Private forum descriptions

John Mason

Wibbs wrote: »

Plus you can report a post regardless of its privacy or not, or have I got that one wrong?

you can still report it but it is consider rude and extermely bad form, as it goes to the mod forum and hosted mods dont have access to the mod forum, and unless a mod is a member of said group they cant view it

pickarooney

Sorry to get back on-topic after saying I was finished, but...

How about adding a [P] for private and a [R] for restricted to the names of such forums so users will know they should PM a mod for info on joining a restricted forum and to just ignore private ones? It might be a useful middle ground.

Wibbs

irishbird wrote: »

you can still report it but it is consider rude and extermely bad form, as it goes to the mod forum and hosted mods dont have access to the mod forum, and unless a mod is a member of said group they cant view it

Dunno how hard it would be to implement, but a hmod reported posts forum? Then again that would mean other hmods would be looking at private forum stuff so back to square one....

star-pants

Basically if you've an issue with a post, you don't report it, you pm one/all of the mods of the private forum with a link or whatever and your reason, like you would a reported post.
If there's major issues, and the situation needs escalating, Admins can get involved.

stovelid

pickarooney wrote: »

Sorry to get back on-topic after saying I was finished, but...

How about adding a [P] for private and a [R] for restricted to the names of such forums so users will know they should PM a mod for info on joining a restricted forum and to just ignore private ones? It might be a useful middle ground.

Maybe you could wear a strategic left-eye patch when using boards so offensively private forums (listed under a mod's name) don't loom so large in your peripheral vision?

TheZohanS

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

If a moderator goes out of line and refuses access / removes membership without good reason, it's going to be pretty obvious to everyone else in the forum, and nobody will be happy about it.

How would you know if a member was removed and the real reason for it?

homerjay2005

pickarooney wrote: »

Sorry to get back on-topic after saying I was finished, but...

How about adding a [P] for private and a [R] for restricted to the names of such forums so users will know they should PM a mod for info on joining a restricted forum and to just ignore private ones? It might be a useful middle ground.

or how about you just stop being a nosey **** and stop clicking on links in peoples names? cant believe this thread has gone 4 pages in what looks to me like somebody is jealous of not being invited. there are loads of forums that are not suituable to public domain.

all forums have ligitimate reasons for being created and have to pass several guidelines, be them private or public so to use this as a reason for having issue with them, is ill founded and a bit pathetic.

TPD

TheZohan wrote: »

How would you know if a member was removed and the real reason for it?

Notice that the user doesn't post any more, and then ask them and any mods for the reason. I don't think it really needs an official system in place.

RoundyMooney

Wibbs wrote: »

Dunno how hard it would be to implement, but a hmod reported posts forum? Then again that would mean other hmods would be looking at private forum stuff so back to square one....

Pretty much. A hmod reported posts forum viewable only by admins would work though, with the same notifications in place as now. If the admins choose to watch, then they'd become aware of someone trashing the locked hotel suite fairly quickly.

Private forums are part of the site, whatever people think at this stage-so no point in trying to change that. Nothing wrong with the suggestion to group them by those that are open to a plebeian applicant, and those who aren't though.

I've seen one mod forums before-and two as a minimum should be the ideal-as they are in effect, self policing.

TheZohanS

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

Notice that the user doesn't post any more, and then ask them and any mods for the reason. I don't think it really needs an official system in place.

That doesn't really address a good point that dr.bollocko made below, now does it?

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Say, for example, if they took issue with another poster for a personal thing unrelated to the forum and removed their access. That would be completely unfair right?

How would you find out about an incident like that?

RoundyMooney

TheZohan wrote: »

How would you find out about an incident like that?

msn/irc/text message for the most part, probably.

Look, private forum members want a private area for whatever reason.

They can't really expect decisions made by a mod in there to be open to public scrutiny in the normal manner.

The best that could be done is to maintain a sticked access list, and make that a condition of the hosting. I know beer4lyfe did this at one stage, but they all should tbh.

If a controversial removal results in bitching, well it wouldn't be the first time

pickarooney

homerjay2005 wrote: »

or how about you just stop being a nosey **** and stop clicking on links in peoples names?

Then I'd never find little-publicised forums like The Boardean Times or Nein 11.

tbh

pickarooney wrote: »

Then I'd never find little-publicised forums like The Boardean Times or Nein 11.

that might not be what you want, but it might be what they want. And there's more of them

RoundyMooney

All the more reason for grouping them.

I'm sure there are quite a few fora who'd welcome new blood too, but as things stand, no outsider knows which ones do or don't, if you get me.

tbh

RoundyMooney wrote: »

All the more reason for grouping them.

