WTF is feedforward?

LoLth

Boston wrote: »

Who are these people, is it moi?

not necessarily

"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?

re-phrased, everyone involved is aware of the current difficulties, however there are always *going to be* problems that no-one can foresee. less contradictory?

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.

thats a matter of policy ENFORCEMENT not policy developement. What are users allowed post in general != what do we do about the user X posting piracy links? Feedforward will be about policy developement and review, the admins / cmods and mods will still be responsible for the application of agreed policy.

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.

no, Devore posted an update on the content and intention of Feedforward and then you asked a question (before that there was a gap as the forum shape and initial organisation was being discussed during which time your input was a /bump).

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

wow, broad sweeping allegation there. Obviously thats exactly why the feedforward forum is being created to include non-admins in the discussion of policy before it is asked to be implemented and indeed is shaping up to be a forum where a policy idea can be discussed before it even gets considered as a possibility. No wonder Dev announced that it was going to be all-user readable with a public gallery for feedback and input. Thats really gonna obfuscate procedures and shut down users ability to talk and discuss.

really? now you're not even reading what has been posted before.

the whole purpose of Feedforward is to promote intelligent discourse on forum policy and remove the current issue of possibly good points being lost amid pages and pages of irrelevant bickering.

LoLth

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.

and you are entitled to your point of view, hwoever , you did jump to a conlcusion that was not based on all of the facts.

yes things were easier when there were just 5 admins. that doesnt mean more admins = problems starting. Back then, there were fewer users, fewer forums, fewer mods, less diversity. As the site grew it required more and more input from the admins to keep it moving. Decisions had to be made and sometimes these were not popular ones and we had argumetns about users being overlooked.

you cant have both. there is no way to say "a small group makes the decisions and as many people as possible must be involved in making decisions". With Feedforward, a larger group discusses decisions before they are made in a focused and organised manner leading to greater clarity and more complete information on which to base those decisions.

similarly, if you had any idea of the amount of work that goes into keeping things just ticking over, never mind moving forward, you would never be calling for a return to the 5 admin days.

LoLth

LoLth wrote: »

similarly, if you had any idea of the amount of work that goes into keeping things just ticking over, never mind moving forward, you would never be calling for a return to the 5 admin days.

That makes no sense to me.
I'd have thought a former smod would know exactly what was involved workwise at that level on the site and I think it's unfair to suggest otherwise.

The only one of the original five thats very active on the site is DeV and God knows he has a very busy private life by all accounts.
That suggests to me that the other Original admins can't really commit to the site or would prefer to do their own thing.
Theres also been a noticeable turn over in new admins lately suggesting what you'd expect to be the case anyway ie that theres only so much ordinary people are willing to do at the top un paid when theres others actually getting paid.

So I can see a point of going back to basics in the way kayne has suggested.
Maybe feed forward will steer things that way somehow eventually.
The great unwashed haven't had their say yet so we'll have to see I suppose.

Boston

LoLth wrote: »

Dev announced that it was going to be all-user readable with a public gallery for feedback and input. Thats really gonna obfuscate procedures and shut down users ability to talk and discuss.

That wasn't what I took from an initial reading of the responses.

LoLth wrote: »

the whole purpose of Feedforward is to promote intelligent discourse on forum policy and remove the current issue of possibly good points being lost amid pages and pages of irrelevant bickering.

Baby with the bath water, perhaps? I will engage in with this new system and push it's limits.

5starpool

Kanye wrote: »

That's why I stepped down and retired my hullaballoo account.

Is kanye really = hullaballoo?

RoundyMooney

He is, and he talks a lot of sense-despite people playing the n00b card

LoLth

Deleted User wrote: »

That makes no sense to me.
I'd have thought a former smod would know exactly what was involved workwise at that level on the site and I think it's unfair to suggest otherwise.

actually, I didnt realise that kanye was hullaballoo , I missed that line when I was reading through it so I was not making any disparaging remark about his abilities as an smod in the past. However, that does not nullify my point. the site has gotten busier and it has grown more diverse and does require a lot more hand holding and helping along than it used to (or at least it seems that way sometimes).

bonkey

Kanye wrote: »

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.

Would it be the wrong direction if Tom still pooh-poohed your suggestion but offered a more detailed response?

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.

What if Feedforward doesn't effect who makes policy?

Boston

RoundyMooney wrote: »

He is, and he talks a lot of sense-despite people playing the n00b card

Actually no, it makes no sense, even less considering it's hullaballoo. The five founding administrators have very seldom, if ever set policy on this site together. Maybe on the big big issues like the MCD ban, but mostly it was each individual admin taking responsibility for different areas on whim. Example being the regional forums which where pretty much Cloud's big idea.

RoundyMooney

I agree. Most of the original 5 slipped away by degrees a good while ago anyway.

While I don't agree that a core group of admins should proceed without consulting the users-I do feel that a greater number of new admins has resulted in much inaction.

Which is what Kanye was saying. Too many cooks and such.

DeVore

Did you ever get the feeling that you were sorry you said anything?

I made the OP when we hadn't decided anything, including "how to decide things".

