Discussion on the Help Desk

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.

tbh

LoLth wrote: »

@Xavi6 and Des:

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.

we had an insult comp in the thunderdome recently, one vs one. Only the people named in the thread title were allowed to post, and it worked like a charm. In the thunderdome!

so say, user posts - everyone knows that no-one may post until the cmod picks it up. Cmod picks it up and changes the thread title to list the mods and cmods of the cat involved. (or just posts a list of those names in their first post). If the Cmods feel it relevant, they may allow others to post, and they are listed. Anyone who posts that isn't listed gets banned, straight out.

Wibbs

LoLth wrote: »

@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.

*Gets pitchfork and lights torch. Assembles villagers with stakes*:pac:

LoLth

Wibbs wrote: »

*Gets pitchfork and lights torch. Assembles villagers with steaks*:pac:

FYP

more my style of discussion

Wibbs

To save your eyes LoLth

Basically;
user - mod - helpdesk. More mods/cmods/admin modding helpdesk. No preapproval. Keep it simple.

The bit under the bold in my last rant fleshes my take out.

_blank_

LoLth, thank you for your input on this, it's very heartening to see an Admin not pick holes in posts, and actually get under the hood and get their hands dirty. It's a change from most of the other Admins who post in thread like these saying "Nope, your ideas are good, but here's why they won't work". A refreshing change, so again, thanks.

I like your ideas, and they aren't too far removed from what myself and Xavi were saying.

What I think is this. Have draconian measures in place in this new open, non-premoderated, anyone has posting rights, but only those actually involved can post.

If anyone, and I mean anyone, posts in a thread where they are not involved, ban them. If it's an Admin's brother, ban them, if it's the OPs best mate, ban them. Set the tone early, some will fall, but most will realise after a time that if they stick their oar in somewhere it isn't wanted, then they WILL be banned. Make the ban clear for all to see. This goes for everyone. Admins included. CMods must have Mod rights in HD, so maybe instead of having every CMod listed as a Mod of one forum, have Cat-specific HDs (although, I wouldn't really be in agreement with that idea).

One further thing I'd say, if someone sees a HD post, and feel they have genuine input, they can PM the CMod looking after the thread, and if the CMod gives a green light then they can go ahead and post.

Hagar

Slightly OT but relevent.

A lot of the posts above mention escalation via the CMod, can some way be found to clearly identify who Cmods what category? It's vitually impossible to find out who is responsible for what category. I'm sure it is even more difficult to find out if you are banned from a forum or category.

I know postbit work to show it on the profile beside posts is an effort but it would be worth it.

At the very least could there be sticky in Feedback that could be consulted? It could list the Categories and the CMods with a PM link. It could have something similar for the Admins, perhaps even identify any general area of reponsibilty they might have such as Adverts etc.

This small step alone would be a help with the general communication issue.

LoLth

Wibbs wrote: »

To save your eyes LoLth

Basically;
user - mod - helpdesk. More mods/cmods/admin modding helpdesk. No preapproval. Keep it simple.

The bit under the bold in my last rant fleshes my take out.

read through your original post anyway, just in case. synopsis is appreciated but i like the details

have to agree again on this. You raise some good points that are in line with others already raised so its good to see some reinforcement of the issue.

Are there any out-there alternative ideas floating about? I'd be interested in hearing about those too. Even if the idea itself is a no-go for an obvious reaosn, options and alternative views can never cause any harm in the pre-planning phase of somethign like this and there might be a mechanic or twist that leads to the all important "ahah!" moment.

@Des: I'd love to be able to take credit the idea and appreciate the compliment but its not all me. As i said previously there has been admin discussion of this issue. Yes, at a glacial pace initially but that is the nature of being thorough. As I said, i'm relatively new to this so I can only guess that from what I have experienced and read before joining hte admins this pace is dictated by a perception (right or wrong) of requiring an iron clad, no holes, foolproof idea before presenting it for discussion as, in the past (and this isnt a dig at anyone, its just an observation) admins and mods have had gaping wounds after a seemingly innocent suggestion gets taken up in a way unintended. It does happen. not often perhaps but once is enough to encourage caution.

Personally, my view is that, if we all agree to talk openly and not accuse or assign motives then ideas can be presented half baked with a view to completion by committee (within limits or we'll end up with something that looks like a platypus!) and everyone is happier for it.

Having said that, recent events have underlined the need for a revisitation of the helpdesk and DRP and discussion resumed in earnest. As you can probably see from my own relaying of ideas, it seems we're almost running parallel (I never spell that word right). Could be a good kickstart to changing actions, and as a result perceptions, for the better on all sides.

Admins are going to make mistakes. Its going to happen. I would take the current helpdesk process as an example of that. Its well intentioned and possibly works on paper but in practise it has shown flaws. what I would like to happen now is that the admins go back to the discussion with the ideas presented here in mind an come up with a more complete but not yet finished idea to open up for mod/cmod/user critique and input and more importantly, developement. Then that input is taken away and absorbed and a model closer to completion is presented that could probably be implemented as is but is still open enough to allow tweaking to handle the unforeseens.

Again, I am only giving my view and not promising this. I apologise for the disclaimer but as I said, I'm new and I really dont want to overstep any boundaries or promise something I cant deliver. Hopefully though, if you see where I am coming from and you agree with the sentiment it can be a start and it will help me shape my input into the admin discussions.

