WTF is feedforward?

Sparks

5starpool wrote: »

Considering you don't know any of the motives, I would ask you to keep your opinions to yourself about it please.

Considering I was quoted as being one of the reasons -- despite the fact that the new site was all set to go and it was a planned move by that point -- I think I've got just cause to state those opinions publicly. I don't need to argue about it, as far as I'm concerned it's done and dusted, but when Boston started using a skewed version of events to support his egotrip, I thought it apropos to mention.

Sparks

copacetic wrote: »

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

Constant? Boston is not my nemesis Until a day or two ago, I had very little contact with him at all in fact.

Thats complete ... The whys or wherefores don't come into it, you said it has never happened. It has.

It hasn't. The forum's not dead. The forums which are dead are dead because people stayed, not because people left. If folks think they're indispensable... well, it's sometimes true, but most of the time it's just a subpar grasp of the reality of their situation.

Boston

If you're quiet done, can we get back to the topic at hand. The current talking point is 5starpool's question with regards to the exclusion of user despite indications to the contrary. One wonders what "phase" will see user trustees.

5starpool wrote: »

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.

GuanYin

Boston wrote: »

If you're quiet done, can we get back to the topic at hand. The current talking point is 5starpool's question with regards to the exclusion of user despite indications to the contrary. One wonders what "phase" will see user trustees.

I would guess it is mostly down to the fact that the nature of the "chain of command" means that moderators blip stronger on the Admin radar than users (your good self excepted I'm sure), most of the traits that the Admins were looking for (without speaking for them, I would guess : intelligent input, ability to articulate, respect and civility in debate) already existed as traits that saw them become mods (whether they panned out that way is another issue).

With mods selected, they then had people capable of identifying those traits in the user base. It's probably a given that participation in feedforward will bring forward some users who would be great mods, without that being the express purpose.

It makes sense to know the qualities and expect a certain standard in who you nominate as a trustee, I am not sure the Admins were in a position to do that, what with the size of the site, for phase 0.

But that would all just be my conjecture.

Dr Galen

GuanYin wrote: »

I would guess it is mostly down to the fact that the nature of the "chain of command" means that moderators blip stronger on the Admin radar than users (your good self excepted I'm sure), most of the traits that the Admins were looking for (without speaking for them, I would guess : intelligent input, ability to articulate, respect and civility in debate) already existed as traits that saw them become mods (whether they panned out that way is another issue).

With mods selected, they then had people capable of identifying those traits in the user base. It's probably a given that participation in feedforward will bring forward some users who would be great mods, without that being the express purpose.

It makes sense to know the qualities and expect a certain standard in who you nominate as a trustee, I am not sure the Admins were in a position to do that, what with the size of the site, for phase 0.

But that would all just be my conjecture.

and a conjecture that I think it would be reasonable to assume is pretty close to the truth.

The Recliner

Boston wrote: »

If you're quiet done, can we get back to the topic at hand. The current talking point is 5starpool's question with regards to the exclusion of user despite indications to the contrary. One wonders what "phase" will see user trustees.

The addition of non mods will happen and fairly soon I imagine

FeedForward will not work without them

The initial phase was to outline the structure of how the forum will work, when there is something tangiable to discuss about site policy I can assure you there will be non Mods involved

Wibbs

Non users Recliner? Now that Id like to see.

--amadeus--

My names being bandied about a bit so I'm going to do a quick clarification.

I didn't ask for access to FF, I was approached and asked if I wanted in. It's flattering to be picked out, I think I've got something to offer so I accepted.

At the time I was "just" a user. While I have a bigger ego than most I genuinely don't think Dev knew I was an ex-mod at the time. There are 500 current Mods, I doubt that any of the admins could pick all of them out of a list, never mind the ex-mods.

I am now technically a mod. But it's a private forum to organise a team of pacers for marathons with about a dozen members. Not really the same thing.

Yes we need more users in there and as quickly as possible. I would hope that starts happens in the early part of next week and then the people who want this to work can start to make it work.

As for this thread, frankly it's an embarrassment.

Boston

Nothing I can do about the way the thread was derailed bar reporting posts.

