WTF is feedforward?

Sparks

Boston wrote: »

there's probably a fair few people thinking "wtf, why is that person a trustee"

There might be a few; but for every one, there's ten thousand members and quite a few more guests who just don't care. Seriously, look at the stats.

Now I've asked a perfectly simple and direct question.

Actually, the first thing you did is assume noone else asked it before you, or better than you; the second thing was that you asked it in a confrontational way in a public venue of an unpaid volunteer in the same tone that an incompetent manager would use during a performance review in order to try to be the alpha dog. The content of any reply from Recliner would be of less value to you, I suspect, than his replying after the question was put in such a manner. If you were interested inthe actual answer, you wouldn't have asked in the manner or location that you did.
Bluntly, it's annoyingly unoriginal to watch.

regardless of whether or not you asked him I think he'll have a pretty good answer to the question

Frankly, the one thing everyone on the original list had in common is that at one point or another, they've answered that question through their actions on earlier topics.

a last throw of the dice to bring all those jaded and disaffected members of the boards.ie community back into the fold

Looking at the site's statistics and general health, I think you're treating a broken nail as stage four terminal pancreatic cancer right there.

Boston

Sparks wrote: »

There might be a few; but for every one, there's ten thousand members and quite a few more guests who just don't care.

You and others keep trotting this line out despite it having been dealt with earlier in the thread by Des. No one cares until they are directly affected, then they care a lot. They get the huff leave the site, kill forums and have bad blood. The scenario of having to wait until something to turn into a major ****storm before addressing it is exactly what I've been lead to believe is the purpose of the feed-forward forums.

The stats posted up by Conor showed that actually quiet a lot of disputes are resolved in the sys forums. So yes, it's likely that feed-forward will have a direct effect on a significant number of users, other wise it's all kinda pointless, nei. I'm sure Wibbs, Des ,Tbh, Thead, ect didn't get involved in this process for it to be a glorified talking shop. They got involved in the hope of having a real say in things that actually effect users.

As for the rest of your post, you can't either limit your posts towards me to a non-personal and non insulting nature or go without a response.

Boston

Sparks wrote: »

It's okay, just change your user tag from Moderator to Kapo and you can replicate the effect easily enough...

Wow I actually missed the reference to me being called a Nazi. So much for the civility rules. You've some brass neck to try and criticise me for being "blunt" and abrasive while liking me to a Nazi. Anytime you have to reprimand a user for being abusive from now on I'm going to drag this post up to demonstrate blatant hypocrisy. Obviously you believe your position as both a moderator and a trustee renders you untouchable and above the rules governing normal users on this forum. I'm done dealing with you.

Godwin @ post 177

Sparks

Boston wrote: »

You and others keep trotting this line out

Not a line. There's a small number of people who have an actual problem with boards.ie (as opposed to those having spats with moderators) in feedback; less than thirty at a rough estimate. There are three hundred thousand members in boards.ie at the moment. There are far more guests than that.

You're confusing (whether deliberately or through oversight) the idea of someone who's got a problem with a specific topic in a specific forum, or who's having a specific spat with a specific moderator; with the idea of someone who has an actual genuine problem with boards.ie in the general sense. They are far fewer on the ground and their problems are not as clear-cut as are made out, and don't always have clean and easy solutions - to insinuate that there are more effective solutions than FF for them but that they're being ignored for nefarious reasons is either downright ignorant if you genuinely believe that; or downright insulting if you don't and just expect us to believe it.

They get the huff leave the site, kill forums and have bad blood.

They don't kill forums. The only forums that have been killed were killed by folks who didn't leave (and might have been saved had they left).

The stats posted up by Conor showed that actually quiet a lot of disputes are resolved in the sys forums.

Actually, the stats he posted showed that only around one in ten complaints actually gets to the point of being mentioned to a moderator at all (the first step on the conflict resolution procedure); and only one in four of those gets to here. The system that's in place may be imperfect, but it does work remarkably well on the whole. You're exaggerating the problem for what I believe are disingenuous reasons.

copacetic

Are you actually saying that there are no real problems, so therefore no-one has to answer questions about feedfoward because it doesn't really matter?

Thats how it comes across, above you have said that as long as only a few people care about something then it doesn't matter a damn.