I will try to clarify as best I can.

1. There will be three forums.
FeedForward: This will be world-readable, restricted writeable to a "think tank" of experienced people chosen from users, admins, cmods, mods ... just about everyone.

FeedForward Public: A bit like the debating chamber this is a public read/writeable area for everyone to have their say. The difference between the two may well be like the difference between Humanities and Afterhours... both have their place.

Feedforward Private: At the moment the only use for this will be for discussing the suitability of members for recruiting into Feedforward itself. I want that private because I want people to be able to speak there minds. There may be other "sensitive" issues but I cant think of any others right now.


Feedforward (the write-restricted forum) breaks into two strands. We will have Free For All threads, which everyone can debate as normal in.... and "One Post Per Person" threads where each Trustee (what I am currently calling people who can write to FF) has one post and makes the most of it.

Kanye, we discussed your point in fact and since I dont want "votes" we decided to that decisions will be made by me, or by a small group. For the moment, its me, but we'll move to a small group (probably 3-5 people) in the medium term. The idea being that this is a think tank with a transparent input into decision making. I can overrule, veto and go against consensus if I wish but clearly, if I keep doing that its going to be a farce.

The issues that will be discussed will be wider policy then we might bring to Feedback simply because many people feel it will simply be opening a soapbox of worms. Personally I will dig through sh*t for the odd diamond but many others arent. This is a compromise between two appraoches.

It will be debated in public for all to see and I'll write up decisions there with my reasonings. This takes the workload off the admins to an extent and involves more people from the get-go... something that has been causing undue strife at times.

I hope that provides a little more information...

DeV.

Boston

Grand.

Say I want to see a policy issue discussed in this FeedForward forum, can I put it forward as an outsider?

Steve

Boston wrote: »

Say I want to see a policy issue discussed in this FeedForward forum, can I put it forward as an outsider?

This is one of the many mechanisms about 'how FF will function' that is currently being figured out ahead of it going public.

DeVore

FeedForward Public will be open to anyone to start a thread, whether it gets adopted as a topic for discussion will depend on how many of the Trustees think its worth the time. Either way it can be discussed in FF-Public which I'll be reading.

I should note that the intention is for the Trustees to mostly interact on the restricted forum... thats something we are currently thrashing out.

My estimate for opening the forum up and starting the other forum is this weekend. Sorry it took longer then I first imagined but when we got into "how it would work" there was a lot of fairly ponderous questions to be resolved and I wanted to take the time to get some thinking done on it rather then rush headlong into something that was poorly thought through.

DeV.

GuanYin

LoLth wrote: »

actually, I didnt realise that kanye was hullaballoo , I missed that line when I was reading through it so I was not making any disparaging remark about his abilities as an smod in the past. However, that does not nullify my point. the site has gotten busier and it has grown more diverse and does require a lot more hand holding and helping along than it used to (or at least it seems that way sometimes).

Not only was he an smod, he was an Admin as well, at the time of the change from smod to admins and at the time the site was going through some of it's biggest upheavals. I think it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest on ANY LEVEL that he doesn't know the pressure or the issues of Admins and more than you do.

In any case, you dismissed his argument on the basis of lack of authority. Are you now saying it has merit?

DeVore

If someone phoenixes as a new name you cant expect everyone to assign you the history of your old one. If you want that, stick with the old name.

Another reason for FF is to head off these multi-dimensional arguments which roll through threads like John Waynes fight in the Quiet Man.

DeV.

GuanYin

DeVore wrote: »

If someone phoenixes as a new name you cant expect everyone to assign you the history of your old one. If you want that, stick with the old name.

Another reason for FF is to head off these multi-dimensional arguments which roll through threads like John Waynes fight in the Quiet Man.

DeV.

Hehe, true.

Although I thought you Admin guys knew EVERYTHING!!!

DeVore

No.


At least, not yet

DeV.

RoundyMooney

That aside, would be better to treat the content on its merits rather than looking at the join date, no?

That's not a dig at you, Tom. I'm speaking generally.

randylonghorn

DeVore wrote: »

... these multi-dimensional arguments which roll through threads like John Waynes fight in the Quiet Man.

Not half as much fun, though!

Boston

RoundyMooney wrote: »

That aside, would be better to treat the content on its merits rather than looking at the join date, no?

No. Is it so wrong to expect people to put in there time before they start in on how things should be done.

RoundyMooney

A statement carries, or should carry equal weight whoever puts it out there, it's only words. It will be right or wrong relatively speaking whether the person has 1 post or 100,000.

Anything else could be construed as elitist. We're not going to get much input into the new forum if people are precluded because they haven't come up to some perceived boards.ie benchmark.