I would like to hear some of the more extravagant ideas before it is decided that the planning has to start though

LoLth

Hagar wrote: »

Slightly OT but relevent.

A lot of the posts above mentions escalation via the CMod, can some way be found to clearly identify who Cmods what category? It's vitually impossible to find out who is responsible for what category. I'm sure it is even more difficult to find out if you are banned from a forum or category.

I know postbit work to show it on the profile beside posts is an effort but it would be worth it.

At the very least could there be sticky in Feedback that could be consulted? It could list the Categories and the CMods with a PM link. It could have something similar for the Admins, perhaps even identify any general area of reponsibilty thay might have such as Adverts etc.

This small step alone would be a help with the general communication issue.

again, this is something that has been worked on repeatedly with suggestions from bold font to italics to appearing in red. I dont have the technical details involved but can find out if you want me to.

with the helpdesk=cmods idea though it would remove the onus from the user to contact the cmod. the user just has to start a thread and the cmod is responsible for picking it up. This would negate the need for PMs to the cmod as its the cmod who would be replying to the post and that will identify the point of contact if PMs become necessary, which is unlikely as the discussion is there, on helpdesk.

Hagar

I know that vB changes are a pita but a sticky could be done in a few minutes and would be generally useful outside the DRP.

IITYWYBMAD

LoLth, very good post, and some good ideas, particularly around more CMod intervention on HD(whatever shape that takes in the near future). While I see that this goes in some way towards addressing the actual mechanics of some people's issues, it does not address another issue which has been mentioned, which is attitude.

I accept that this thread is HD related, but attitude/perceived lack of respect/condescension can be the catalyst for a lot of these issues, with the issue being exacerbated by the "clunkiness" of HD.

The Admins should be held to a higher standard in this regard, and I also think that there should be a greater level of understanding from Admins, where disputes arise. If a user/mod starts firing from the hip on an issue, it should not entail and Admin/Mod escalating the situation to such an extent that, to see either side back down, would involve a loss of face.

I know DeV has said that in a recent case, he thought that there was fault on both Mod and Admin side, and I think most would agree with him. How that type of issue is addressed, is also important.

Wibbs

Looking at category specific helpdesks, I see the attraction and usefulness, but my concern would be confusion.Plus in a way a further fracturing of the site into sub groups? I know its gotten bigger and its not one big boards anymore, but I think further splitting may add to that and not always(I cant spell nesses nesss.) in a good way. Maybe more little sub groups may form and bud off at the first sign of hassle or change.

Anyhoooooo, back to confusion. Like --amadeus-- pointed out the demographic is changing and will change more and more of that new wave will be less au fe or indeed interested in the structure or the hierarchy* on a day to day "we're all just chatting" basis. That's actually a bloody good thing IMHO. Less mods are gods stuff etc. That is of course until they bump into it for whatever reason. So the simpler you can make it, the more one stop shop, the better IMHO. Basically you have a problem after the mod hasnt cleared it up for you, go here => Helpdesk. If its a general thing and you dont mind sometimes "robust" debate go here => Feedback. (If you want to raise an army of the undead with pitchforks and steaks(*nod to Loloth) and be slagged by Terry go here => Kranks Korner )

The clearer the route through to a resolution of any issue the more stable it is and fault tolerant it is and most of all the easiest to keep a handle on it. That goes for the admins too. If there's say 5 or 6 helpdesks, they'll be running around keeping an eye and could easily miss something small on the surface that may need flagging. Its easier to watch one door than 5. Goes for Cmods and mods and users too. Users most of all. I personally fear more helpdesks may replace one complication for another?



*you see that in HD already. People posting stuff like "my sink is blocked what do I do?". Yea funny to people who are up to speed, but actually quite logical if you're not. More will not be and thats fine. I dont need to know how to brew beer to enjoy a chinwag with mates down the local

LoLth

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

LoLth, very good post, and some good ideas, particularly around more CMod intervention on HD(whatever shape that takes in the near future). While I see that this goes in some way towards addressing the actual mechanics of some people's issues, it does not address another issue which has been mentioned, which is attitude.

I accept that this thread is HD related, but attitude/perceived lack of respect/condescension can be the catalyst for a lot of these issues, with the issue being exacerbated by the "clunkiness" of HD.

The Admins should be held to a higher standard in this regard, and I also think that there should be a greater level of understanding from Admins, where disputes arise. If a user/mod starts firing from the hip on an issue, it should not entail and Admin/Mod escalating the situation to such an extent that, to see either side back down, would involve a loss of face.

I know DeV has said that in a recent case, he thought that there was fault on both Mod and Admin side, and I think most would agree with him. How that type of issue is addressed, is also important.

There is a lot of truth in what you say. I cant speak for all of the admins (we arent actually a fibre-linked collective multi-node mind - its actually only a BNC token ring...), though I'm sure my thoughts wouldnt be too far removed from the other admins, but you are right. Attitude/perceived lack of respect/condescension are huge factors in any dispute resolution.

I dont want to concentrate on specifics or past events that may have happened beefore I joined the admins. I cant comment on those as I dont have all the facts and I dont *know* what the surrounding circumstances were in their entirety. if its ok, I'll give my €.02 and how I'd like to see this issue handled.