They don't kill forums. The only forums that have been killed were killed by folks who didn't leave (and might have been saved had they left).

What does this mean? If anything?

Sparks

Boston wrote: »

Wow I actually missed the reference to me being called a Nazi.

/facepalm

I'm done dealing with you.

Boston, to be blunt, you don't 'deal' with anyone. You have neither the right nor the authority nor the competence to do so, and that's the issue here. You're attempting to create a space in here which places you at the apex in order to boost your own ego. It's an understandable human thing to do, but so's defecation and we tend not to like folks who do that in our living room either.

Wibbs

This kinda thing isn't doing anyone any good. Yes people will have questions and issues about all sorts of aspects of feedforward. Thats a good thing too and needed if its to work into the future.

So lets all of us break down the issues and even better our ideas for solutions that we may see and fire it into the process and see what comes out.

Otherwise we'll all start off with good or at least personally valid concerns and then it'll just degenerate into a píssing contest. Great if Bayer wants to advertise a new diuretic, but it wont move us all or the community further along.

Boston

copacetic wrote: »

Are you actually saying that there are no real problems, so therefore no-one has to answer questions about feedfoward because it doesn't really matter?

Thats how it comes across, above you have said that as long as only a few people care about something then it doesn't matter a damn.

Thats pretty much the jist copacetic. Everything is fine, some minor problems but no minds so they don't matter. Any one who disagrees is an incompetent egotist.

Sparks

copacetic wrote: »

Are you actually saying that there are no real problems, so therefore no-one has to answer questions about feedfoward because it doesn't really matter?

No, there are genuine problems. I'm saying that they're nowhere near as numerous nor as simplistic as Boston is implying. Nor are they being ignored, if they were then Feedback wouldn't exist, let alone FeedForward. I'm also saying that he's not posting what he's posting from a genuine good faith position. He's got no real interest in seeing boards.ie become better than it is, just in seeing himself gain social kudos. And I've zero time for that, there are too many people who're actually contributing to worry for a heartbeat about people who just want to throw rocks.

Thats how it comes across

Then I did a poor job of expressing myself and hopefully the above is clearer.

What does this mean? If anything?

I started off modding a small forum for a minority sport (Shooting), a fairly small community. We had a poster who, like Boston, was uninterested in building the community except as a means to gain social kudos and feed his ego. He became utterly unmanageable, belligerent and rude, came to believe he was above the forum charter and moderation and eventually dragged in legal threats. He got the shooting forum closed down. Had he left (or had I followed my first instinct and banned him earlier instead of trying to both be fair and be seen to be fair), the forum would not have been closed down and put at risk. Since then, we've learnt the lesson that being fair is more important than being seen to be fair; and that focussing on being seen to be fair to the detriment of actually being fair carries a high price. In our case, we were fortunate that the Admins recognised that there was sufficient worth in the community to salvage it (and they were right -- it's since grown to one of the largest communities in the sports category and several other large communities have spawned from it like Airsoft). In other cases, like Web Hosting, it wasn't so and we still don't have a Web Hosting forum because people couldn't get along (and there's demand for it - we get a few threads every other week from people asking who to host with or who've questions for hosting companies).

Boston

Wibbs wrote: »

This kinda thing isn't doing anyone any good. Yes people will have questions and issues about all sorts of aspects of feedforward. Thats a good thing too and needed if its to work into the future.

So lets all of us break down the issues and even better our ideas for solutions that we may see and fire it into the process and see what comes out.

Otherwise we'll all start off with good or at least personally valid concerns and then it'll just degenerate into a píssing contest. Great if Bayer wants to advertise a new diuretic, but it wont move us all or the community further along.

Hi Wibbs, if you please, why do you want to be a trustee? What do you hope to add to the process and what do you envisage coming away with.

copacetic

Wibbs wrote: »

This kinda thing isn't doing anyone any good. Yes people will have questions and issues about all sorts of aspects of feedforward. Thats a good thing too and needed if its to work into the future.

So lets all of us break down the issues and even better our ideas for solutions that we may see and fire it into the process and see what comes out.

Otherwise we'll all start off with good or at least personally valid concerns and then it'll just degenerate into a píssing contest. Great if Bayer wants to advertise a new diuretic, but it wont move us all or the community further along.

