.

People can learn from it: If all previous resolutions (or lack of) are there for people to read, then it can only promote consistency and give an unfairly banned user something to reference when appealing their own ban.

Personally I favour a per category helpdesk model (not premoderated) over a feedback model. All mods should be able to reply to posts concerning them directly and to be honest if anyone (mod) can't show enough discipline to refrain from un-necessarily sticking their oar in then their mod status should be reviewed.

1. User is banned / infracted -> uses cat helpdesk to discuss it with mod concerned.
1a. mod concerned is AFK? or doesn't reply? co-Mod or cMod steps in
2. No resolution? Thread flagged for cMod to intervene.
3. Still no resolution? Thread is moved by cMod to sys>helpdesk for admins to deal with.

If an issue is not being dealt with in a timely fashion then it's going to be pretty obvious.

As is the case when this idea was first suggested, I'd love to get feedback from non-mods on this model.

Dudess

nesf wrote: »

The vast majority of complaints I see are where someone is complaining about a ban or infraction that was very much appropriate.

Agreed, but there are occasional genuine grievances - reasonably conveyed and with grounds for complaint - and it's quite disheartening to see them being, it appears, dismissed.
A bit of empathy - putting oneself in the shoes of the poster, rather than just coming from the admin perspective - would go a long way.

nesf

Dudess wrote: »

Agreed, but there are occasional genuine grievances - reasonably conveyed and with grounds for complaint - and it's quite disheartening to see them being, it appears, dismissed.
A bit of empathy - putting oneself in the shoes of the poster, rather than just coming from the admin perspective - would go a long way.

Links?

Wibbs

BuffyBot wrote: »

It might work for us, but it's not something that works so well for the end user. My thoughts were along the line that it was designed with us in mind (as in the non-users) when really it needed to be designed with the user are the core, even if it inconveniences the levels above them a bit.

+1 I think it's the nature for any layered system of authority for this to happen at times.

One layer thinks of how it will affect them rather than the layer below them. Then you will have people who like rules and structure more than others. They'll tend to dream up procedures that are complex as it gives them comfort. It also may give some a sense of worth. I dont mean that in a bad way either. I mean in the sense of giving something back with a big structure with their stamp on it. Or increasing their role in said structure. Plus a bunch of people in one layer will have more in common with each other as they face and deal with the same stuff, so a them and us will creep in however unintentionally. I've seen this in the mod layer at times. You'll have a discussion on implementation of whatever and its leaving out who this implementation will affect. Human nature. No conspiracy, no dark forces or any of that.

My take with stuff like this is path of least resistance. The keep it simple stupid notion. Look at what people actually do, rather than what you want them to do.

EG All forums have charters. Bugger all read them. If they did and follwed them we would probably need about 20 mods for the whole site. Mods, warnings and bannings largely exist because people dont read or ignore the charter(or muppetry, but thats actually rare enough). Ive told people read the charter. I know they wont or very rarely. Are charters useless? God no, but they've a tiny tiny actual effect on the smooth running of chats, debate and content. Yet some people are brilliant at writing them and referring to them and being comforted by them. And BTW the world needs people like that or it would go to hell in a handcart. The linear measured detail people for when going on instinct fcuks up and you need a prototype to follow. You need a balance though, otherwise its red tape for its own sake.

So the current help desk and dispute resolution idea is running counter to what people do and how they work IMHO. Its also very sluggish, not transparenta and unwieldy. It's also a sticking point which has caused a lot of the current WTF?

Like I posted in the super sekrit social group(with the really really lax door policy);):D


*to not waste your lives, maybe read this bit, ignore my waffle either side*

One Helpdesk

1. Person has an issue with moderation. Go to the mod in question first.

2. No joy? Go straight to Helpdesk

3 Remove premoderation in helpdesk

4. Add more mods/cmods, not just admins. BTW Pick mods from outside the box too. Rotating them is a possibility too. Hell I'd have a user voted mod in the mix. Solve the user rep thing, but that may to a step too far for some?

5. Person with the issue, the mod in question(their co mods/cmods if its more general) and mods/admins of the HD forum are the only ones who should post/reply on the thread in question. This stops waffle and brings in expertise and understanding of the forum/category without having multiple category HD's. IMHO that's diluting it and people will go to one place far more than 5 or 6.

6. Instant one week no comeback bans for any users/mods/etc who break the above rule. That'll set the tone better than any charter.

