WTF is feedforward?

Kanye

I'm glad the discussion has turned this way because I think it highlights an issue in terms of low-post-count users and join dates etc. It's culturally normal for people on boards.ie to disregard a lot of what such users say and that normality has its merits because newbs are ghey.

Anyway, I set up this account as an alt account for some research purposes that were non-boards.ie admin-related. Since I abandoned hullaballoo on boards.ie, I have made no secret of my use of this account, though I don't have any flashing lights yet. I don't want to post as hullaballoo because there are still a large number of people who are unaware that hullaballoo is no longer an Admin and keep sending me PMs on a regular basis. (At least they were, until my inbox got full.) It's cross-purposes to post with hullaballoo now where it could only serve to confuse people.

I take on board what DeV said by way of clarifying the process. For the avoidance of doubt; I was never questioning the plan and its merits: I was merely pointing out that implementation will be difficult because there can be no way to guarantee the meeting of minds it takes to use something so generative for an "intended purpose".

There are no quantitative parameters that will direct how FeedForward is used - there are only conceptual parameters. It would require fierce moderating to ensure that it remains within those conceptual parameters and I say it's improbable that the meatworld resources are available for this purpose. I hope I'm wrong on that because FF has strong merits attached.

I fundamentally dispute the idea that top-down hierarchies demand more time or effort than democracies or decentralised authorities. That's just historically incorrect.

Hagar

tbh wrote: »

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?

Fair point.

I have just asked for my old account to be resurrected but I know I'm not a priority, like say a mod that needs to get back to a forum, so I don't expect anything to happen too quickly. The guys have their hands full.

LoLth

GuanYin wrote: »

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.

just to clarify this:

There were 4 paragrapghs (well 3 paragraphs and 1 sentence) in my reply to Kanye's post, you are saying I was dismissive to "newbies" based on one of those paragraphs: this one I imagine:

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.

nowhere do I dismiss his points for a postcount or a join date. I make a point that with the level of work required to keep the disparate facets of boards.ie ticking over, it would be too much for just 5 admins. The days of "DO THIS" are gone and instead it is an era of "what do you think of this" and "this is why" and "so you disagree? ok, lets hear why and I'll answer you as best I can" (ok, I admit, I never felt it was "do this" and no interaction but the point remains that there is more effort to interact and discuss anythign and everything now).

the comment was not intended to be rude or dismissive (and I apologise to Kanye if he took them up as such, though it seems he's the only respondant that didnt take umbrage).

In fact, rather than assigning me an attitude or outlook based on part of a single post, I think it would serve better to look at my track record when dealing with boards.ie users, I have never, ever, treated any poster as a "newb" nor have i ever sided with an old school user against another simply because of seniority. And thats throughout my history on boards.ie as user, mod, cmod and now admin. (actually I dont think I've ever cracked a "newb" joke though more than likely I did call someone a n00b at some stage so I wont swear by that ). My response to Kanye's post would have been the same if it had posted by a new user or an old hand. Once I discovered that Kanye was hullabaloo I didnt retract or edit my post for that very reason.

ps. I agree with kanye's recent post about democracy not taking as much time and effort as top down. It does take more time and effort. thats a given. Democracy and decisions by election have never, ever, responded as quickly and as decisively as a dictator or emperor, however, the democratic view often reacts in a better thought out and more considerate fashion. The best result, like capitalism vs communism, would be a hybrid of the two. An emperor with a senate to advise, a benevolent dictator with a cabinet. wont take as long to reach quorum or conscensus as a democracy but will reach more informed decisions than a standalone leader.

Kanye

Kanye wrote: »

I'm glad the discussion has turned this way because I think it highlights an issue in terms of low-post-count users and join dates etc. It's culturally normal for people on boards.ie to disregard a lot of what such users say and that normality has its merits because newbs are ghey.

I think the main issue from a mod point of view with newbs is the issue that so many have been a phoenix for a different reason to you.
They have been here to cast off their old trouble making clothes to put on new ones and go about their old ways under the radar.