The way I see it:

there are roles on boards and they are there for a reason. the roles are divided by a tier system and again this is done for a reason.

now, I'm going to use the word "obey" here but it actually means "respect and appreciate opinion and accept that the motives behind an action are not ulterior or sinister" rather than "take orders without question". So, if anyone is going to quote the next bit, please be sure to include this bit here or it wont make the sense I'm hoping it will make

The Users, on signing up agree to adhere to the rules of the site and the Mods are the overseers that make sure a rule is obeyed. The user should realise that the rules are necessary for the smooth running of a forum and for the protection of the site and its value to the community that uses it. When a moderator posts in a forum he or she is moderator of, it is important that the users obey.

The moderators are selected on an "as needed" basis from the user group. There is no official quota of we *must* have 1 moderator for every 150 users or every form must have 1 moderator for each page of posts in a two hour period. Its a call made as the need arises. The moderators are chosen because they are seen to be level headed, knowledgeable in their forum of responsibility, good contributors or a combination of these traits. It is important to note that even though it is a voluntary role requiring time and effort on the moderators part and even though the moderators themselves are very much appreciated and are recognised as an absolute necessity, beign a moderator does not bestow any privileges or special treatment beyond the tools necessary to get the job done. Yes, its a thankless thing to say and I do not mean to offend anyone but there ye go. So, the moderators , outside of their own fora are regular users? well, not quite. They are still moderators and were still selected based on criteria and we'd really like it if those selections were correct. if a mod steps out of line in another forum he is treated as a user by the moderators of that forum and we expect the misbehavign mod to obey the moderators. Additionally, and this is the bit that sucks for mods, depending on the infringement the moderators very selection might be called into question. Is it right for a moderator to post pr0n in the ladies lounge and then lay down the law in the equal rights discussion forum? And, as if that werent enough, what if a moderator breaks the rules in the very forum he is supposed to be moderating in? Is this fair to the users of the forum who would be punished for doing the exact same thing? Is this setting a good example or is it a case of do as I say and not as I do? It sounds corny but I would see the moderators as something a user should model themselves on. Participating constructively, polite to other users, resolute when necessary but open to discussion.

Then we have the cmods.
I was one for a long time. For a lot of that long time the cmod was caught in a limbo between a mod and an smod. Recently however they have started to get a bit more definition. Some of this definition is takign away from what cmods thought their role was, some is adding to it. Its still not fully formed but its getting there and is very close now.

cmods are on the next tier after mods. Cmods oversee an entire category. Thats big. obviously they cannot moderate all of the forums in the category so they have to stand back. that can be hard. A cmod is essentially a user everywhere but must behave like a moderater within their category and everywhere else really. It sounds tough but cmods are selected because of their record as mod and for their problem solving skills so by this time it should be second nature to them not to break the rules. The cmods are in a strange position as they not only have to assimilate the input from the mods but they have to obey the admins and ensure the mods obey as well. not a nice position to be in imho.

the admins: admins are the end of the line as far as blame and responsibility goes. For that reason the admins have to take actions and make decisions as firmly and as fairly as possible because if there is room for question or doubt, who does the issue get elevated to? other admins. we police each other and try to ensure we behave.

Each tier obeys all of the rules that pertain to the tiers before it.

Now, that is my take on the organisational chart of baords.ie. Dev, Dav, Darragh? I'm lumping them in with admins for now until I work that one out for myself

Attitude/respect:
if we fully understand the requirements of each tier then we can see that attitude and respect is no different from a mod to a user as it is from an admin to a user. There should be no difference whatsoever in either direction. There was reference to smartass answers in helpdesk. I havent seen too many adn I wouldnt agree with them in general (though sometimes a shill after spamming 30 fora posting "i didnt know it was wrong" really is just asking for it).

i have friends on boards who are users. If I post to my friend as a friend I can call him names, joke about, slag him off etc. if I post to my friend as an admin however, its on official boards.ie business and it would be unfair to joke about or slag him off as a response in the same vein could be construed as flippant or rude or sarcastic. I go overboard on the factual i-am-a-robot speak possibly because I dont want to convey anything other than the boards.ie view, I find there is less chance for condescension that way but it does come across as impersonal. I still dont know if this is good or bad (opinions on an SAE to po box 2222) but its worked up until recently. In essence, all official communications from any tier to another should be polite and respectful.

this conversation on this thread is polite and respectful and its going well. There are one or two minor blips where a comment is picked up wrong and the reaction is hostile defense or counter accusation but by and large its been civilised. I think, if all users at all levels of boards.ie stop before responding to an official boards.ie business post or message and quell the automatic defense-by-coutnerattack urge and remember that the message is intended well and is not meant to be condescending or rude then we will avoid escalation in the future. An easy response would be "but its human nature!" , maybe it is but does that mean it *has* to happen?

Will this stop fights and disagreements? no. no it wont. the DRP will require that at some stage a decision by a mod or cmod or admin will be overturned by a cmod or admin or other admin. this will cause to overturned party to be angry. We'll have to work on this though as, the decision to overturn or change a decision is made for the good of a user/mod/cmod/admin and not for the ego of the overturned party. Egos will get dented. I know that while I might apologise for hurting someone's feelings in a decision, I would never apologise for makign the decision if it is the right decision to make. Point out , politely, why I am wrong and then yes, if I see your reasoning I will apologise for the mistake but not for making a decision. this should be , in my opinion, accepted at all tiers of the site. its our role to make decisions and we cannot be expected to apologise for fulfillling our role.

