WTF is feedforward?

Boston

DeVore wrote: »

Ironically Boston, I didnt make this decision, I left this to a large group of users. This was their (unanimous afairc) decision. Personally, I completely agree with it. Where you get this notion that we've always discussed future policy here is beyond me. Does the phrase benevolent dictatorship ring any bells?? This is the beginnings of making decision making more consensus driven.

DeV.

Always? No. Is that the plan for this new forum? All new policies get vetted there first? This was a place where some futures policies were discussed. Never all. Frankly this all sounds like so much smoke and mirrors.

DeVore

Yes, within the scope of the forum (which is what we are discussing now). I'm not going to have a discussion on Dav's wages but otherwise, yup... this will be the formal place for all policy discussion before it gets decided (either by the admins, or by a me+a small group).

DeV.

Eliot Rosewater

Boston wrote: »

Frankly this all sounds like so much smoke and mirrors.

Its blatently obvious why a new system like this is necessary. Existing threads on Boards.ie's future usually start off good, but then so many posters come on to give their opinion (no matter how many times that same opinion has already been stated) or to argue some pedantic point, that the signal to noise ratio rockets and we are left with long and boring threads that make something that should be exiting (helping to plan the future of a great website) terribly uninteresting.

From what I gather, the new format will allow this thing to keep going (through the public forum) but will also allow a more refined discussion to take place amongst the more balanced and rational users here. In my opinion this will go along way towards cutting down on the waffle and to keep the debate fresh and to the point.

As someone who has frequently contributed to "Feedforward" threads here, I thought that you would have seen that Boston.

DeVore

Not only that but in the restricted forum there will be two types of threads on the same topic. One will be "Free For All" where the FF members can post as often as they like and the other will be a One Post Per Person thread which will do what is says on the tin, to further refine the "signal to noise" ratio.

Eliot, thank you, thats exactly why we are doing this. No doubt it will be spun otherwise but when the forum is made transparent, the reasoning behind these things will be too. That should be in about a fortnights time.

DeV.

Boston

DeVore wrote: »

Yes, within the scope of the forum (which is what we are discussing now). I'm not going to have a discussion on Dav's wages but otherwise, yup... this will be the formal place for all policy discussion before it gets decided (either by the admins, or by a me+a small group).

DeV.

I'm going to put on my sceptic hat and say from the sounds of things discussions will be limited and you block discussion of topics from appearing on both forums. Thus only a select few will be allow input on boards policies and that will be generally only after a lot of the decision making has happened. Threads appearing on this forum will be locked if they related to discussions on the feed-forward forum. I look forward to critiquing this new system.

It's not like I object to Seamus or Wibbs or Des or whomever having an input into boards.ie policy. It's great. The more opinions you get the better. It's not like my position has changed, I go from having no input with one group to having no input with a bigger group. Policy decision are still going to be made by someone somewhere else. Thats fine, but I like to throw in my 2 cent even if it's ignored.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Its blatently obvious why a new system like this is necessary.

Two points:

1) When someone says something is "blatantly obvious" it's usually because they can't support their argument with anything of merit.

2) I hate to pull out the old "You've not been here that long" but you seem to be too new here to be making statement relating to absolute truths. Fair enough, state your opinion, but please don't pass it off as a tautology.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Existing threads on Boards.ie's future usually start off good, but then so many posters come on to give their opinion (no matter how many times that same opinion has already been stated) or to argue some pedantic point, that the signal to noise ratio rockets and we are left with long and boring threads that make something that should be exiting (helping to plan the future of a great website) terribly uninteresting.

Proper discourse is often boring. I'm sorry but not everything can be summed up in nice little buzz words or catch phrase. Lack of drama and excitement is a really bad reason for feedback to a be limited grouping of people.

Btw, a rocketing signal to noise ratio is a good thing.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

From what I gather, the new format will allow this thing to keep going (through the public forum) but will also allow a more refined discussion to take place amongst the more balanced and rational users here. In my opinion this will go along way towards cutting down on the waffle and to keep the debate fresh and to the point.

As someone who has frequently contributed to "Feedforward" threads here, I thought that you would have seen that Boston.

What you call fresh, I call ridged and formalised. Lets not pertend there isn't a downside to every decision. When you establish rules and regulations, when you limit something, you loose the dynamic element the ability to react.

The Recliner

Boston wrote: »

I'm going to put on my sceptic hat and say from the sounds of things discussions will be limited and you block discussion of topics from appearing on both forums. Thus only a select few will be allow input on boards policies and that will be generally only after a lot of the decision making has happened. Threads appearing on this forum will be locked if they related to discussions on the feed-forward forum. I look forward to critiquing this new system.