Thats a great notion Wibbs, but if someone who takes an interest in who the 'trustees' are gets the kind of responses above. It starts us off on a very bad footing imo. Even just reading back through this thread at the posts from various 'trustees' gives you a bad feeling about the whole thing.

Along with what comes across as misinformation about normal user membership of the group both on this thread and on various posts on the feedforward forum it all becomes a bit depressing.

copacetic

Sparks wrote: »

No, there are genuine problems. I'm saying that they're nowhere near as numerous nor as simplistic as Boston is implying. Nor are they being ignored, if they were then Feedback wouldn't exist, let alone FeedForward. I'm also saying that he's not posting what he's posting from a genuine good faith position. He's got no real interest in seeing boards.ie become better than it is, just in seeing himself gain social kudos. And I've zero time for that, there are too many people who're actually contributing to worry for a heartbeat about people who just want to throw rocks.

I really don't understand the need for the constant personal attacks. As for the bit about social kudos, thats what most users think about most mods. Someone who spends a lot of time on feedback is giving as much of their time to boards as most. What you personally have zero time for shouldn't come into it, I've very little time for most of what Boston posts, but he has a pretty good insight into how boards works and a lot more sensible meaningful posts on this thread that most people.

Sparks wrote: »

Then I did a poor job of expressing myself and hopefully the above is clearer.I started off modding a small forum for a minority sport (Shooting), a fairly small community. We had a poster who, like Boston, was uninterested in building the community except as a means to gain social kudos and feed his ego. He became utterly unmanageable, belligerent and rude, came to believe he was above the forum charter and moderation and eventually dragged in legal threats. He got the shooting forum closed down. Had he left (or had I followed my first instinct and banned him earlier instead of trying to both be fair and be seen to be fair), the forum would not have been closed down and put at risk. Since then, we've learnt the lesson that being fair is more important than being seen to be fair; and that focussing on being seen to be fair to the detriment of actually being fair carries a high price. In our case, we were fortunate that the Admins recognised that there was sufficient worth in the community to salvage it (and they were right -- it's since grown to one of the largest communities in the sports category and several other large communities have spawned from it like Airsoft). In other cases, like Web Hosting, it wasn't so and we still don't have a Web Hosting forum because people couldn't get along (and there's demand for it - we get a few threads every other week from people asking who to host with or who've questions for hosting companies).

That makes a little more sense, but imo this

The only forums that have been killed were killed by folks who didn't leave (and might have been saved had they left).

either betrays an ostrich mentality or a complete lack of knowledge of recent events. Considering basically an entire extremely busy, valuable forum has left boards.

The Recliner

Boston wrote: »

According to this post you don't have access.

True I was never on that list but have been on the forum from day one and had a few things to say

Just goes to show though that despite your close scrutiny of the forum you miss things as well

Boston wrote: »

Now I've asked a perfectly simple and direct question. The recliner is clearly under no obligation to answer me. I've no more standing on boards.ie Ltd then he has, infact, if he answers me he may be chastised for pandering to me by others. However, the fact remains that the question I asked should have been the first question you asked, so the recliner should really have an answer.

Yup I am under no obligation and I am not going to answer it to pander to you

Why did I ask The Recliner? Because regardless of whether or not you asked him I think he'll have a pretty good answer to the question, one that may make others re-evaluate whether or not they're the right material so to speak. Perhaps convince the others the process has merit and that people aren't just signing up to be trustees for the ego boost or to be on the inside/in the know.

But to be a part of the process I believe we need to have the trust of the userbase, the people who don't have access and who we are in effect representing so I will answer it for them

Boston wrote: »

Grand.

The Recliner, tell me if you please, why you wanted to be a trustee and what you hope to add to the process/take from it. If you can't answer that you shouldn't be a trustee.