You do reference a recent decision that was made. if its ok with you I'd prefer not to discuss the specifics in this thread. I would be happy to discuss the specifics as I see them elsewhere or by PM but I wont divulge personal information and I would be using my "this-is-a-fact" voice for it

y'know, I'd be very interested in the other feedback thread on who has the most wordcount as opposed to post count.....

Xavi6

I don't have much to add at the moment but just wanted to thank LoLth for the input.

It's much appreciated.

Steve

Wibbs wrote: »

Looking at category specific helpdesks, I see the attraction and usefulness, but my concern would be confusion.Plus in a way a further fracturing of the site into sub groups? I know its gotten bigger and its not one big boards anymore, but I think further splitting may add to that and not always(I cant spell nesses nesss.) in a good way. Maybe more little sub groups may form and bud off at the first sign of hassle or change.

The site is growing though and it'll ultimately come to this fragmentation at some point - why not be proactive and have the structure already in place.

If there's say 5 or 6 helpdesks, they'll be running around keeping an eye and could easily miss something small on the surface that may need flagging. Its easier to watch one door than 5. Goes for Cmods and mods and users too. Users most of all. I personally fear more helpdesks may replace one complication for another?

The point of it is the admins won't need to look at the various HDs, only the cMods assigned to them do. If the issue can't be resolved there then the whole thread gets moved to the admins helpdesk for review. Less work for the cMods as well as they won't have to trawl through every thread on a single HD to figure out which if any of them are to do with their particular cat.

*you see that in HD already. People posting stuff like "my sink is blocked what do I do?". Yea funny to people who are up to speed, but actually quite logical if you're not. More will not be and thats fine. I dont need to know how to brew beer to enjoy a chinwag with mates down the local

Stuff is posted in the wrong place all the time, threads can be moved, part of the job no?

--amadeus--

I agree with most of what you are saying. I understand that Mods - for example - need to act with a bit more cop on than teh average user and that the higher up you go the more cop on you need to show.

And I think that is a point sometimes lost - in gaining teh Mod privileges (such as tehy are) you lose a bit as well. You lose the ability to post totally freely across Boards as everything you post is looked at with teh potential for "...and that from a Mod!..." type responses. The higher up you are the less freedom you have to express a personal opinion.

But at the moment exactly where that line is to be drawn is teh question. You mentioned having a bit of craic with a friend. Taken out of context one persons craic with a friend becomes another persons Admins being condacending and sarcastic. Or indeed becomes a Mod trolling his own forum. i looked after a forum with a lot of Triathletes in it. A lot of triathletes are grown men who prance about in public wearing multi-coloured skintight lycra. They *need* to be slagged off. They know it's banter, but a casual user might not. And they might complain. And before you know it teh standards of teh community are being set not by the community but by a tiny minority of casual users.

The other issue for me is around teh Admins being self policing. In effect there is no-one (other than the management of Boards Ltd) who can tell an Admin that they screwed up or have a decision wrong. We rely on them to realise they made an error and self-correct.

In a smaller site thats fine but with the volume of traffic and posters here and teh expectations of community involvement that have been set I don't feel it is sustainable or self-replicating. i have argued before and in other places that there needs to be a seperation of powers on here - that those who make and implement laws cannot continue to be those who enforce teh laws without recourse by teh governed to an oversight body outside teh power structure.

LoLth

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I agree with most of what you are saying. I understand that Mods - for example - need to act with a bit more cop on than teh average user and that the higher up you go the more cop on you need to show.

And I think that is a point sometimes lost - in gaining teh Mod privileges (such as tehy are) you lose a bit as well. You lose the ability to post totally freely across Boards as everything you post is looked at with teh potential for "...and that from a Mod!..." type responses. The higher up you are the less freedom you have to express a personal opinion.

Yep. sorry to be short on this but you are right.

But at the moment exactly where that line is to be drawn is teh question. You mentioned having a bit of craic with a friend. Taken out of context one persons craic with a friend becomes another persons Admins being condacending and sarcastic. Or indeed becomes a Mod trolling his own forum. i looked after a forum with a lot of Triathletes in it. A lot of triathletes are grown men who prance about in public wearing multi-coloured skintight lycra. They *need* to be slagged off. They know it's banter, but a casual user might not. And they might complain. And before you know it teh standards of teh community are being set not by the community but by a tiny minority of casual users.

When you are a mod you are no longer a user. My view would be, dont do something in your own forum that you wouldnt let a user do. catmods, dont do anything you wouldnt let a mod or user do. Admins, dont do anything. Thats a general rule. we all need exceptions and each forum has its own flavour. If a forum operates as a "one of the lads" fora and the mods participate then grand, just dont chastise someone for doing the same in the same place at a later date or previously. the mods, cmods and admins set the example. we're skating very close to a specific situation and this isnt the place for that discussion. Your point about a vocal minority settign the rules is valid. This is why the mod has such a responsibility in crafting and maintaining the charter which *should* be read by all posters, even the vocal minority. I havent been in the situation yet and i am positive tha it wil be where I want to post but I cant because it will be frowned upon as coming from an admin. Its not nice but its part of the package and I knew this when I accepted the offer. Other admins have stepped down specifically because of this restriction in the past. I'm sure some have refused the original offer as well.