Nevyn

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I am now technically a mod. But it's a private forum to organise a team of pacers for marathons with about a dozen members. Not really the same thing.

The why aren't you a hmods?

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Yes we need more users in there and as quickly as possible. I would hope that starts happens in the early part of next week and then the people who want this to work can start to make it work.

I am sure that it will happen shortly enough.

--amadeus--

Thaedydal wrote: »

The why aren't you a hmods?

The forum is a sub forum of ART so to Mod it I need Mod status, apparently. It's just the way it was set up (not at my request but it makes the most sense).

Kinetic^

Boston wrote: »

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.

You should heed those words yourself, just throwing it out there.

DeVore

This thread is a wreck, we're already discussing new additions to the Trustees, but I see nothing wrong in entrusting the site I started to people I ... trust or respect.

I didnt know Amadeus was a mod before, frankly I dont care. I liked what I saw him write and I asked him to help without any strings attached.

We'll add to the list of trustees shortly, eta: 1 week.

DeV.

tbh

Boston wrote: »

. 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.

let me ask you one question. Based on everything you've seen since you've been on boards, and considering the way you're still free to post here despite all the sh1te you've thrown over the years, do you honestly think that's how the admins roll?

If so, why are you still here? If not, why throw it out there?

Kiera

tbh wrote: »

let me ask you one question. Based on everything you've seen since you've been on boards, and considering the way you're still free to post here despite all the sh1te you've thrown over the years, do you honestly think that's how the admins roll?

If so, why are you still here? If not, why throw it out there?

He might not be able to reply to you for a while, tbh.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055848521

copacetic

Kiera wrote: »

He might not be able to reply to you for a while, tbh.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055848521

ffs, my question about whether that is true or not is totally ignored and the
'whistleblower' is banned? Something stinks.

tbh

copacetic wrote: »

ffs, my question about whether that is true or not is totally ignored and the
'whistleblower' is banned? Something stinks.

let's say it is true.

Why do you think Dev would have posted in the mods forum first, before extending it?

To me it makes perfect sense. This is an experiment, nothing has really started yet and it makes sense to pull from a group of users (I don't care what you say, btw, all I am is a user) that are known, to kick it off and see what happens. Did you think that maybe there was never going to be a widening of the net?

Maybe you think there's another motive? I'd like to hear what it is.

copacetic

tbh wrote: »

let's say it is true.

Why do you think Dev would have posted in the mods forum first, before extending it?

To me it makes perfect sense. This is an experiment, nothing has really started yet and it makes sense to pull from a group of users (I don't care what you say, btw, all I am is a user) that are known, to kick it off and see what happens. Did you think that maybe there was never going to be a widening of the net?

Maybe you think there's another motive? I'd like to hear what it is.

I personally would have thought 'trustees' would be a small core of invited people. Not just anyone who volunteers. Imo it means the position of a trustee is meaningless.

Buford T Justice

tbh wrote: »

let's say it is true.

Why do you think Dev would have posted in the mods forum first, before extending it?

To me it makes perfect sense. This is an experiment, nothing has really started yet and it makes sense to pull from a group of users (I don't care what you say, btw, all I am is a user) that are known, to kick it off and see what happens. Did you think that maybe there was never going to be a widening of the net?

Maybe you think there's another motive? I'd like to hear what it is.

Whilst I wouldn't necessarily proffer that there is an ulterior motive than the original one, I have to say that it does at the moment paint the picture of another elitist cliquey forum.

Why is it that the user base will have people selected for it, and yet it was posted in the Mod forum touting for volunteers? (I'm using previous posts for this, I have no knowledge of the mod forum)
Surely in the interests of fairness and transparency the same logic should be applied to all users Mod or not who are Trustees. Not doing so imo has instantly created a feeling of 'us and them'. In fact, were it not for boston's post, I would be none the wiser on this, and would be watching FF without having full knowledge of its inception.

I fail to see the need for a private forum. This to me makes the whole FF idea a bit of an oxymoron. This is supposed to be about openness and transparency, but yet there is a private forum therein. How can one feel that they are part of a discussion on a topic when they don't have full visibility of what is being said? I think that this will create the opinion of elitism. Who's to say that something isn't opened and closed in a private discussion that no one else can read..