It's not like I object to Seamus or Wibbs or Des or whomever having an input into boards.ie policy. It's great. The more opinions you get the better. It's not like my position has changed, I go from having no input with one group to having no input with a bigger group. Policy decision are still going to be made by someone somewhere else. Thats fine, but I like to throw in my 2 cent even if it's ignored.



Two points:

1) When someone says something is "blatantly obvious" it's usually because they can't support their argument with anything of merit.

2) I hate to pull out the old "You've not been here that long" but you seem to be too new here to be making statement relating to absolute truths. Fair enough, state your opinion, but please don't pass it off as a tautology.



Proper discourse is often boring. I'm sorry but not everything can be summed up in nice little buzz words or catch phrase. Lack of drama and excitement is a really bad reason for feedback to a be limited grouping of people.

Btw, a rocketing signal to noise ratio is a good thing.




What you call fresh, I call ridged and formalised. Lets not pertend there isn't a downside to every decision. When you establish rules and regulations, when you limit something, you loose the dynamic element the ability to react.

In an attempt to calm your scepticism I will outline the way I think it is being set up (note this is just my take on it and things may change)

Feedback is a place to discuss issues with the site as people see them or to discuss the ramifications of sh!t storms that have happened

This is not changing

Feedforward is a place to discuss things that may stop those sh!t storms from happening in the first place

There will be a public forum where anyone on boards can have their say and topics there will run in parallell to the publically readable forum where the topic is also being discussed by a smaller group, it would be hoped that discussion in one forum would feed the other and the more people discuss it in the public forum the more their opinions influence things in the main forum

I know there will be complaints of a select few deciding thinsg but being honest it is impossible to make a decision when there are hundreds of voices trying to ahve their say at the same time

The decisions have always been made by a select few, an even smaller group than will be involved in Feedforward, this is probably the most open and transparent way of doing things, everyone gets their say and they also get to see the decision process in action and influence it

5starpool

Is there going to be a list of people published anywhere, of those that have access to take part in the discussions?

Just curious really, but I think it would be a good thing to have for those of us not able to contribute.

Boston

The Recliner wrote: »

In an attempt to calm your scepticism I will outline the way I think it is being set up (note this is just my take on it and things may change)

Feedback is a place to discuss issues with the site as people see them or to discuss the ramifications of sh!t storms that have happened

This is not changing

Feedforward is a place to discuss things that may stop those sh!t storms from happening in the first place

There is no clear cut delineation there.

Quazzie

The Recliner wrote: »

The decisions have always been made by a select few, an even smaller group than will be involved in Feedforward, this is probably the most open and transparent way of doing things, everyone gets their say and they also get to see the decision process in action and influence it

Will the ordinary user have a representative on this panel, or will it be select mods/admins?

The Recliner

5starpool wrote: »

Is there going to be a list of people published anywhere, of those that have access to take part in the discussions?

Just curious really, but I think it would be a good thing to have for those of us not able to contribute.

At the moment it is only being set up

When it goes ahead then everyone will be able to view the forum and see who is in there and can contribute in the public forum

Boston wrote: »

There is no clear cut delineation there.

Maybe not but it is an attempt to try and preempt problems in an open and transparent and all involving manner, this can only be a good thing surely?

tbh

Quazzie wrote: »

Will the ordinary user have a representative on this panel, or will it be select mods/admins?

the "ordinary" user is represented, in the sense that there are non-mods in there. I don't know if it would be accurate to describe them as a representative, as for me anyway, I'm just giving my own opinion rather than trying to voice the opinions of the greater population. fingers crossed the two are not mutually exclusive tho. that's just my understanding, btw, not official policy!

The Recliner

Quazzie wrote: »

Will the ordinary user have a representative on this panel, or will it be select mods/admins?

I didn't plan on being the spokesperson for feedforward but I am here so will give what I know

The methods and membership of Feedforward is under discussion at the moment, that is why it is not currently a public forum, once the basis of operation is nailed down the forum will kick off

Currently Admins and CMods have access by default, Mods were added if they decalred an interest in discussing the formation of the forum, some former mods were added too

I think the long term aim when it gets up and running is to add users who have a history of contributing in feedback

Everyone will have access to the public forum to give opinions also

Quazzie

tbh wrote: »

the "ordinary" user is represented, in the sense that there are non-mods in there.