The other issue for me is around teh Admins being self policing. In effect there is no-one (other than the management of Boards Ltd) who can tell an Admin that they screwed up or have a decision wrong. We rely on them to realise they made an error and self-correct.

I would hope that that is the very criteria that prompted the admins being offered the position in the first place. If an admin steps out of line I would have no qualms about pointing it out to him or her (hi guys!) in much the same manner as a cmod or mod would point a non-reported faux pas. If it is a reported issue then it would be dealt with the same as a users reported issue. I havent had experience of this yet but that would be my take on the process.

I havent responded to your final point as I would like to read the arguments you put forward first. My initial reaction would be to write "thats ok in a democracy but boards isnt a democracy and we do have an authority to report to and to be accountable to" but I feel wihtout further research, this wouldnt be a satisfactory answer so dont take it as my final word on this. can you send me a link or two to your previosu posts? PM or as a reply here will be fine.

--amadeus--

The most recent one was in the super sekrit group, in response to a suggestion of a "users representative" on teh Admin team.

Maybe rather than a User Admin what we need is to separate out the branches of Boards government.

As in at the moment the Boards powers (Mod - CMod - Admin) are in effect the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. There is no separation of powers. The same group of people make the laws, implement the laws and punish those who break the laws. In a smaller site this was called the "benign dictatorship" but just lately it's seemed a bit more East Germany than Utopia.

Rather than voting in a User Admin who simply joins the same structure (power corrupts and all that) maybe a break in the powers is needed?

Perhaps a new role, with *no* power at all is needed. Someone (or realistically a set of someone's) who can objectively look at both sides of a contentious issue, weigh the evidence and claims (in an open but limited access location) and pass down a verdict.

Here's the key - it should be a verdict that is binding on all parties. Something that can only be overturned by the board of Boards Ltd, an independent set of people who are trusted by everyone and can say to the banned/banner that a particular decision was (or was not) harsh, or to the Admins that a particular policy is flawed and needs re-thinking (if it is).

In reality Dav would need to straddle both fences to ensure that any Judicial decisions were non damaging to the business but something like that would act like a welcome check on teh Admins powers, IMO.

In essence - an individual or group of individuals with teh status of Admins but without teh powers. No ability to ban or appoint / demote people. Admins, CMods, Mods and Users could appeal to these "Judges" if they felt that a policy was wrong or a particular decision unfair, or if they felt that a given individual had overstepped the boundaries in some way.

Appeals would be through a forum similar in structure to teh Admin clinic (anyone can post there but not be able to see other peoples posts) Judges can decide if they wish to follow up or not and they cannot just initiate something themselves, it *must* be refered to them. Any "investigations" would be private (private forums and via PM if needed) but decisions and conclusions would be public

I would hope it would work like teh Supreme Court in real life - a particular issue is generating some hassle so the Admins toss it to the Judges to review. Admins and person or group X are at loggerheads so they go to teh Judges for arbitration. Very much a step of last resort and on larger issues (it would never be used to look at Johhny's infraction which he feels is unfair, for example but a contentious sitebanning with an acusation of personal bias it would)

In essence teh Admins are solely autonomous. This group of arbitrators would act as a check and counter balance.

Hagar

A Boards Seanad ?

--amadeus--

Hagar wrote: »

A Boards Seanad ?

Without the expenses

LoLth

I would see the analogy to courts as being:

users - the hoi poloi (sorry! but someone has to be)
Mods: the district/circuit court
cmods: the high court, court of appeal
admins: the supreme court

in certain situations but not all: the boards of management: el presidente (though they have yet to pardon a turkey for thanksgiving or overrule the seanad)

the admins should be made up of "judges" trusted through their service in the previous tiers (user/mod/cmod) to be capable of self regulation and trusted to act in the interest of the overall site.

at some point there has to be a trust. Even if a user doesnt trust a particular admin, they should trust that the other admins will pull them up should something be amiss and that any complaint against an admin will be treated fairly and equitably.

Wibbs

Steve wrote: »

The site is growing though and it'll ultimately come to this fragmentation at some point - why not be proactive and have the structure already in place.

The point of it is the admins won't need to look at the various HDs, only the cMods assigned to them do. If the issue can't be resolved there then the whole thread gets moved to the admins helpdesk for review. Less work for the cMods as well as they won't have to trawl through every thread on a single HD to figure out which if any of them are to do with their particular cat.
Stuff is posted in the wrong place all the time, threads can be moved, part of the job no?

I take all your points and agree. So at the top of each category is a Cat Helpdesk?

nesf

Dudess wrote: »

Oh of course, because obviously I'm lying.

Wft?

Steve

Wibbs wrote: »

I take all your points and agree. So at the top of each category is a Cat Helpdesk?

Yes.

It would be simple enough for mods to include some standard text as a footnote in the ban or infraction message like:

"If you wish to discuss any aspect of this, please start a thread in the *whatever* Category Helpdesk and the moderators will be more than happy to help you. You can read how boards.ie handles any moderation disputes in the FAQ.
In the interests of transparancy, we encourage you to use this resource if you believe the moderation was unfair or in error and as such if you reply directly to this message, it may not be answered."