There are two ways to answer this, the brief way and the long winded way and I will do both

Briefly: Because I want this site to be the best place it can possibly be and I am opinionated enough to think I can help that aim

Long winded and to answer your question in full: When the idea for Feedforward was first mooted I was interested because it has been something I had been pondering for a while as I felt the current feedback/helpdesk process didn't work

I had an interest in the Debate Chamber which exists and is under used on Boards and I felt that structure could be utilised in a manner which would allow for effective disussion of site issues and as it turns out others were thinking the same and that is the structure that Feedforward has ended up with

I wanted to be a part of it because I felt I could help, that I would come up with ideas or solutions to problems that perhaps others might not think of, I say this not because I have an ego but because those who know me have commented that my mind does not work in a normal manner and I see things from a different angle because of it, this can be a hinderance in a lot of ways and a help in others

My main purpose in answering this question was to kind of write up a mission statement that I felt would help reassure the general public that people in FeedForward are there for the right reasons so here goes:

When participating in FeedForward I will attempt at all times to phrase my thoughts in such a way that they represent the users of boards who don't have access to FeedForward be they registed users or the general public who just read. I will at all times try to think of what will be best for Boards in general in the future and the impact that any decision could have on people who use boards

I would imagine that the same thoughts apply to any of the people who currently have access to FeedForward

Sparks

copacetic wrote: »

I really don't understand the need for the constant personal attacks

Comes from having seen the sort of thing Boston is doing many times before and not liking it.

As for the bit about social kudos, thats what most users think about most mods.

True - but that doesn't make them correct. As most mods will tell you, it's a fairly thankless job that basicly ensures that you become the focal point for everything that hits the fan. Those who try modding purely to gain kudos from it tend to drop out of it pretty fast (or get dropped - modding to gain kudos makes you a poor choice as a mod and boards is pretty quick at removing such mods).

What you personally have zero time for shouldn't come into it

And it doesn't. My personal lack of time for Boston is a personal thing, it doesn't extend past me.

[Boston has] a lot more sensible meaningful posts on this thread that most people.

On that, we differ completely I'm afraid.

Considering basically an entire extremely busy, valuable forum has left boards.

For reasons that were neither completely pure of motive nor simple in nature. It wasn't just a case that boards.ie was mean and the righteous got up and left; there are issues here as to what the people involved wanted to do with their forum and how that conflicted with the fact that they didn't own the rights to the forum and that's a conversation that I'm not diving into because I'm not an admin or a director (and I'm just giving you my opinion on it based on purely public domain information here). I'm not ignoring it -- I wasn't given that option at the time, and I still feel it was a very misrepresented situation.

And frankly, I don't think the forum's dead. Took a hit, yes, but not dead. Give it a while and it'll regrow. We lost loud people; but not all the people.

Wibbs

Boston wrote: »

Hi Wibbs, if you please, why do you want to be a trustee? What do you hope to add to the process and what do you envisage coming away with.

Pretty much what the recliner wrote and what I hope comes out of it is a better, more open process into the future for dealing with issues and forward planning than currently is in place.

Hey some might argue that this could all be a sop and things will continue on as before. That's one way to look at it, but the other way is that if it is a sop it's going to be a much much harder one to justify and ignore as everyone who wants to look in can and can bring stuff up for discussion. Stuff on policy that may have been only in the mod forum or the admin forum in the past will be visible and interactive along the debate forum model. That is a big change right there.

What can I add? I dunno, Im not a very linear thinker for want of a better word. Im crap at counting trees, but I can often see the forest pretty well. You need tree counters and tree specialists though. Ill see how it goes.

copacetic wrote: »

Thats a great notion Wibbs, but if someone who takes an interest in who the 'trustees' are gets the kind of responses above. It starts us off on a very bad footing imo. Even just reading back through this thread at the posts from various 'trustees' gives you a bad feeling about the whole thing.

Along with what comes across as misinformation about normal user membership of the group both on this thread and on various posts on the feedforward forum it all becomes a bit depressing.

Gotcha. I would say though it is early days yet and its still up in the air as it were. There's going to be an element of WTF? On a few sides too. And fallout from that until its actually up and running and settles down. How the first few debates go will set the tone I reckon.

Yes I agree there should be more interested users in there and call me naive, but I do think 100% that is the opinion and wish of all the people already in there. I havent seen any evidence to the contrary anyway. Put it this way if there are people who reckon non mods/admins shouldnt be in there they're staying unnaturally quiet.

Boston

copacetic wrote: »

I really don't understand the need for the constant personal attacks. As for the bit about social kudos, thats what most users think about most mods. Someone who spends a lot of time on feedback is giving as much of their time to boards as most. What you personally have zero time for shouldn't come into it, I've very little time for most of what Boston posts, but he has a pretty good insight into how boards works and a lot more sensible meaningful posts on this thread that most people.