The Recliner wrote: »

I think the long term aim when it gets up and running is to add users who have a history of contributing in feedback

These two parts answer my query. I think its important to have someone on "the inside" that gives a true representation of the average user but obviously someone who can do it constructively, and with due concern for the site and not be derailed by hidden agendas.

_blank_

Quazzie wrote: »

I think its important to have someone on "the inside" that gives a true representation of the average use

Do such people exist? I don't know if they do tbh.

The user from AH doesn't represent the user from Christianity.

Also, anyone who is considered someone :

who can do it constructively, and with due concern for the site and not be derailed by hidden agendas.

would need to have been around a while to be known as that type of person, and probably is a mod, or an ex-mod (or (ex)CMod or (ex)Admin), and if they aren't, then it's probably because they haven't time to take up such roles. They might not have time for FeedForward either.

Eliot Rosewater

Boston wrote: »

Two points:

With which you proved my point. Those two things you mentioned (the semantics of "blatantly obvious" and my profiles join date) have nothing to do with the discussion about "FeedForward", and shows how easily these threads get off topic.

Boston wrote: »

Proper discourse is often boring.

I don't know what your point is here but it doesn't address what I said: Feedforward threads have a tendency to become off-topic (as above) or a series of different people saying the same thing.

Boston wrote: »

Btw, a rocketing signal to noise ratio is a good thing.

Point taken

Boston wrote: »

When you establish rules and regulations, when you limit something, you loose the dynamic element the ability to react.

I don't think there will be much limiting. From what I understand there will still be a public forum, so its an attempt to get "the best of both worlds."

Sorry about the "zebra crossing" post.

Boston

tbh wrote: »

the "ordinary" user is represented, in the sense that there are non-mods in there. I don't know if it would be accurate to describe them as a representative, as for me anyway, I'm just giving my own opinion rather than trying to voice the opinions of the greater population. fingers crossed the two are not mutually exclusive tho. that's just my understanding, btw, not official policy!

Yes, bad idea to call them user representatives.

The Recliner wrote: »

I didn't plan on being the spokesperson for feedforward but I am here so will give what I know

The methods and membership of Feedforward is under discussion at the moment, that is why it is not currently a public forum, once the basis of operation is nailed down the forum will kick off

Currently Admins and CMods have access by default, Mods were added if they decalred an interest in discussing the formation of the forum, some former mods were added too

I think the long term aim when it gets up and running is to add users who have a history of contributing in feedback

Everyone will have access to the public forum to give opinions also

You maybe right but thats not the way I picked things up.

Des wrote: »

would need to have been around a while to be known as that type of person, and probably is a mod, or an ex-mod (or (ex)CMod or (ex)Admin), and if they aren't, then it's probably because they haven't time to take up such roles.

Is that a bad thing?

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

With which you proved my point. Those two things you mentioned (the semantics of "blatantly obvious" and my profiles join date) have nothing to do with the discussion about "FeedForward", and shows how easily these threads get off topic.

It's not semantics. You passed off opinion as an absolute through which people should just accept. If I accepted your initial premise the dicussion would be over.

Kanye

It's quite clear how this will work out: the read-only forum will be where mods/admins make decisions relating to the operation of the site. Since those decision-makers are now so numerous, this process will be protracted. Everyone will have perfectly valid opinions on site direction/policy and no one will have the guts to just make the decision.

Those who purport to make a decision will be shouted down by those who disagree with the decision. The process will stall while some compromise is reached. Some compromise will be reached that leaves everyone with a sour taste in their mouth.

Then it will be left idle for weeks and or months before someone bumps the thread saying, "what happened to this?" Then everyone will clamour in and each state their opinion about which of the above posts was the ultimate compromise. Then something that wasn't really agreed will be implemented.

Then it won't work. Then everything will be stepped back to the way things were.

By the time all of this happens, the corresponding thread in the writeable forum will be up to thousands of posts. Most of these will be rubbish, conforming to the way Feedback has operated to date, and anything valid will be lost in the noise.


TL; DR: Feedforward; stepbackward.

tbh

you figured out the place fierce fast...

DeVore

and jumps amazing distances to really wrong conclusions based on nothing....

DeV.

LoLth

I just love the way that a change is demanded, a change is made and then there's complaints that thigns are changing and claims that everything was fine the way it was.

How about just giving it a chance before deciding its not going to work? Everyone's well aware of the pitfalls and potential issues that may arise, which is why its getting a lot of discussion and planning and not just slapped into place. Of course there are going to be problems that no-one foresaw, here's hoping we have the right mix of people to solve the problems as they arise or at least have the option to pull in those with the skillset required.