7. No deleted posts unless spam, clear trolling or muppetry. Even then IMHO the latter two should stay unless personally insulting. Keep it in the open.

8. Have a feedback mods forum so discussion can take place. That'smoreto ease up on crossed wires and PM overload. I suspect it would be needed rarely enough.


Easy peasy. Too much "work"? Hardly. I've modded on high traffic forums with actually need premoderation and anon posts and with the right spread through the day of mods, it was easy enough. Any one of the AH or politics mods could do it in their sleep on their own:D

Its a forum, so mod it. It's too complex? Eh hello? The current system is a back and forth nightmare for the user. And the mod and cmod. Its "easy" for the admins involved, but I think thats down to what I mentioned before, one layer thinking inwardly not down. It's faster, more streamlined, far more open and it follows what people will do not what time and motion exercises think they should do.

My stream of consciousness 3 cents anyway.

Dudess

nesf wrote: »

Links?

Oh of course, because obviously I'm lying.

tbh

Dudess wrote: »

Oh of course, because obviously I'm lying.

maybe he just wants to compare his definition of 'genuine' with yours.

Dudess

I can think of examples but I don't want to be putting the spotlight on the people who started the threads - I know they'd prefer me not to.

tbh

fair enough.

--amadeus--

One thing to bear in mind is that the demographics of internet BBs is changing. It used to be that you could assume a basic level of IT savvy in the users. You no longer can - I used to look after a fairly small forum but I had a user emailing hello@boards because they couldn't work out how to send a PM. Most people know what a Mod is (not everyone - again I had a PM from someone once asking me why I was telling they what they were allowed to say). Certainly not everyone knows what a CMod is and it's not easy to find out who Cmods where.

The manner of solving disputes needs to be simple enough (procedurally and technically) that all a user needs to know in order to get an answer is the same amount of knowledge as getting there in the first place - follow a link, start a thread.

LoLth

@Xavi6 and Des:

very good points from both posts and I have to say I agree with both of you. The problem seems to stem from the fact that the way the system works now, its geared toward the majority results of "action was right , decision stands" and its the ones that do actually require action that are suffering because of the length of time required to communicate at different tiers and the delay that having to revert to a central point for each step brings with it. There was a post in the admin forum discussion that I wholeheatedly agree with that says almost exactly the same thing but uses a cauliflower/Tesco analogy. Doesnt matter what the intended end result is if the user dies from stress or old age before it is reached.

so, the DRP as it stands is flawed. Its a step toward something workable but not a working solution in itself. would this be a fair statement?

Is the process of the reporting chain seen as a good thing? user-->mod-->cmod-->admin ?

If so, then the idea of per category helpdesks is a good one that would naturally reinforce this order of things.

Thats a rather large step to take imho wihtout some medium point to settle the process in and get users used to the reporting chain and to identify potential problems. Not an impossible step but a larger one than I, for what its worth, would be comfortable with.

just a question and not to be taken as an admin proposal or a promise of things to come but:

What if cmods were set loose on the helpdesk instead of admins and we adapt a current tool (the assignment of tags to thread titles) to track where a thread is in the process? Cmod picks up thread and assigns their category tag (or user assigns the tag based on the category they have the issue with).

Helpdesk is open for reading but not for posting. Premoderation could be removed but it would have to be clear that a code of conduct would be strictly enforced and breach of that code would be very much frowned upon. the code of conduct could be as simple as "if its not your thread, dont post on it". This would be primarily to stop the noise while allowing the signal free passage. reaction times would be improved with the premoderation time delay removed. The forum would be a troll magnet for a while but strict (and I mean brutal) enforcement of the rules would make it a lemming launch point for trolls.

this, to me would be a decent middle ground to make a good move toward fixing whats already wrong while keeping whats good and settign the foundation for a future move in the right direction. It would also not require so much work that , if it all goes horribly wrong, it cant be undone and another solution attempted.

Would this fit the openness requirement or at least be a move toward it?

Is this the type of step that would be welcome?

What do the cmods think?

What do the mods think?

Most importantly, what do the users think? would this make it more user friendly (heh, see what I did there?) ?

Would this type of interim solution be the type of step that would be discussed and developed by the mods and cmods? Or am I thinking in the wrong direction?

@wibbs onwards: your posts appeared after I hit submit so I havent had a chance to read them yet. sorry if my answer seems like its ignoring you, its not.