An argument cannot be accepted on it's merits on this site. It has to be

• A good idea.
• Made by the right person with the right standing.
• Made in a way which flatters the decision maker.
• Made at a time and place which allows it to be listened to.

Then the management wonders why there's a constant stream of things coming out of left field.

I have to say this whole ego bint is very knew, it used to be that I was simply considered a prick. Now it's for social kudos as if I've been making friends and getting pats on the back over the last year or so. You see, all these little boxes don't really fit the facts and I'm happy to talk at length about my motivations but that would fall on deaf ears. Basically it's all an effort to marginalise any argument that isn't made in accordance to the tenants listed above. If no one cares about feed-forward, then certainly no one should care about my motivations. Alas they seem to be a stumbling block for some.

The Recliner wrote: »

There are two ways to answer this, the brief way and the long winded way and I will do both

Briefly: Because I want this site to be the best place it can possibly be and I am opinionated enough to think I can help that aim

Long winded and to answer your question in full: When the idea for Feedforward was first mooted I was interested because it has been something I had been pondering for a while as I felt the current feedback/helpdesk process didn't work

I had an interest in the Debate Chamber which exists and is under used on Boards and I felt that structure could be utilised in a manner which would allow for effective disussion of site issues and as it turns out others were thinking the same and that is the structure that Feedforward has ended up with

I wanted to be a part of it because I felt I could help, that I would come up with ideas or solutions to problems that perhaps others might not think of, I say this not because I have an ego but because those who know me have commented that my mind does not work in a normal manner and I see things from a different angle because of it, this can be a hinderance in a lot of ways and a help in others

My main purpose in answering this question was to kind of write up a mission statement that I felt would help reassure the general public that people in FeedForward are there for the right reasons so here goes:

When participating in FeedForward I will attempt at all times to phrase my thoughts in such a way that they represent the users of boards who don't have access to FeedForward be they registed users or the general public who just read. I will at all times try to think of what will be best for Boards in general in the future and the impact that any decision could have on people who use boards

Thank you for taking the time to response in a very concise way.

The Recliner wrote: »

I would imagine that the same thoughts apply to any of the people who currently have access to FeedForward

I seriously doubt that. We both know this is the first time any trustee has been directly asked the question why. I'd hasard a guess that some would find it difficult to justify themselves.

keefg

..........is anyone else humming this song to themselves whilst reading this thread?

<snip>

Please don't derail serious discussions with stuff like this, ok? - Zaph

Wibbs

Sparks wrote: »

True - but that doesn't make them correct. As most mods will tell you, it's a fairly thankless job that basicly ensures that you become the focal point for everything that hits the fan. Those who try modding purely to gain kudos from it tend to drop out of it pretty fast (or get dropped - modding to gain kudos makes you a poor choice as a mod and boards is pretty quick at removing such mods).

OT but I really dont buy into that so much. OK for yourself or politics or soccer mods say it must be a PITA at times, but most of the time for most mods it really isnt. Or at least thats the vibe I get.

And you do get thanked. A lot actually. Ive had far far more thanks from people than brickbats. Far more. And you get to see communities grow and help that from the other side and from within which appeals to many. And yes there is an element of "oh wow youre a mod" at times around here* and yes some do get a buzz from that. TBH I say fair enough, if that's their buzz and they're doing well in the role. IF it gives people a buzz why would they be dropped for just that? I dunno for me anyway if it became that thankless one would want to be pretty masochistic to want to continue.



*I dunno if its more a boards thing or that some bulletin boards are more "mod friendly" than others. Ive only experience of this one, but a cursory glance around google seems to show mods worldwide are a separate "class" for many. In both good and bad ways of course.

Wibbs

keefg wrote: »

..........is anyone else humming this song to themselves whilst reading this thread?

I am now you git! :mad::D:D

Boston

Wibbs wrote: »

Pretty much what the recliner wrote and what I hope comes out of it is a better, more open process into the future for dealing with issues and forward planning than currently is in place.

Hey some might argue that this could all be a sop and things will continue on as before. That's one way to look at it, but the other way is that if it is a sop it's going to be a much much harder one to justify and ignore as everyone who wants to look in can and can bring stuff up for discussion. Stuff on policy that may have been only in the mod forum or the admin forum in the past will be visible and interactive along the debate forum model. That is a big change right there.