I understand Dev's post about things that are said about other posters need to be private, but this is the internet in fairness, and we all use usernames. It may be true that some users know who others are, but with normal rules applying, if I call someone a poo poo head, then I would deservedly be banned. Anything other than that which is posted would be constructive criticism, or feedback for the user.

Just my thoughts.

Sparks

I understand Dev's post about things that are said about other posters need to be private, but this is the internet in fairness, and we all use usernames. It may be true that some users know who others are, but with normal rules applying, if I call someone a poo poo head, then I would deservedly be banned. Anything other than that which is posted would be constructive criticism, or feedback for the user.

That's a fairly sane, adult, rational attitude.

Mind you, experience does show that having such an attitude is not a mandatory requirement for someone to sue someone else for defamation.

And more experience shows that a lot of people will use the tag of 'constructive criticism' to carry out character assassination if they think they can get away with it and rile the mob up against the focus of their efforts. So personally, I think those things need a modicum of privacy. You don't do your annual performance review on live TV for the rest of the office, do you?

DeVore

Sorry Copacetic I reread this thread but I cant see your question, if you repost it I'll try to answer it.

As for Boston, I'm just sick of him insinuating that he has access to the Mod forum. It causes mistrust and its deliberate. It has nothing to do with FF, but tolerating this cr@p from him has proven to simply make things worse so I'm not going to any more.

DeV.

tbh

Fingers McGee wrote: »

Whilst I wouldn't necessarily proffer that there is an ulterior motive than the original one, I have to say that it does at the moment paint the picture of another elitist cliquey forum.

I can understand that. I have said in FF that I think one of the biggest problems on boards is that decisions are taken outside of the public eye, and so we can only assume the reasons for those decisions being taken. Usually, in my case anyway, my assumptions are wrong and I end up feeling like a knob for making a big song and dance over something that turned out to be a non-issue. My own interpretation, or hope, for feedforward is that it'll serve to gather a much wider depth of opinion when deciding things that will affect the whole site. There *are* certain things that need to be anticipated because of the way the admin structure works. Something could happen which forces an individual admin to make a call, and when making that call, the admin needs to be able to guage what the majority of boards users would want them to do (in certain cases, there will always also be cases where the majority preference should not be taken into consideration).

My idea for how feedforward will work is that someone will throw out a problem, and we'll all discuss it, and try to come up with a policy that recognises everyone's concerns.

If I thought it was an exercise in suppressing the masses, then I simply wouldn't be involved.

I'm involved as tbh, not as a mod or cmod or as a representative of "normal" users etc. If I'm asked my opinion I'll give it - if it's listened to, grand, if not, I'll digest the reasons and if I think they are crap, I'll leave. I don't think it will be like that, just pointing out that no-one is holding a gun to my head to force me to contribute, to feedforward or boards as a whole.

nothing more sinister than that.


edit: sorry, forgot to mention the main point of my post. I know that one of the assumptions made is that the mods forum is that it's all the mods laughing at users and twirling their moustaches / feminine equiv. of twirling their moustaches.
All I can do is tell you that when mods go at each other in the mods forum, there's no moderation like there is in feedback. The mod forum is not one giant clique, it's a collection of loads of little cliques, which form and break like soap bubbles. The idea that there is one giant mod-brain is one that I can understand, but I promise you - it's not true. Wibbs has his own ideas, as does Des, me, dev, thaed nerin, etc.

Ste05

Sparks wrote: »

Considering I was quoted as being one of the reasons -- despite the fact that the new site was all set to go and it was a planned move by that point -- I think I've got just cause to state those opinions publicly. I don't need to argue about it, as far as I'm concerned it's done and dusted,

Just for the record, this post is completely mis informed and is entirely inaccurate. I've sent detailed PM's to Sparks seperately explaining why he is misinformed and asking him to take them down or clarify them so that they are merely his opinion and hopefully he will in time, but our site was not in anyway pre-meditated or planned, as Sparks states as though it's fact. Quite simply Sparks does not have full information on the matter, he may hold opinions such as this all he wants but it is not correct and is most certainly not "fact".