Incidentally I've been caught out with real life friends using new names on boards and me gunning for their posts [politely I hope!] before
Boston I'm looking at you...you Brat

Boston

GuanYin wrote: »

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 love this. No because of it's merits but because it's a very clear indication that one persons noise and tangential junk is another person key issue. I'd just like to remind you all that this dicussion, the one I suspect Kanye hoped to trigger is exactly the dynamic ebb and flow of ideas which will have no place in feedforward.

Kanye wrote: »

I'm glad the discussion has turned this way because I think it highlights an issue in terms of low-post-count users and join dates etc. It's culturally normal for people on boards.ie to disregard a lot of what such users say and that normality has its merits because newbs are ghey.

Well I didn't dismiss your post. I notice you latched onto LoLth's apparent dismissal but ignored my attempt to engage with you. The fact is, you know your past experience as a moderator, S mod and then later and administrator are relevant to your argument, if not why did you include that information in your initial post?

Kanye wrote: »

I fundamentally dispute the idea that top-down hierarchies demand more time or effort than democracies or decentralised authorities. That's just historically incorrect.

You can't force things on people all the time. Yes boards would be easier to run if people just shut the fuk up and did what they were told. Do you see that happening? Do you think leadership which is completely indifferent to the needs of the community is a good thing? No one owns boards.ie. A shocking statement I'm sure. The admins own the technology but not the communities, they are merely care takers.

tbh

Boston wrote: »

I'd just like to remind you all that this dicussion, the one I suspect Kanye hoped to trigger is exactly the dynamic ebb and flow of ideas which will have no place in feedforward.

but, I'm actually in feedforward, and I don't know enough about it to say whether that is or is not the case. So, with respect, I don't really know how you can say it.

LoLth

Boston wrote: »

No one owns boards.ie. A shocking statement I'm sure. The admins own the technology but not the communities, they are merely takers.

I'd check those two statements for factual content if I were you...

boards.ie is owned. (and pwn3d quite recently too! ). The users posts etc belong to them but the boards.ie logo, name, trademark etc are registered and as such are property owned legally.

the admins do not own the technology. I'm an admin and I dont own any part of boards.ie. the founding 5 *did* own the technology and copyright but some of those have sold their stake completely, others have sold some of it. Still, admins != the founders (unless you are talking about days of yore in which case its still not relevant to the current discussion) and admins do not own boards.ie in any way. we're volunteer workers just like the mods and cmods.

potentially controversial bit:
as for the concept of the "spirit" of boards.ie.... not so sure on this one either. I've been a member of P45.net, politics.ie and I am a member of several security and game related online fora. Boards.ie has a different atmosphere and feel to it. I dont think that would exist without the technology or the branding or the admins (mods&cmods too!) to in a way, it is very much a part of the boards.ie trademark and as such, is owned along with the rest of the kit and kaboodle. I'm not belittling the importance of users here by the way, I'm just pointing out that I've been here 13 years and during that time I've joined and left many other fora. if boards.ie closed tomorrow I would certainly continue to join other fora but I'd more than likely still leave them after a year or two because they arent the right fit for me.

Boston

tbh wrote: »

but, I'm actually in feedforward, and I don't know enough about it to say whether that is or is not the case. So, with respect, I don't really know how you can say it.

I can say that because one things has been consistent throughout, each thread in feedforward will have a single topic and the purpose of FF is to stop segues into other topics. This bussiness of newbies having something to add to feedforward came out of a completely tangential discussion.

Boston

LoLth wrote: »

I'd check those two statements for factual content if I were you...

boards.ie is owned. (and pwn3d quite recently too! ). The users posts etc belong to them but the boards.ie logo, name, trademark etc are registered and as such are property owned legally.

the admins do not own the technology. I'm an admin and I dont own any part of boards.ie. the founding 5 *did* own the technology and copyright but some of those have sold their stake completely, others have sold some of it. Still, admins != the founders (unless you are talking about days of yore in which case its still not relevant to the current discussion) and admins do not own boards.ie in any way. we're volunteer workers just like the mods and cmods.

No one, not you nor the founders, own the cummunity and it's posters. Thy're not your subjects to be dictated to from up on high. The ability to create or destroy something doesn't automatically destow the rights to control.

_blank_

Boston wrote: »

No one, not you nor the founders, own the cummunity and it's posters.