What can I add? I dunno, Im not a very linear thinker for want of a better word. Im crap at counting trees, but I can often see the forest pretty well. You need tree counters and tree specialists though. Ill see how it goes.

Bare with me for a second here.

You're an extremely opinionated and difficult to manage user/moderator. You seem to be a focal point for the ACT grouping along with dr bollocko. You've definitely made posts before which have been awkward for the management. Do you not think that maybe, just maybe this process might be a leash around your neck to keep you inline? Just throwing that out there.

Look at it from an objective point of view. Now there's a process for raising issue of concern with the management. Some other shadowy grouping will decide if your topic merits discussion, when it's to be discussed, for how long and with whom. It is expected that trustees will limit their discussion of boards.ie policies to the feedforward forum (Theres a post by DeVore somewhere to that effect) and if you choose not you're instantly on the back foot. Yes you have the potential to facilitate change, but you're now into a very restricted process for doing so. No more being difficult for you Mr Wibbs.

The Recliner

Boston wrote: »

I seriously doubt that. We both know this is the first time any trustee has been directly asked the question why. I'd hasard a guess that some would find it difficult to justify themselves.

I am not sure if it is the first time the question has been asked in public but I would be surprised if people hadn't asked it of themselves before putting themselves forward for access

5starpool

Is it deliberate that the initial list had no one that is not a mod on it? I know it has been said that there will be some added, but there should have been some in the initial list imho.

The Recliner

5starpool wrote: »

Is it deliberate that the initial list had no one that is not a mod on it? I know it has been said that there will be some added, but there should have been some in the initial list imho.

Seamus and Amadeus are on the list

Amadeus was not a Mod at the time of being added to the forum and while Seamus was an Admin he isn't now

Boston

5starpool wrote: »

Is it deliberate that the initial list had no one that is not a mod on it? I know it has been said that there will be some added, but there should have been some in the initial list imho.

There was a thread started on the moderators forum asking people if they wanted to part of phase zero. Read into that what you want, but it kinda made it impossible for non moderators to volunteer. It's as if a deliberate decision was made not to have users involved at the beginning.

The Recliner wrote: »

Seamus and Amadeus are on the list

Amadeus was not a Mod at the time of being added to the forum and while Seamus was an Admin he isn't now

Amadeus is a moderator and Seamus isn't an ordinary user. He wouldn't make that claim, neither should you.

copacetic

The Recliner wrote: »

Seamus and Amadeus are on the list

Amadeus was not a Mod at the time of being added to the forum and while Seamus was an Admin he isn't now

That semantics really. I can't believe anyone really thinks that any ex-mod or admin is representative of the normal user base. There should be an an even amount of users and mods/cmods/admins with any ex-mods in the second grouping. If enough users that are deemed suitable can't be found then the number of mods/cmods/admins should be reduced until they match the number of users.

There was a thread started on the moderators forum asking people if they wanted to part of phase zero. Read into that what you want, but it kinda made it impossible for non moderators to volunteer. It's as if a deliberate decision was made not to have users involved at the beginning.

Is this true? FFS, If so it makes a total mockery of the idea of 'trustees', should we be calling the group 'random volunteers'?

Wibbs

Boston wrote: »

Bare with me for a second here.

You're an extremely opinionated and difficult to manage user/moderator. You seem to be a focal point for the ACT grouping along with dr bollocko. You've definitely made posts before which have been awkward for the management. Do you not think that maybe, just maybe this process might to leash around neck to keep you inline? Just throwing that out there.

Look at it from an objective point of view. Now there's a process for raising issue of concern with the management. Some other shadowy grouping will decide if your topic merits discussion, when it's to be discussed, for how long and with whom. It is expected that trustees will limit their discussion of boards.ie policies to the feedforward forum (Theres a post by DeVore somewhere to that effect) and if you choose not you're instantly on the back foot. Yes you have the potential to facilitate change, but you're now into a very restricted process for doing so. No more being difficult for you Mr Wibbs.