As for wool being pulled over users' eyes... thats bordering more on the realm of paranoia based on the facts as they stand. Its not like I'm going to go post stuff about people in asuper sekrit thread that will never , ever, be seen by the ordinary user... now, where'd I leave that bookmark....

This thread just serves to prove why we need something like feedforward. The discussion has already meandered away from the original topic to criticisms of people's posting style to quotes from a dictionary to deleted snappy comebacks and then back to the original topic with a post born of pure negative speculation. Surely any form of decision making process is better than this?

Quazzie

Des wrote: »

Do such people exist? I don't know if they do tbh.

The user from AH doesn't represent the user from Christianity.

Also, anyone who is considered someone :

would need to have been around a while to be known as that type of person, and probably is a mod, or an ex-mod (or (ex)CMod or (ex)Admin), and if they aren't, then it's probably because they haven't time to take up such roles. They might not have time for FeedForward either.

A valid point(s) but there are posters who have never been mods that have a good view of the site and would genuinely be interested in helping it progress.

Becoming a mod in itself hold a certain amount of responsibility to the site and its owners, and as such a moderator might not feel as free, as a regular user would, to put forward points that might not be too pleasing to owners. Such points would not necessarily be detrimental to the site, but it is often hard to critique someone's position in the hierarchy of Boards without feeling that it may come back to haunt you sometime. Having someone who is immune to such a backlash might not be a bad idea.

--amadeus--

Quazzie wrote: »

Becoming a mod in itself hold a certain amount of responsibility to the site and its owners, and as such a moderator might not feel as free, as a regular user would, to put forward points that might not be too pleasing to owners. Such points would not necessarily be detrimental to the site, but it is often hard to critique someone's position in the hierarchy of Boards without feeling that it may come back to haunt you sometime. Having someone who is immune to such a backlash might not be a bad idea.

Someone like that shouldn't be a Mod. If you are afraid to say what you think in case of "backlash" then how can you moderate a forum? How can you ban a popular poster? Mods need to be strong enough to say what they think is right, irrespective of a backlash. And a user - with less power - has probably less reason to speak out; after all there are more Mods than Admins so more people to annoy!

And I genuinley don't think "backlashes" happen - speaking personally I moderated A/R/T for a year and stepped down over the direction teh site was taking. I ranted a fair bit - in public and in private - about it. It didn't stop the Admins making me a Mod again. As individuals they aren't perfect by any stretch (I'm the only perfect poster ) but as a group they are fair.

Kanye

LoLth wrote: »

I just love the way that a change is demanded, a change is made and then there's complaints that thigns are changing and claims that everything was fine the way it was.

That's what I said.

tbh

Quazzie wrote: »

Becoming a mod in itself hold a certain amount of responsibility to the site and its owners, and as such a moderator might not feel as free, as a regular user would, to put forward points that might not be too pleasing to owners.

trust me Quazz, I would say that the mod forum is far more critical of boards and the admins than feedback.

Boston

LoLth wrote: »

I just love the way that a change is demanded, a change is made and then there's complaints that thigns are changing and claims that everything was fine the way it was.

Who are these people, is it moi?

LoLth wrote: »

How about just giving it a chance before deciding its not going to work? Everyone's well aware of the pitfalls and potential issues that may arise, which is why its getting a lot of discussion and planning and not just slapped into place. Of course there are going to be problems that no-one foresaw, here's hoping we have the right mix of people to solve the problems as they arise or at least have the option to pull in those with the skillset required.

"Everyone's well aware of the pitfalls" and "Of course there are going to be problems that no-one foresaw" seem like contradictory statements. Perhaps there are things which you can't forsee but someone else can?

LoLth wrote: »

As for wool being pulled over users' eyes... thats bordering more on the realm of paranoia based on the facts as they stand. Its not like I'm going to go post stuff about people in asuper sekrit thread that will never , ever, be seen by the ordinary user... now, where'd I leave that bookmark....

It's a matter of record that threads are started on private forums for moderators, Cat mods, hosted mods and administrators relating to specific users.

LoLth wrote: »

This thread just serves to prove why we need something like feedforward. The discussion has already meandered away from the original topic to criticisms of people's posting style to quotes from a dictionary to deleted snappy comebacks and then back to the original topic with a post born of pure negative speculation. Surely any form of decision making process is better than this?

Wow, same material different conclusion. I see a thread started by DeVore which was completely devoid of any information at all. The orginal post being thanked by a group of people whom I can only conclude have the inside track. There was nothing of any merit in this thread until I came along and pushed for more information. There was nothing here except a series of puns on the word. Is this what passes for transparency? A change is coming, it's got a name, thats all for now, be grateful. Now theres a much clearer idea of what this new proposal is about.