As for the decision to start Feedforward with mod volunteers, I personally think it's the logical decision, there would always be calls of "clique" no matter what way it was started, but this way at least there are mods with completely opposing views on alot of matters in there. Apart from a user perspective it's very well represented IMO. Once user representatives are added, it'll be an absolutely great start. Then once it's up and running we'll be able to see if it's actually going to make a difference, but it's a fantastic start and idea IMO. Also, IIRC it's not going to be set-in stone structurally and will be somewhat fluid in its membership and the likes, so it'll just evolve in time as it gets off the ground.

Dev has said they're talking about who else to bring in as we type, so why not just let them do that and then see what happens.

Overheal

tbh wrote: »

let's say it is true.

Why do you think Dev would have posted in the mods forum first, before extending it?

To me it makes perfect sense. This is an experiment, nothing has really started yet and it makes sense to pull from a group of users (I don't care what you say, btw, all I am is a user) that are known, to kick it off and see what happens. Did you think that maybe there was never going to be a widening of the net?

Its a kind of Alpha and Beta Test, surely?

I can see the obvious reason to only include mods Initially and its not as though users aren't going to be inducted eventually. Whats going to happen between now and then? Maybe they'll sign the Boards.ie Patriot Act? :pac:

It must be a slow news week because this just seems like drama for the sake of drama. So, business as usual then.

DeVore

Thank you Ste, thats exactly it.

DeV.

Dohnny Jepp

I personally think it makes sense to have mods/admins as trustees for FF especially for it's early days. Not because they are admins though but because they are likely Dev's friends, people he can trust. If I bought a new ferrari would I let someone I dont know drive it? . . maybe after a few drinks:P.

Dev runs the site so in a sense he deals with the mods more so than the users, so he brings the mods he trusts and belives will have a positive impact as trustees. Then logically at some point down the line the mods bring in a few users they trust, as the mods are the ones dealing with the users on a daily basis.

Either I'm Mr Enlightened or as Overheal said some people ( cough boston cough ) are making drama for the sake of drama.

The Hill Billy

Boston wrote: »

Hill Billy

I've no strong opinion on this user. Which in and of itself is a criticism. One has to wonder why this user wants to be a trustee? I hazard a guess he accidentally stumbled into the request thread and said "Me to kthxbye".

Hmm... You know SFA about me then & can't be bothered (or are unable) to get the background on why I offered to take part in FF.

As for some of your other critiques of the FF participants I see that you refer to their lack of posts in Feedback. That'd be saying "He's not a real Guiness drinker & can't offer an opinion in how to make Guinness better because he doesn't spend all day like me onto Customer Service whingeing out about the shape of the glass."

If the only participants in FF were FB regulars we just be stuck with a bunch of disgruntled posters like yourself. (No offence intended to the FB contributors that provide meaningful input.)

Get a chip for your other shoulder & someday you could become a balanced individual.

Quazzie

Hill Billy wrote: »

Hmm... You know SFA about me then & can't be bothered (or are unable) to get the background on why I offered to take part in FF.

As for some of your other critiques of the FF participants I see that you refer to their lack of posts in Feedback. That'd be saying "He's not a real Guiness drinker & can't offer an opinion in how to make Guinness better because he doesn't spend all day like me onto Customer Service whingeing out about the shape of the glass."

If the only participants in FF were FB regulars we just be stuck with a bunch of disgruntled posters like yourself. (No offence intended to the FB contributors that provide meaningful input.)

Get a chip for your other shoulder & someday you could become a balanced individual.

Ironic that you post this without bothering to do research on Boston and realise he is site banned, and therefore cannot reply to your comment.

5starpool

Quazzie wrote: »

Ironic that you post this without bothering to do research on Boston and realise he is site banned, and therefore cannot reply to your comment.

I saw the post about his banning, but his tagline still says registered user rather than banned like all other banned users. Maybe it is just a forum or cat ban or something.

Dohnny Jepp

Why should he have to check the background of boston? Boston felt the need to comment on each individuals right to be a trustee and he did so publicly.

Shouldn't Hilly Billy have the right to publicly respond regardles if Boston can moan about it or not.