Yep or you could look at it the other way like I said. Beforehand, boards policies were for the most part discussed in private. Or not discussed at all, just implemented. If something is being ignored it's going to be obvious. If people are feeling censured its going to be obvious. Regardless of me or anyone else this is a change to a more public discussion and that can only be an improvement.

Sparks

Wibbs wrote: »

OT but I really dont buy into that so much. OK for yourself or politics or soccer mods say it must be a PITA at times, but most of the time for most mods it really isnt. Or at least thats the vibe I get.

I don't know about that. Maybe for something quiet like, I don't know, Cooking; but even Development is a PITA at times (usually when recruitment people try shilling). Day-to-day, it's a lot quieter outside the more contentious forums, but I don't think anyone ever really gets a totally stress-free job when modding.

Then again, I may be an edge case.

And you do get thanked.

On occasion, but the legal threats and physical threats tend to outweigh those by quite a margin.

And you get to see communities grow and help that from the other side and from within which appeals to many.

Yeah, that is a rather warm fuzzy allright. But that's not a thank-you so much as it is an private indication that it's not time to step back just yet.

And yes there is an element of "oh wow youre a mod" at times around here

Really? TBH, I don't really get that. It's more a janitorial role to me really - I post anything non-trivial or, heaven help me, controversial on shooting and I can be fairly certain that one of a dozen or so posters out of the hundreds we get in there will start into it because I posted it, regardless of content, so I've in effect lost something by doing the job. It's still worth it to me (I think our little community has had a large positive impact on our sport as a whole), but one of these days it might not be, and then I'll step back (as many have before and will after).

Boston wrote:

Amadeus is a moderator

But he wasn't when he was added to the list.

Boston wrote:

Do you not think that maybe, just maybe this process might to leash around neck to keep you inline?

So it's both that the awkward people are kept out to keep things quiet; and that the awkward people are kept in to keep things quiet? :rolleyes:

Perhaps we should ask the one question you're not asking. Boston, why do you think you're not on the list?

5starpool

The Recliner wrote: »

Seamus and Amadeus are on the list

Amadeus was not a Mod at the time of being added to the forum and while Seamus was an Admin he isn't now

Thanks, but I was aware of both of those, and I don't count them as normal users for obvious reasons, especially since only one of them is a non mod now, and him a former admin.

I think my question was clear enough anyhow, so hopefully someone will answer it.

5starpool

Sparks wrote: »

For reasons that were neither completely pure of motive nor simple in nature. It wasn't just a case that boards.ie was mean and the righteous got up and left; there are issues here as to what the people involved wanted to do with their forum and how that conflicted with the fact that they didn't own the rights to the forum and that's a conversation that I'm not diving into because I'm not an admin or a director (and I'm just giving you my opinion on it based on purely public domain information here). I'm not ignoring it -- I wasn't given that option at the time, and I still feel it was a very misrepresented situation.

And frankly, I don't think the forum's dead. Took a hit, yes, but not dead. Give it a while and it'll regrow. We lost loud people; but not all the people.

Considering you don't know any of the motives, I would ask you to keep your opinions to yourself about it please. We (former poker mods and admins) did not leave it on bad terms, but that is besides the point.

That is a closed deal now and doesn't need to get reopened, espeically in such an off topic place as this thread.

Whatever happens on the poker forum here is a matter for the people who post there now, and I'm not going to give my view of how it is now.

copacetic

Sparks wrote: »

Comes from having seen the sort of thing Boston is doing many times before and not liking it.

Thats a pretty poor excuse for constant low level abuse of any poster.

Sparks wrote: »

For reasons that were neither completely pure of motive nor simple in nature. It wasn't just a case that boards.ie was mean and the righteous got up and left; there are issues here as to what the people involved wanted to do with their forum and how that conflicted with the fact that they didn't own the rights to the forum and that's a conversation that I'm not diving into because I'm not an admin or a director (and I'm just giving you my opinion on it based on purely public domain information here). I'm not ignoring it -- I wasn't given that option at the time, and I still feel it was a very misrepresented situation.

And frankly, I don't think the forum's dead. Took a hit, yes, but not dead. Give it a while and it'll regrow. We lost loud people; but not all the people.

Thats complete bullshit and appears to be an attempt to obfuscate the fact that the post I replied to was also absolute rubbish. The whys or wherefores don't come into it, you said it has never happened. It has.