Agreed

Boston wrote: »

Thy're not your subjects to be dictated to from up on high.

Which is exactly, by my understanding of it, is what FeedForward has been set up to address.

It is to give a voice to the communities, to make sure those that want to be heard don't shout down those that, at the moment, don't want to (or can't) be heard.

There are many communities on Boards who don't give a damn about the workings of the site as a whole, and fair play to them.

Until, that is, a decision affects them directly. Then the shít hits the fan, as we have seen.

FeedForward, in my mind, is there as a consultation process to ensure that the decisions are talked through with all parties who will be affected by them, explain to them why the decisions are being made, and to get input from them in a way that is strucutred and non-tangenital, and not pushed off topic by shouty people who just want to argue.

LoLth

Boston wrote: »

No one, not you nor the founders, own the cummunity and it's posters. Thy're not your subjects to be dictated to from up on high. The ability to create or destroy something doesn't automatically destow the rights to control.

I'm not claiming that anyone has the right to control a user of boards.ie. I'm also going to say that no-one has the right to dictate to a user, with reasonable exceptions - terms of use, behaviour etc (ie: I cant tell a user to not post in a particular forum without a valid reason, I can however apply a deserved punishment to a user account for breaking the rules of a forum or of boards.ie as a whole).

And no, boards.ie has no right to dictate how a user behaves outside of boards.ie.

Also, I have never thought of myself as having subjects nor do I dictate to them from on high. if thats your image of the admins then that is a seperate issue to ownership and should be addressed seperately. In fact, that is partly why FF was introduced, to help remove the perception of admins in ivory towers issuing edicts without regard for the users. A perception which imho was not entirely correct by the way but I can certainly understand why it was there.

My point was that the name boards.ie is owned, the technology that permits boards.ie to exist is owned and the community spirit and the society that is boards cannot exist without either of those things (or at least I havent found it anywhere else). similarly, neither of those things can exist without the users, so its a co-dependant relationship more than anything else.

I'm thinking that either I misread your original post or you misinterpreted my initial response here. I never claimed that the users were the property of boards.ie, I just answered your claim that no one actually owns boards.ie itself and tried to show that the essence of boards is very much tied into each aspect of the system as it stands ,and hopefully will continue to be tied into it as it grows because that, imho, is what makes boards.ie stand out from the rest.

IITYWYBMAD

I think if ever a thread demonstrated that progress is man's ability to complicate simplicity, this is it. Some of the arguments, comments and back tracking are ridiculous.

The Recliner

Des wrote: »

FeedForward, in my mind, is there as a consultation process to ensure that the decisions are talked through with all parties who will be affected by them, explain to them why the decisions are being made, and to get input from them in a way that is strucutred and non-tangenital, and not pushed off topic by shouty people who just want to argue.

The bit in bold is one of the failings of Feedback and hopefully something that wont be an issue in FeedForward

Which kind of covers Boston's original question for the need for FeedForward

Des

Des wrote: »

There are many communities on Boards who don't give a damn about the workings of the site as a whole, and fair play to them.

That would be about 90% ++ of users and mods from what I can see, to be honest
It's not as harsh as not giving a damn.
They are too busy enjoying the site to be bothered with such things.
They keep coming back.
Thats satisfaction.
Something not to be ignored,not to be.. by a long long shot!

_blank_

Deleted User wrote: »

That would be about 90% ++ of users and mods from what I can see, to be honest

Yep, it is.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not as harsh as not giving a damn.

OK, fair enough, that was somewhat harsh.

Deleted User wrote: »

They are too busy enjoying the site to be bothered with such things.

Again, more power to them.

But when something happens that does affect them, which affects their enjoyment of the site, FeedForward will ensure that their voices can be heard when they need them to be.

Deleted User wrote: »

They keep coming back.
Thats satisfaction.
Something not to be ignored,not to be.. by a long long shot!

Boards is great, even the really shouty disagreeable people keep coming back for more.

Sparks

Boston wrote: »

Thy're not your subjects to be dictated to from up on high.

s/posters/mods&cmods&admins/g

Quazzie

Des wrote: »

But when something happens that does affect them, which affects their enjoyment of the site, FeedForward will ensure that their voices can be heard when they need them to be.