Boston

It doesn't matter how it is construed, people can be moronic all they want. Do you really believe that history of the poster is irrelevant? Kanye offered an opinion on the current management system for boards.ie. Obviously the fact that he was once an administrator with intimate knowledge of the system lends significant weight to his comments.

tbh

RoundyMooney wrote: »

A statement carries, or should carry equal weight whoever puts it out there, it's only words. It will be right or wrong relatively speaking whether the person has 1 post or 100,000.

nah, I don't buy that and I could point to a hundred examples where you didn't buy it either.

nine times out of ten when someone who's been here six months or less starts pointing out problems, it's because they didn't "get" the culture on boards. If they started making suggestions about how to make things easier for noobs, that's one thing, but when someone who hasn't been here a wet weekend starts talking about mod conspiracies or cliques or whatever, it's generally because they've been here before, or they don't understand what they are talking about.

imo, of course

GuanYin

I agree with you tbh, in most cases.

But when I saw someone with less than 200 posts in a thread that was related to me, start pointing out issues in a detailed and insightful way, as was the case here, I ignored post count and started looking at trends in posting style to see who the person's other account was...I'm pretty sure we could get a few posters to testify to that .

I don't think anyone with any experience on boards, especially as a moderator, could read the contents of Kayne's posts, seriously consider the content and still think he was a newbie.

I have nothing against Lolth, indeed I respect him as he was a co-mod of mine (and I respect any co-mod I ever had) but I hope I would never disregard a post that clearly showed authority on a matter without considering who or where the source might be.

It is, I think, something especially important on boards, with respect to feedforward. When we're talking about representing the community, post count shouldn't matter, because the community includes those with small postcounts. Regardless, there are plenty of posters who have quality over quantity in post count but all that aside, we should be embracing and respecting ideas from all camps, not disregarding opinions based on who or what we think the agenda might me.

I know, for certain, that I, based on where I modded and how I modded, may not be a favorite flavor on boards, but I would really, really, really hope that people, regardless of their opinions of me, would not reject my contributions out of hand, because of who I am or what I've done. Opinions should be judged on merit of opinion.

tbh

Kanye is a different case tho. If he claimed he'd never been here before, would you have taken his insights on how the admins worked seriously? Cause I wouldn't have. For all I know, he's bubbles. If he wants to his opinions to be read as hullas opinions, then post as hulla.
If you want to walk away, then walk away - I would respect either course, tbh. I don't really respect the "don't you know who I used to be?" line however.

Whether I agree with your modding style is one thing, but when you offer opinions on, say, soccer, or the sci forum, then I respect that because of your history, and the fact that you have knowledge of issues that I don't, because of the job you did. you know?

Hagar

Whatever happened to the old mantra "You are not your postcount, you are not your join date"? God be with the days.

Since the attack there have been lots of very low postcount people talking a lot of sense. I don't care who they were in the past I just listen to what they have to say. I even suspect some of them haven't bothered reviving their old account and are happy enough to start afresh. IMHO it doesn't diminish their knowledge of the workings of the site or undermine what they say.

My 2c.

tbh

69 wrote: »

Whatever happened to the old mantra "You are not your postcount, you are not your join date"? God be with the days.

Since the attack there have been lots of very low postcount people talking a lot of sense. I don't care who they were in the past I just listen to what they have to say. I even suspect some of them haven't bothered reviving their old account and are happy enough to start afresh. IMHO it doesn't diminish their knowledge of the workings of the site or undermine what they say.

My 2c.

no, of course it doesn't. But how do I know who you were before you created this account? What if you were a user who was constantly getting banned from forums for being a dick, and then came running to feedback whinging about mods, - should I respect your opinion as much as if I knew you were someone I respected? And by the way, if someone doesn't take boards seriously, and doesn't give a crap about bannings, I respect that too. I just hate when people ask to be treated one way and treat others a different way.

I get what you're saying, and as much as possible I try to take posts at face value. I've just seen too many people with hidden agendas posting on feedback to be able to do that all the time. You can't spend two years saying "mods are dicks" and then ask to be taken seriously because all of a sudden you've something to say you think is important.

I don't ask anybody to treat my posts in a certain way because of when I joined or a title I may have. I really don't. But the fact that I'm here as long as I am means that people can check my past history and call me on something if I'm not being consistent.

The Recliner

I would put more stock in the opinion of someone who joined 5 years ago and has 500 posts than someone who joined 6 months ago and has 5,000 so post count isn't really a basis to judge an opinion on

But at the end of the day an opinion should be weighed up on its merits not on who posted it

DeVore

A mate of mine once put it well.

"An idea isnt responsible for the people who believe in it". Which I thought was a nice twist to the argument.

In philosophy/logic there are three "appeals" or argument types:
One is to Authority "I'm an expert on this, you have to take what I say on board!". Thats "Ethos"

One is to reason "This argument is self consistent and stands on its own merits, you should take it on board". Thats Logos.

One is from your passion "My child is dying, you MUST take what I'm saying on board". Thats Pathos.

Ok, those arent great examples but you get what I mean. All three have merit at times. (If you are about to have surgery, you dont consider the opinion of people in the waiting room to be as weighted as that of the surgeon).

If you want to appeal to authority then you need to be identified as an authority. (Ethos). However the argument can still stand and be forceful without any reference to the person making it (Logos).

These are, ironically, the names of the debating forums which inspired my thoughts on Feedforward. You remember that... it used to be the topic here.


DeV.