Or something similar..

We use a similar system on adverts, I have the relevant text stored on my desktop for a quick copy and paste when it's needed. It could possibly be automated but getting it to point at the correct HD might be a problem.

copacetic

LoLth wrote: »

@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.

I like this and there have been very similar ideas elsewhere. The one thing I think is important is the range/diversity of cmods. I raised it also on the other thread, but want to mention it again as I don't think the new process will work without a little change here.

We need the cmods to represent the forums across the cats as much as possible, by adding cmods or asking some admins to act as cmods also. Whatever gets the correct spread of cmods for the category.

Maybe we should also have an admin per cat to have the final word on any disputes that can't be resolved by the cmods. Or maybe not if it is felt that this would prevent cmods being able to deal with the issues if users/mods always want the last word from the admin.

However it might work and I'd like to see a way of getting the admin layer more involved on the shop floor day to day. Obviously in cats they are interested in. It might bridge the gap and make things a little easier for the admins also.

tbh

copacetic wrote: »

Maybe we should also have an admin per cat to have the final word on any disputes that can't be resolved by the cmods. Or maybe not if it is felt that this would prevent cmods being able to deal with the issues if users/mods always want the last word from the admin.
.

you could give each user three appeals [per year]. If the admin rules on the side of the cmod, the user loses the appeal, if not, they don't.

Steve

tbh wrote: »

you could give each user three appeals [per year]. If the admin rules on the side of the cmod, the user loses the appeal, if not, they don't.

Could you expand on that a bit?

Are you saying a user should only get three HD threads [per year] and that's it - or do you mean three threads per 'incident'?

Kirnsy

tbh wrote: »

you could give each user three appeals [per year]. If the admin rules on the side of the cmod, the user loses the appeal, if not, they don't.

no way. why should a user have to suffer if they post a lot in different forums and run into trouble 4 times. first 3 times they are wrong but 4th time they are right??? IMO that's just a lazy option to take.

I agree with Wibbs for what its worth.

User -> Mod
if unsatisfied ->Catogory Helpdesk preferably but failing that the general HD will do.... discuss there with relevant parties and admin.

tbh

Steve wrote: »

Could you expand on that a bit?

Are you saying a user should only get three HD threads [per year] and that's it - or do you mean three threads per 'incident'?

no, the user gets as many threads as they want in the cat-forum. But copa suggested there may be users that constantly appeal cat-mod decisions to the admins. I was just suggesting a way around that.

tbh

Kirnsy wrote: »

no way. why should a user have to suffer if they post a lot in different forums and run into trouble 4 times. first 3 times they are wrong but 4th time they are right??? IMO that's just a lazy option to take.

I agree with Wibbs for what its worth.

User -> Mod
if unsatisfied ->Catogory Helpdesk preferably but failing that the general HD will do.... discuss there with relevant parties and admin.

3 appeals, not 3 threads. 3 appeals. and 3 is just an arbitrary number. and it was just an suggestion to prevent a problem that doesn't even exist.
also I said that if the admin rules in favour of the user they don't lose an appeal. so if they are always right, they can appeal as many times as they want.

Kirnsy

tbh wrote: »

3 appeals, not 3 threads. 3 appeals. and 3 is just an arbitrary number. and it was just an suggestion to prevent a problem that doesn't even exist.
also I said that if the admin rules in favour of the user they don't lose an appeal. so if they are always right, they can appeal as many times as they want.

Ah right i misunderstood. fair enough so.

Steve

tbh wrote: »

no, the user gets as many threads as they want in the cat-forum. But copa suggested there may be users that constantly appeal cat-mod decisions to the admins. I was just suggesting a way around that.

Ah, gotcha.

Unfortunately there will always be people like that - foot stompy and won't accept or listen to reasonable discussion because they're 'right' and everyone else is out to get them.

I don't think it would be fair to cap the amount of times a user can be referred up the line - similarly, it wouldn't be fair if mods were allowed to refuse to refer a matter to a cMod.
I would also think anyone who is regularly ending up in front of the admins in these situations (and thereby demonstrating that they're not prepared to follow site rules on a regular basis) would eventually be candidates for a siteban. In essence, the problem would be self correcting eventually.

RoundyMooney

I agree.

If users are to be given an arbitrary number of appeals (like three) what happens if they "win" those three appeals?

IOW, they get three chances to "lose", but there's no corresponding restriction at the other end?

I'm conscious that to even bring/have to bring three appeals is extreme, and indicative of bigger problems on either side depending on the circumstances, but with my pedantic hat on, we shouldn't start off by setting restrictions.

As you say, Steve, if someone is being an idiot, you'd have to reasonably expect such a situation to self correct before it gets out of hand, whether its a muppet user, or far less likely, but still possible, a muppet mod.

I'm not trying to pick holes in the suggestion, btw-there's a lot of logic in the premise of it.

tbh

RoundyMooney wrote: »

I agree.

If users are to be given an arbitrary number of appeals (like three) what happens if they "win" those three appeals?

then they still have three appeals. the idea is that people would think more carefully about frivolous claims. And anyway, this is past the point of mod interaction and past the point of cmod interaction, so you wouldn't really expect someone to even get that far three (or whatever ) times, or at least you'd hope they wouldn't. And the flipside to what steve said - I couldn't carry on as a cmod if I had an appeal over turned three times TOTAL, let alone the same user.

anyway, it was just a suggestion.