I'm sure there are quite a few fora who'd welcome new blood too, but as things stand, no outsider knows which ones do or don't, if you get me.

yeah - tho the mods could easily advertise for members - if they wanted them - through sigs and the biki. And at least that way, it'd be their choice - they didn't have to publicise if they didn't want to. Which would seem fair enough to me.

RoundyMooney

They still don't have to. If they want to close up, then the forum would fall into the Private category. If they want to promote the forum, then they'd fall under Restricted, and promote using sig campaigns or as they see fit. If they are somewhere in between, then they're simply placed in the Restricted group, and nothing more.

This doesn't even have to involve moving forums about, as most of them are under hosted, rec etc., as it is. Just a matter of asking the users therein, and adding [Private] or [Restricted] (or whatever works) so we don't have ambiguity.

They'll still be noted under the mods profile anyway, just with some further access info. I'm not buying into a database for public viewing as to what each is about, if anything-just to clarify.

Simple, no?

tbh

RoundyMooney wrote: »

They still don't have to. If they want to close up, then the forum would fall into the Private category. If they want to promote the forum, then they'd fall under Restricted, and promote using sig campaigns or as they see fit. If they are somewhere in between, then they're simply placed in the Restricted group, and nothing more.

This doesn't even have to involve moving forums about, as most of them are under hosted, rec etc., as it is. Just a matter of asking the users therein, and adding [Private] or [Restricted] (or whatever works) so we don't have ambiguity.

They'll still be noted under the mods profile anyway, just with some further access info. I'm not buying into a database for public viewing as to what each is about, if anything-just to clarify.

Simple, no?

I don't think it's as simple as the system that's already there. I don't get why we'd have to have two different catagories, instead of two different styles. If users want to stay private, they do nothing, if they want to recruit, they sig it up. The only advantage i could see to making two different catagories is having a browsable list, and it'd seem easier to just make a wiki page that any forum that wants to can advertise

1 new wiki page - that's my kind of simple

TPD

TheZohan wrote: »

That doesn't really address a good point that dr.bollocko made below, now does it?

How would you find out about an incident like that?

The same way; ask the user who has been removed. If they think it was unfair, ask the mod. If the mod hasn't got a good enough reason, I can't see many other members sticking around. I certainly wouldn't.

RoundyMooney

Anything's possible.

I just don't see them as the sacred cow that some do (not you necessarily, but others in this thread), and don't see the problem in formalising what they are, without discommoding any groups, in fact helping the biggest group that we have, new users and the curious.

I really don't see that this solution, together with an admin accessible hmod reported posts forum, an access list stickied on each one and a minimum of two mods to each, is anything but a positive progression for all involved.

TheZohanS

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

The same way; ask the user who has been removed. If they think it was unfair, ask the mod. If the mod hasn't got a good enough reason, I can't see many other members sticking around. I certainly wouldn't.

That sounds very fair.

But how would you know a user was removed obviously you wouldn't see them posting, but apart from that?

They wouldn't have access to that forum again and not all users would contact an admin to kick up.

I think it would be a good idea to have a simple "in" and "out" list for new and ex users as has been previously suggested. Have two mods at least in each forum and mods agree on who come in and who goes out
(possibly in agreement with members) and any members that have their access removed are PMd by the mods.

Also two mods would be needed to deal with allegations of bullying in private fora, I have seen a case of this reported before but nothing was done about it as there was only one moderator in the forum in question.

That sort of carry-on should not be allowed on boards, people should be held responsible.

TPD

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Anything's possible.

I just don't see them as the sacred cow that some do (not you necessarily, but others in this thread), and don't see the problem in formalising what they are, without discommoding any groups, in fact helping the biggest group that we have, new users and the curious.

I really don't see that this solution, together with an admin accessible hmod reported posts forum, an access list stickied on each one and a minimum of two mods to each, is anything but a positive progression for all involved.

I don't see why this is necessary though. Has there been so much corruption to warrant it?

RoundyMooney

I have no idea, honestly

There have been problems back in the long ago, but I can't speak for the events of the last two years or thereabouts.

I do know that contingencies are no bad thing, and with growth comes more likelihood of people experiencing problems.

TPD

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm an "If it aint broke, don't fix it" kinda guy. The informal attitude found in private forums is one of the main attractions, I find.

TheZohanS

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm an "If it aint broke, don't fix it" kinda guy. The informal attitude found in private forums is one of the main attractions, I find.

Who's to say it isn't broken? Posters have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, you have no idea why a poster might lose access, if a mod took a dislike to a poster they could make up some story as to why they lost access.

Your response might not be based on all the facts, it might be impossible for you, as a member of a private forum, to have all the facts if there is only one moderator.

