Discussion on the Help Desk

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?

LoLth

Just to throw in my 2 cents.

A user should be allowed as many appeals as they like whether they are found righ tin their objection previously or not. By the time a user has appealed enough to be a pest or to noticeably increase a workload they've already been in trouble so often that on average they will be found wanting in at least half the cases. that many mods cant be wrong can they?

By then i would imagine that a "appeal for th esake of it" would be sitebanned for persistent infringements under the straw that broke the camels back scenario.

As said previously, if we design a system to ease our own workload then we inherently build a flaw into it that could deny a user a fair hearing when they deserve one.

tbh

RoundyMooney wrote: »

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.

yeah don't worry - I don't carry a shield for the idea or anything, but when everything is up for discussion, I guess everything is up for discussion.
just throwing it out there, but how would people feel about an independent cmod being involved somewhere in the mix? I'm thinking along the lines of an extra level of appeal, but maybe also as an extra pair of hands for the rec lads?
I guess tho that would have long term implications for the cmod role which would muddy the waters.

nesf

Earthhorse wrote: »

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



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.

nesf asked said question because nesf was genuinely curious about what instances of it had occurred. Since nesf doesn't have anything to do with moderating the Help Desk, nesf wouldn't necessarily notice them if they had occurred (especially if they didn't concern Soc).

Plus I find it quite mindboggling to suggest that if someone says "there have been a few incidents where X has occurred" that they can't be expected to be able to answer the question "so what incidents were they?". It's perfectly reasonable to not want to bring up specific instances publicly because they might be a sensitive issue and to choose to withhold the answer or whatever but not being able to answer the question at all would mean that one was making assertions without any basis in reality.

Earthhorse

nesf wrote: »

nesf asked said question because nesf was genuinely curious about what instances of it had occurred. Since nesf doesn't have anything to do with moderating the Help Desk, nesf wouldn't necessarily notice them if they had occurred (especially if they didn't concern Soc).

I don't doubt that.

Plus I find it quite mindboggling to suggest that if someone says "there have been a few incidents where X has occurred" that they can't be expected to be able to answer the question "so what incidents were they?".

It's not mind boggling; we're not allowed talk about specific cases here on Feedback. Or were you not aware of that?

It's perfectly reasonable to not want to bring up specific instances publicly because they might be a sensitive issue and to choose to withhold the answer or whatever but not being able to answer the question at all would mean that one was making assertions without any basis in reality.

Or you might not be able to answer them because the rules preclude discussion of specific cases. So you might be telling the truth but you can't substantiate your claim because the rules prevent you from doing so.

Do you agree that such a rule should be lifted or relaxed to allow people back up their claims?

nesf

Earthhorse wrote: »

It's not mind boggling; we're not allowed talk about specific cases here on Feedback. Or were you not aware of that?



Or you might not be able to answer them because the rules preclude discussion of specific cases. So you might be telling the truth but you can't substantiate your claim because the rules prevent you from doing so.

Do you agree that such a rule should be lifted or relaxed to allow people back up their claims?

My interpretation of the rule is that if you are making a general point, i.e. "X exists, as can be seen in these two examples", then you'd be fine. The problem would be creating a thread dedicated to discussing the specific cases or if you were attempting to derail a general discussion into one about a specific case.

Earthhorse

nesf wrote: »

My interpretation of the rule is that if you are making a general point, i.e. "X exists, as can be seen in these two examples", then you'd be fine. The problem would be creating a thread dedicated to discussing the specific cases or if you were attempting to derail a general discussion into one about a specific case.

What if you only had one case and wanted to discuss the rule associated with it (and not attempt to have the case overturned)? I know you're not a mod of Feedback but do you think that should be allowed?

nesf

Earthhorse wrote: »

What if you only had one case and wanted to discuss the rule associated with it (and not attempt to have the case overturned)? I know you're not a mod of Feedback but do you think that should be allowed?

It depends. Are you discussing that rule in general or the specifics of that case? I'd be ok with the former and think the latter would be taking the piss but I've zero say in the rules of this forum or how they're implemented so meh.

Earthhorse

nesf wrote: »

It depends. Are you discussing that rule in general or the specifics of that case?

You're discussing the rule with reference to the specifics of the case.

And let's say the case involves you.

And you know of similar cases but can't talk about them because the users concerned would prefer not to have them raised again.

What I'm saying is, there are plenty of circumstances under which this rule binds us and I think it should be relaxed a little.

nesf

Earthhorse wrote: »

You're discussing the rule with reference to the specifics of the case.

And let's say the case involves you.

And you know of similar cases but can't talk about them because the users concerned would prefer not to have them raised again.

What I'm saying is, there are plenty of circumstances under which this rule binds us and I think it should be relaxed a little.

I think you should be allowed to discuss the rule but not how it effects you and not as a form of appeal for your case, i.e. discuss how the rule should be applied going forward.

parsi

Earthhorse wrote: »

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.

That is such a valid point.

Helpdesk is heavily biased towards those who know the system, the rules, the history. It is somewhat intimidating for theordinary user who has fallen foul and believes that they have a genuine issue. Ultimately (or is it ideally ?) appeals should be decided by a jury of your peers or at least a flavour of that.