Hagar

You can't put an arbitary limit on a poster's right to a fair hearing. And yes he does have that right, we all have it.

RoundyMooney

tbh wrote: »

then they still have three appeals. the idea is that people would think more carefully about frivolous claims. And anyway, this is past the point of mod interaction and past the point of cmod interaction, so you wouldn't really expect someone to even get that far three (or whatever ) times, or at least you'd hope they wouldn't. And the flipside to what steve said - I couldn't carry on as a cmod if I had an appeal over turned three times TOTAL, let alone the same user.

I know, teebs. I get that. What I'm getting at, and it's highly unlikely, is that the user gets only three chances to be wrong, whereas the admin layer can be as wrong as often as they want? It may be purely hypothetical, but still.

I don't want us to get bogged down in semantics or figures, especially in light of what is a tentative suggestion, but at some stage, if such a thing is adapted, it will have to be scaled. IOW, if a mod has three seperate appeals upheld against them in a year, what happens then? (Not asking you, btw, I'm being rhetorical).

Your ethic is very commendable, and I know that you're being sincere as always, but we have to bear in mind, not necessarily just as of now, but in the future, that people in such a role might not share that moral compass.

tbh wrote: »

anyway, it was just a suggestion.

And a most welcome one. I'm just back here after a hiatus-and I'm sensing that we could get some real change here. We'll get nothing but more of the same without suggestions. Just like yours.

Steve

RoundyMooney wrote: »

I agree.

If users are to be given an arbitrary number of appeals (like three) what happens if they "win" those three appeals?

IOW, they get three chances to "lose", but there's no corresponding restriction at the other end?

I'm conscious that to even bring/have to bring three appeals is extreme, and indicative of bigger problems on either side depending on the circumstances, but with my pedantic hat on, we shouldn't start off by setting restrictions.

As you say, Steve, if someone is being an idiot, you'd have to reasonably expect such a situation to self correct before it gets out of hand, whether its a muppet user, or far less likely, but still possible, a muppet mod.

I don't think a user should be afforded any immunity if they happen to 'win' a pre-set quota of admin appeals.

If that situation were ever to arise then it's because of one of the following reasons:

1. Both the mod concerned and the cMod are bullying the user and their positions should be reviewed..
2. Both the Mod and the cMod are not capable of doing their job and their positions should be reviewed.
3. The user is very smart and has engineered the situation to their advantage in order to discredit and / or depose a Mod.

1 and 2 are clear cut and in an open system there would be little excuse not to take some action on it.
3 Sounds far fetched but anyone who has been around here long enough will know it's possible and inevitable - it becomes much more difficult when everything is done in public though.

I'm not trying to pick holes in the suggestion, btw-there's a lot of logic in the premise of it.

Every idea should be critically analysed and the 'holes' exposed - otherwise there's little point in discussing it.:cool:

RoundyMooney

Now we're getting somewhere.

If 1 or 2 come to pass in light of repeat appeals (say two), then there will be no need for the third appeal, as the situation will be resolved.

In the case of three, to ghettoise it, said user would want to be one smart muthafukka, to get away with such a strategy in an open system.*

So, as you say, self correcting. But my point stands. If users get three shots at the rock paper scissors game, then a corresponding undertaking should be in place at the other end, even if it's never needed.

Call it pedanticism, it's all the same. But if we're going to quantify, we need to do so in both directions.

*What's more likely, and borne out by experience, is that a rare individual mod will pursue the same line again and again, with different users, but with the same results (I say mod, 'cos, if a user pursued the same negative characteristics, say, agression, nitpicking, borderline abuse-they would fall foul of the same unified (mod) group as opposed to various different, unconnected individuals). If the same moderator has similiar complaints raised against them by different users over a period of time, do they get three strikes too?

I'm not trying to be facetious here, btw

RoundyMooney

I'm not suggesting three successful appeals should get one a get out of jail free card, btw.

I am suggesting that if a number of similiar complaints arise, with similiar results, for or against the hierarchy, then something would want to be happening.

nesf

tbh wrote: »

anyway, it was just a suggestion.

And a useful one. It really highlights the problem of designing a system that allows for genuine complaints to get a fair hearing while simultaneously trying to limit overuse of the system by a vocal minority constantly appealing with little to no grounds for said appeals. Since the system is policed by volunteers we need to bear the latter in mind.

That said, right now the number of complaints I get is under 1 a day for Soc, so it's not anywhere close to a level where I'd start feeling there was too much being dumped on my plate.

Earthhorse

LoLth wrote: »

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).

...

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?

I think what you have proposed would be a great improvement on what's currently in place. It's more open, it prevents accusation against users without response, it should be quicker and it's more transparent. That hits a lot of the right spots. But I think, as you say, as an interim solution. The only problem with interim solutions, of course, is that once they pass their best by date they transform into long run problems.

One thing I would ask for in addition, and which I know I am in the minority asking for, is to allow non-interested parties to post, within reason. Why? Well, this actually ties in with Feedback and what people use it for and the distinction between the general discussion we are allowed have here and the specific discussions we are meant to have in Help Desk.