Surely that'd be Feedback. Surely Feedforward is where people come to prevent changes that might affect their enjoyment of the site, or suggest changes that might make it better.

_blank_

Quazzie wrote: »

Surely that'd be Feedback. Surely Feedforward is where people come to prevent changes that might affect their enjoyment of the site, or suggest changes that might make it better.

It's what Feedback should be, but it isn't.

Des

Des wrote: »

But when something happens that does affect them, which affects their enjoyment of the site, FeedForward will ensure that their voices can be heard when they need them to be.

Agreed

Boards is great, even the really shouty disagreeable people keep coming back for more.

Lets face it,us weak people call a spade a spade,it's an addiction
Nah,love it or hate it at times,it's quite a device, isn't it and it's the users that have done that largely.

Boston

Des wrote: »

Agreed

Which is exactly, by my understanding of it, is what FeedForward has been set up to address.

It is to give a voice to the communities, to make sure those that want to be heard don't shout down those that, at the moment, don't want to (or can't) be heard.

At cross purposes, I'm merely arguing against the Top down dictator approach.

Des wrote: »

There are many communities on Boards who don't give a damn about the workings of the site as a whole, and fair play to them.

Until, that is, a decision affects them directly. Then the shít hits the fan, as we have seen.

I was reading the first sentenance thinking" yea, utill something happens and then they care". You've nailed the point in one.

Des wrote: »

FeedForward, in my mind, is there as a consultation process to ensure that the decisions are talked through with all parties who will be affected by them, explain to them why the decisions are being made, and to get input from them in a way that is strucutred and non-tangenital, and not pushed off topic by shouty people who just want to argue.

One mans definitions of argumenative and shouty is another's Pathos. I've had input on things which some people have felt I shouldn't and others absolutely believe I should have.

LoLth wrote: »

I'm not claiming that anyone has the right to control a user of boards.ie. I'm also going to say that no-one has the right to dictate to a user, with reasonable exceptions - terms of use, behaviour etc (ie: I cant tell a user to not post in a particular forum without a valid reason, I can however apply a deserved punishment to a user account for breaking the rules of a forum or of boards.ie as a whole).

My point is this, boards managements shouldn't make decisions which affect communities without regard for the communities, simply because they own/operate the medium.

LoLth wrote: »

And no, boards.ie has no right to dictate how a user behaves outside of boards.ie.

Theres a big questions mark over that on actually. Something seemingly black and white is very grey.

LoLth wrote: »

Also, I have never thought of myself as having subjects nor do I dictate to them from on high. if thats your image of the admins then that is a seperate issue to ownership and should be addressed seperately. In fact, that is partly why FF was introduced, to help remove the perception of admins in ivory towers issuing edicts without regard for the users. A perception which imho was not entirely correct by the way but I can certainly understand why it was there.

I was referring more to Kayne's "let them eat cake" belligerent attitude to users and not your posts.

The Recliner

Boston wrote: »

My point is this, boards managements shouldn't make decisions which affect communities without no regard for the communities simply because they own/operate the medium.

And that is something with which FeedForward is being task with, we are being asked to consider things with users/posters/lurkers/mods/cmods/admins/anyone I ahve left out in mind

Sparks

Boston wrote: »

My point is this, boards managements shouldn't make decisions which affect communities without no regard for the communities simply because they own/operate the medium.

You don't think that maybe they operate the medium because they like seeing it succeed and that they've succeeded as well as they have because they have that regard for the communities?

I mean, top-down dictatorship isn't a great model (though it's worked well for software projects, discussion communities aren't the same); but bottom-up dictatorship doesn't work either. Sooner or later, someone has to stop throwing rocks if you want to build anything.

I fully agree with the last two posts and I also think that Bostons arguments there are typical of the type of questioning that may be seen on the public free for all section of feed forward.
It's healthy.

Boston

Sparks wrote: »

You don't think that maybe they operate the medium because they like seeing it succeed and that they've succeeded as well as they have because they have that regard for the communities?

I'm pretty certain that money is the major motivator at this stage.