In regular fora you have a mod decision which can be appealed to the CMod and if a poster is unhappy with that they can appeal even further to Helpdesk. Private forum members are not afforded that level of justice. A mod might ban a member because they have personal differences with a poster and nobody would know.

TPD

TheZohan wrote: »

Who's to say it isn't broken? Posters have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, you have no idea why a poster might lose access, if a mod took a dislike to a poster they could make up some story as to why they lost access.

I suppose if it came down to a 'your word vs mine' situation, many would side with the moderator's story. But surely the mod's character should be taken into consideration before they even become a mod?

TheZohan wrote: »

Your response might not be based on all the facts, it might be impossible for you, as a member of a private forum, to have all the facts if there is only one moderator.

That's true, but short of making mod forums public, a regular user will never have all the facts, or at least never know if they do. I'm basing my responses on what I do know, and what I know of the mods of private forums I am/was in.

TheZohan wrote: »

In regular fora you have a mod decision which can be appealed to the CMod and if a poster is unhappy with that they can appeal even further to Helpdesk. Private forum members are not afforded that level of justice. A mod might ban a member because they have personal differences with a poster and nobody would know.

Again, this is only based on the forums I've been in, but they seem to be a place to get away from the stricter rules of the rest of the site, to 'shoot the sh!t'. Applying the same structure to private forums seems to defeat the point.

Multiple moderators in a private forum isn't a bad thing, I just don't think it should be mandatory.

tbh

TheZohan wrote: »

Private forum members are not afforded that level of justice. A mod might ban a member because they have personal differences with a poster and nobody would know.

users of a private forum have no rights, and should not have any expectations of any, imo. A mod could ban a member because of personal differences, and unless the users of the forum revolted, there's little the user can do. That's just the way it is. There's nothing to stop you from starting your own private forum and if the mod is as big a dick as you claim, everyone will migrate to yours/

heh. that argument works on a micro and macro level.

RoundyMooney

This has been going on for years on one level or another, and it's a tricky one.

Users of a private forum may have no rights (debateable*), but they do have responsibilities, in fact all involved do.

There are certain sitewide rules-if I posted rule 34 crap on a private forum, I'd expect to be booted not just from there, but from the site. There's also the rule surrounding personal insults-and the expectation that certain standards apply in keeping with the established and expected culture of boards.

The does not always apply on private fora. The upshot seems to be that out of sight, out of mind-personal insults are not an issue if they are hidden, as they don't lead to ding dong battles and derailment of discussion.

99.9% of the time, there isn't an issue, as almost all private convos are innocent and benign, or else the party being talked about is blissfully unaware. Even if they're not, there's not a whole lot they can do. Pub analogy-"the people on that table over there are laughing at me"-they're not going to get kicked out, are they?

But, as said, private fora aren't going anywhere. The majority seem happy with that, and that's all gravy. However, there's nothing wrong with trying to avoid instances where people feel they or others have been removed unfairly, where a sole mod gets to dictate the tempo, by accident or design, where multiple instances of the same problem can go un-noticed by those volunteers tasked with overseeing the site.

*My view: Of course they have flippin' rights. The same rights/expectations that they have elsewhere on the site. Up to a point. Now in a community discussing adult topics, like humour or body piercings, no one can crib or moan if something upsets their sensitivities-they knew what they were getting into when they entered the forum, but aside from that, there should be an element of cop-on in what are effectively self policing fora. On both sides.

Nevyn

Dudess wrote: »

maybe it would be ok for anyone who's curious, to PM a mod and ask what it stands for/a vague idea of what the purpose of it is? E.g. if it's a social forum, the answer need only be "It's a social forum where a particular group of Boards friends gather" - that wouldn't be breaching any privacy.

This is what happens, I have gotten pms over the years about the different ones I have modded on and off.

pickarooney just pm and ask if you want to know, I am boggled that you take the standard message which is the site standard so personally.

Most of the ones I have access to have list of those who have access which is updated when changes are made.
as far as I know there are 100s of private forums, they are entrusted to people who will run them in accordance with the sites rules if they stray from that the admins usually get alerted and only then will review the forum.

why all the questions, it ain't broke it don't need fixing or is this thread a whinge or asking for info that people don't' seem to know cos it hasn't been played forward.

RoundyMooney

Well I asked someone last night, not to prove a point, out of genuine curiosity, and got a nice answer back-so that's always an option.

Really, if we have to resort to the wording of the vB message, then we have no problem.

Some people think it is a bit broken, some don't. Just wanted to throw a couple of suggestions out there, is all

Rabies

I think this has gone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too in depth.

Private forums = private

Want to know more? Send a message and ask.

Some or obvious. Others are not.
there are dead empty forums and some really busy.

All sorts out there.

Some weird and wonderful ones too.
Others are down right disturbing but fun in their own right.