There's a perfect example of it in this thread when nesf asks us for...

nesf wrote: »

Links?

It would be a reasonable question if we weren't allowed talk about specifics in Feedback; and although this discussion is about Help Desk it's pretty safe to say that both forums are opposite sides of the same coin. We can expect that when someone makes an assertion someone else will ask them to back it up. But how can we? I'm not suggesting nesf set a trap here; asking a question he knew couldn't be answered. If anything, he fell into one; forgetting that we can't use real examples when they would be so handy.

This renders Feedback a bit of a lame duck at times; it's not that we can't have constructive conversations, like this one, but that the burden of proof is so heavily on the proposer of an idea, so heavily on the complainant, that they have little hope of convincing anyone of their experience, though they know their experience to be true. You tie our hands; then ask us to juggle.

Oddly enough though, as a user - and I think I might be the only user posting in this thread that isn't an ex mod, admin or high school quarterback - I would still feel more at home posting here, in Feedback, than over there, in Help Desk.

Why?

Because, sometimes, what people are looking for isn't clarification or revision of a ruling. It's clarification on whether the ruling makes sense to their peers. A sanity check. They are looking for the opinion of their peers and I'm sorry, but no, I do not regard mods or admins as my peers on this site; some of you may be my friends, but when it comes to the use of boards.ie you have an experience and an interaction that is distinct from mine, in important ways.

So I would ask that you either allow my fellow users speak, within reason, on any Help Desk thread I create (and by extension any thread started by any user, be they user, mod or admin) or you allow some discussion with reference to specifics here in Feedback.

If you're a mod or admin reading this you might want to read those paragraphs a few times as the point is quite a tender one. Obviously, I cannot claim to speak for all users, but as I don't see any o' dem sexy, new users around, what wear the hotpants and go to beers, I'm afraid I'm all you've got right now.

LoLth wrote: »

Are there any out-there alternative ideas floating about?

I don't have any other out-there alternatives, at least not at this time, apart from the one about building a dinosaur theme park with real dinosaurs, created from the blood of a flea trapped in amber, but, unlucky for you, I do have more to say, which isn't necessarily on topic, but might be of use.

--amadeus-- made a good point about demographics changing here on the net. Look around this thread and what do you see; a lot of the same names, a lot of familiar faces. What do we all have in common?

We are often told that the vast majority of users spend their time on boards without ever visiting this forum or raising a complaint. That's great. Look around at the users on this thread again. When did they join? A lot, I'd say, from the early to middle part of the last decade, the rest, a few years ago. What kind of posters are they? Mods or ex-mods, mostly. That means active posters. It means trusted ones. What does that mean?

There are two ways to analyse it. The first, is to say that there are some people who will never be happy and that we are those people. Or that there will always be some people who are, at that point in time, unhappy and we are the current rotation of that crop. That's possible. But if it were true then where are the unhappy users with newer reg dates? Where are the unhappy users with lower post counts? There should be some here, surely, given boards' recent exponential growth.

There's another way to slice that cake though and it's this; on a long enough time line any active user of boards will have an issue that needs to be resolved.

You are more likely to be personally injured in your home than in any other place. Why? Is your house unsafe? No, you just spend most of your time there so it's likely the place you'll be injured. You are also more likely to be in a car crash within a short distance of your home than on stretches of road you are less familiar with. Are the roads around you poorly maintained? Nope, it is the simple phenomenon of exposure increasing the likelihood of the event.

So if you spend a lot of time online and a lot of that time is on boards, where are you most likely to have a bad experience online?

When bad things happen we don't just give up. We don't sell house because we fell over the porch step or start using public transport because someone dinged us on the way out of the estate. And we don't stop using a forum because of a bad experience.

So the more likely explanation for all those users you see around you is that we represent a percentage (users with issues who are unhappy with their resolution or manner thereof), of a percentage (users with issues), of a percentage (users of boards). Now, what happens when you increase that last number?

A reasonable case scenario suggests the other two numbers will rise.

boards has experienced exponential user growth in the last while and it shows no signs of slowing. Who knows what the timeline is, but it's reasonable to assume there are issues, which haven't happened yet but which will happen, and which will need resolution, and as it stands they are going to logjam in Help Desk. That would be my analysis of what will happen in the next few years. Steve has already touched on the fact that the category structure is already in place; if you're to stand any chance of dealing with what could be a flood of threads, a multiple Help Desk system would appear to be a necessity.

It's been said before, but boards is a behemoth now, in a time where the net moves faster than ever. You can't afford to be thinking on six day or six month timelines. You need to be building for something closer to six years. To do that, the boards custodians need to bet, not on where users are, but on where they're going to be.

Not long ago, you made many such bets. You bet on not selling out to advertisers so you could build something of lasting value. You bet on the creation of many, diverse forums, confident that the majority would be filled with useful content (not a bet I would have made myself). But the biggest bet you took was on users. To mod those forums. To fill them with content. To suggest ideas you wouldn't have yourself. To be the lifeblood of boards. Lately, when I see and hear of the way some people have been treated, and the dissatisfaction these people have with the manner in which their concerns have been dismissed, it feels like you have been betting against us. In the long run, I'm not sure how I feel about those odds.

And so, the question comes; are you ready to bet on us again?