LoLth

Boston wrote: »

I'm pretty certain that money is the major motivator at this stage.

I'm pretty sure that money is a motivator but not the only one. Look at how many users of boards.ie do so unrestricted and free? Its a free resource that you can use as long as you accept some unobtrusive ads, which you can get rid of by signing up / subscribing.

Servers cost money, hosting costs money, bandwidth costs money. Why do you have an issue with that being a concern for the owners of boards? Personally I htink that should be a concern for more than just the owners, the users should happily look at the ads every now and then. I click one whenever I think of it to give boards.ie a bit of clickthrough revenue. It takes me what, two seconds to allow the page to load and then close it and generates income to support the community I enjoy using (oh and I volunteer my time and have done for over a decade). I dont see why you would hold that against the owners, its not as if they are skimping on the hardwarea dn other resources requried to keep us going!

Boston

Point to me where I said it was an issue. I'm not a socialist, I don't think making money is bad.

Kanye

Boston wrote: »

I was referring more to Kayne's "let them eat cake" belligerent attitude to users and not your posts.

I didn't realise my attitude might be considered belligerent. I know it's not a populist opinion, but there are differential factors that mean online governance simply must be different to that in the real world.

There are two handy examples:

1. One's online persona will differ from one's offline persona. Admittedly, the differences range but it certainly has the effect on some people that they think they can "get away" with a lot more. Strict top-down guidelines need to be structured so that people know that, whilst they may be freer to post their opinions without censure, they must not step too far beyond social norms.
2. There is a permanent record of what's said here. People forget this and conversations flow here in a very similar way to instant messenging, sometimes. In any event, talk is loose here. That has issues attached and policy must be set by someone so that this is limited.

People here generally want unfettered freedom of speech and for all sorts of reasons, that cannot be given. As such, there is a need for someone somewhere to take a non-populist stance in relation to the site content. I say that's the Administration.

Sparks wrote: »

I mean, top-down dictatorship isn't a great model (though it's worked well for software projects, discussion communities aren't the same); but bottom-up dictatorship doesn't work either. Sooner or later, someone has to stop throwing rocks if you want to build anything.

The way I see it is that boards was traditionally a benevolent dictatorship and things worked fine that way - the site grew organically and was successful.

Running things by a large number of people is going to clog up the decision-making process to the extent that it completely stagnates - and that is the point of my first post in this thread, though looking back, that point was made unnecessarily facetiously. (Perhaps that's a symptom of the fact that my Registered User hat has made me feel that I can be a bit more casual in what I say and how I say it. See above.)

Boston

Kanye wrote: »

There are two handy examples:

1. One's online persona will differ from one's offline persona. Admittedly, the differences range but it certainly has the effect on some people that they think they can "get away" with a lot more. Strict top-down guidelines need to be structured so that people know that, whilst they may be freer to post their opinions without censure, they must not step too far beyond social norms.
2. There is a permanent record of what's said here. People forget this and conversations flow here in a very similar way to instant messenging, sometimes. In any event, talk is loose here. That has issues attached and policy must be set by someone so that this is limited.

Irrelevant to the form of governance. You're made statements which in and of themselves are fair enough, but crucially you haven't put forwards reasons why top down dictatorships is appropriate in redressing these supposed problems.

DeVore

Kanye, what you arent seeing is that I'll still be driving things, and still be making decisions.

What I have found is that I'm really good at spotting a good idea, and not so good at coming up with them.

So what I'm doing is opening up a think tank of a wide base of various users to lend me their brains in a controlled fashion. Plus an even wider base of free for all public access.

From these I will pick the ideas that make sense to me and drive them.

Pretty early on in the discussions of FeedForward it became clear that most people actually didnt WANT to make the decisions, they just wanted a REAL say in them before they were made, even if they were subsequently overruled or vetoed (within reason).

What "money" has to do with this, I really do not know. How is this money related? :rolleyes:

DeV.

Boston

DeVore wrote: »

What "money" has to do with this, I really do not know. How is this money related? :rolleyes:

DeV.

Sparks suggested you spend all you time working on boards.ie for hugs and kisses. I pointed out it's that money would be a major motivator. Everyone has to make a living.