Theres been no change because there's no change in the prevailing attitude of looking to shut down any and all discourse.

The Recliner

Boston wrote: »

Wow, same material different conclusion. I see a thread started by DeVore which was completely devoid of any information at all. The orginal post being thanked by a group of people whom I can only conclude have the inside track. There was nothing of any merit in this thread until I came along and pushed for more information. There was nothing here except a series of puns on the word. Is this what passes for transparency? A change is coming, it's got a name, thats all for now, be grateful. Now theres a much clearer idea of what this new proposal is about.

Theres been no change because there's no change in the prevailing attitude of looking to shut down any and all discourse.

To be honest when DeVore started this thread there really wasn't much to say about it other than it was an idea in DeV's head and he was running with it

He then decided that in order to make sure it was done right there should be a proper discussion about it and some decisions made as to how it would operate, for the past few weeks this has been trashed out and a shape to it is starting to form

When DeV is happy that the concept is workable it will go live to the general public

Nothing was been hidden just that there was nothing to say

As it turns out you asked the question at the right time and we have a little more information to offer

Boston

The Recliner wrote: »

As it turns out you asked the question at the right time and we have a little more information to offer

Precisely.

Kanye

DeVore wrote: »

and jumps amazing distances to really wrong conclusions based on nothing....

DeV.

I'm not knocking the ideas of democracy or transparency. I just don't think they're compatible with this site.

The fact that you're not willing to take my viewpoint on board other than to just pooh-pooh it with a hyperbolic half-sentence-response is testament to where the site comes from. That's the right direction. Things were smoother when there were 5 Admins who called the shots. That's why I stepped down and retired my hullaballoo account. I have a fundamentally different viewpoint of how policy should be set.

User-based and -generated (democratic) policy is fashionable and sounds like a good idea. But the process is flawed where there is a small number of people who know better what policy to set - the long-term Admins.

I'm fighting for autocracy here. I'm saying that I think things started to back up and to-do lists got clogged when more people came on board. Go back to SMods with well-defined duties who stay away from policy. Set the policy yourself - you're well able. Let the mods do their job - look after their forum(s) and set intra-forum policy only that's compatible with overall site policy. Let the CMods do the same on a category-wide basis.

That's my point of view. The idea of this site is that I be allowed express that point of view. The value of my point of view is a separate matter; here that value is nil to negligible. I'm happy with that. I just appreciate the platform to say what I think.

Quazzie

Kanye wrote: »

Set the policy yourself - you're well able.

I'm pretty sure that DeVore has other plans for his future than just boards. He might want to retire from Boards. Maybe take up a new project, move abroad etc. Any amount of things could happen that would require other people here to have an idea what to do in his absence, and I think that is what he is planning for with the current admin team. There will be a day when policies will have to be made by someone other than DeV.

Boston

Kanye wrote: »

I'm not knocking the ideas of democracy or transparency. I just don't think they're compatible with this site.

The fact that you're not willing to take my viewpoint on board other than to just pooh-pooh it with a hyperbolic half-sentence-response is testament to where the site comes from. That's the right direction. Things were smoother when there were 5 Admins who called the shots. That's why I stepped down and retired my hullaballoo account. I have a fundamentally different viewpoint of how policy should be set.

User-based and -generated (democratic) policy is fashionable and sounds like a good idea. But the process is flawed where there is a small number of people who know better what policy to set - the long-term Admins.

I'm fighting for autocracy here. I'm saying that I think things started to back up and to-do lists got clogged when more people came on board. Go back to SMods with well-defined duties who stay away from policy. Set the policy yourself - you're well able. Let the mods do their job - look after their forum(s) and set intra-forum policy only that's compatible with overall site policy. Let the CMods do the same on a category-wide basis.

That's my point of view. The idea of this site is that I be allowed express that point of view. The value of my point of view is a separate matter; here that value is nil to negligible. I'm happy with that. I just appreciate the platform to say what I think.

The five original administrators? Seen many of them about these days? Asking one man to make all of boards.ie's policy decisions is like asking him to juggle spaghetti. Alot of it is going to end up on the ground in a mess. The only thing that would happen in your system is complete inconsistent policies. More policies would be decided at the forum level with only major major things decided at the administrator level, often with no regard for the effect that such decisions will have on little communities.

You say things when wrong when the S-Mods became Admins, truth is the S-Mods were de-facto administrators out of necessity. The name change meant nothing, they'd been doing the job for awhile.