--amadeus--

One thing that popped into my head - there has been talk about "ticketing" systems and how stuff gets forgotten about.

Why not have a locked thread at the top with a lsit of open issues in a table format:

Thread|Link|Admin dealing with|Poster|Date posted|Status
Unfair banning|linky|Random name|Unhappy poster|10/10/2009|Ongoing


As issues are closed they are deleted. That way everyone can see at a glance what opne & ongoing.

Steve

--amadeus-- wrote: »

One thing that popped into my head - there has been talk about "ticketing" systems and how stuff gets forgotten about.

Why not have a locked thread at the top with a lsit of open issues in a table format:

Thread|Link|Admin dealing with|Poster|Date posted|Status
Unfair banning|linky|Random name|Unhappy poster|10/10/2009|Ongoing


As issues are closed they are deleted. That way everyone can see at a glance what opne & ongoing.

No offence but maintaining a list like that would be an awful lot of work. Thread tags would achieve the same end.
They could simply use [new] [live] and [resolved] to keep track.

seamus

--amadeus-- wrote: »

One thing that popped into my head - there has been talk about "ticketing" systems and how stuff gets forgotten about.

Why not have a locked thread at the top with a lsit of open issues in a table format:

Thread|Link|Admin dealing with|Poster|Date posted|Status
Unfair banning|linky|Random name|Unhappy poster|10/10/2009|Ongoing


As issues are closed they are deleted. That way everyone can see at a glance what opne & ongoing.

As Steve says, maintenance is the issue.

It's a good idea, but the issue with helpdesk and threads getting missed/left is an issue of maintenance.

I've not read big chunks of this thread, but I'm still of the opinion that the helpdesk needs to be replaced with a ticketing system. No half-measures, the whole shebang. That way, open issues sit obviously open and needing to be dealt with, things which are sorted can be closed off and they disappear, never to bother the queue again.

Yes, you could implement ticketing-style policies in the current helpdesk format (e.g. moving closed issues to a dead forum), but maintenance is the issue again.

That said, for the short-term it may be no harm to try - set up a "closed issues" subforum in helpdesk so that all or most current issues are visible in the helpdesk.

--amadeus--

I see your points. I think tags are a good idea but the idea behind a table would be that an open issue couldn't drift off the front page and get forgotten about - even with tags that could happen.

A sub forum for closed issues is a very good idea - maintains an open library while keeping current stuff out and in view so in theory the "ooops we forgot you" thing can't happen. Obviously a full ticketing system is an ideal solution but I don't get the impression that Ross and Conor have got the time to develop it at the moment and an interim solution would be good.

In terms of maintenance - any revision to HD is probably going to require more work (from either Admins or CMods) because the current system is failing. There is no shortage of manpower available so I wouldn't like to see "thats a lot of work" being used as an excuse to stop reform.

seamus

--amadeus-- wrote: »

In terms of maintenance - any revision to HD is probably going to require more work (from either Admins or CMods) because the current system is failing. There is no shortage of manpower available so I wouldn't like to see "thats a lot of work" being used as an excuse to stop reform.

Well, it's valid to a point, primarily because most of the admins who deal with helpdesk aren't paid to do so, so it doesn't come high on the agenda of "Things to do today".

There are a couple of other issues though which affect how the helpdesk is running at present;

For example, user A starts a thread and BuffyBot responds, saying, "I'll check it out". Other things happen or take priority, BB forgets (because he's human) and the user comes back six days later asking, "Well?".

During this six days, the other admins have probably popped in, seen that BB is looking at the issue and moved on.

So in that regard, it might be a good idea to set a time limit: If the initial admin hasn't responded to a user's post within 24 hours (say), then someone else takes over, or does their best to.

In addition, sometimes the user doesn't bother coming back, but the issue is still clogging up the helpdesk. So set a time limit there too. If the user hasn't responded to the last admin comment within 48 hours, it's obviously not important enough, so the issue is closed and moved off.

Along with a "closed issues" subforum, these could work really well. But they need to be simple rules and simple processes, not long chains of, "If A then do B, but only if not C in which case do D where E is not true", etc.

The former idea in particular could be helped by including a "comments" post in the thread from an admin, which is pre-moderated (removing it from public view). This would provide a journal in which the admin(s) record what's been done and by whom, so an admin coming in to take over the issue doesn't have to start again. It would be private because it would contain "workings", but it doesn't have to be private in all cases.

What I describe above is basically a ticketing format shoehorned into a forum one - I still think maintenance is an issue, but nothing ventured, etc.

--amadeus--

That ^^ all sounds like a really workable system.

One comment only:

seamus wrote: »

Well, it's valid to a point, primarily because most of the admins who deal with helpdesk aren't paid to do so, so it doesn't come high on the agenda of "Things to do today".

Agreed, which is why opening it up to Cmods (or maybe even HelpDesk specific Mods) would help, utilising the CMods to lighten the Admin load was partly the objective of the current DRP. This would do the same thing but in a more User Friendly way. And there are plenty of CMods and plenty of Mods who would be more than capable of stepping up to CMod if needed

Everyone wins