WTF is feedforward?

Quazzie

Its always been Boards policy (or at least as long as I've been here [wet week]) to not retalliate or ask questions of somebody that isn't in a position to reply.

EDIT: Just for reference I believe in the majority of what Hillbilly wrote there, I was just pointing out the irony.

The Hill Billy

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.

That being the case I'm sure that he's logged out & reading all the same. He can PM me if he really wants to reply.

Quazzie

Hill Billy wrote: »

That being the case I'm sure that he's logged out & reading all the same. He can PM me if he really wants to reply.

This will be the last post on this as I feel I dragged it even more off-topic than it was unnecessarily but I thought when you were site banned it blocked your ip altogether.

smashey

Boston is only banned from feedback.

My name is URL

I think there's too many 'Trustees', though at the same time there should be some who are non-mods/Admins

What's the need for so many people to be (presumably, permanently) involved with the write only forum? Surely allowing access on an ad-hoc basis would be better? That way if something is being discussed which could potentially affect how a particular forum is runs then people from those affected forums could be granted access to the write-only forum to discuss things as they crop up

It also seems a bit protocol heavy imo, with those involved in thinking up how FF will work also being the most likely to speak up about things.. will that work? Will the protocol ultimately mean that the list of things one can speak up about will be so small that the protocol itself only stifles the purpose of the forum?

Just my thoughts

seamus

My name is URL wrote: »

I think there's too many 'Trustees', though at the same time there should be some who are non-mods/Admins

That's being sorted out at the moment, discussing potential non-mods to be invited to take part. As Boston rightly points out, my being a non-mod is a technicality as I still have access to the "decision makers" that most users don't; i.e. real-life access.

There's no discussion about whether someone will toe the line or not cause a fuss. Someone who will get invited is someone who has consistently shown that they want to contribute to the future of boards and can usually take part in discussions with some degree of clarity and objectivity.

What's the need for so many people to be (presumably, permanently) involved with the write only forum? Surely allowing access on an ad-hoc basis would be better? That way if something is being discussed which could potentially affect how a particular forum is runs then people from those affected forums could be granted access to the write-only forum to discuss things as they crop up

Feedforward will not be used to discuss specific issues as they crop up. If something turns to **** on a particular forum, FF will not be used as a melting pot for discussing that specific issue.

It will deal with processes at a much higher level than you would normally see in Feedback.

Dohnny Jepp

I believe it was already said before that it had been considered having users gain access based on the situation but was decided against due to probable messyness in the long run .

My name is URL

seamus wrote: »

Feedforward will not be used to discuss specific issues as they crop up. If something turns to **** on a particular forum, FF will not be used as a melting pot for discussing that specific issue.

I know, sorry; that's not what I was trying to say. I meant future site policies which would affect some forums more than others.. ie. pertaining to ownership of content posted by users, would affect the Photography forum more than others for instance

DeVore

Phase 0 of FeedForward is ONLY to decide the workings of FF. That includes which members from the "user" group are to be involved. Perhaps we shouldnt have announced it before then but I didnt want to present a fait-accompli... seems I'm damned if I do etc.

So, before FF goes anywhere NEAR a boards policy we'll have broadened the Trustees.



The reason for the private forum is to discuss new members. Thats because people NEED to be able to give their opinion honestly without humiliating the user in public or feeling that they cant speak their minds. Not EVERYTHING should be washed in public, there are times for something called "decorum" and thats one of them.

That should be blatantly obvious really, and anyone who doubts that thats why it is being used for is welcome to PM any trustee they like and ask.

DeV.

DeVore

And how does that get decided at the moment? We talk to the mods of the forum, we talk to the admins, to the mods in general to the user community in somewhere like Feedback or now, Feedforward Public. And now we also have a dedicated broad group with a rigid approach to debating it, in public.

This system is a superset of the existing system and a LOT more transparent.


Amazingly the site that everyone loves and doesnt want changed is the same site that I had to fight to make as it is. The same fight I'm having to make it , in my opinion, better again.

Perhaps it will be an unmitigated disaster, perhaps it will set the future for how all cooperative community stuff is decided, who the F*CK knows, cos no one has done it before. So lets try it and if it doesnt work, we'll examine why and fix it or try something else. But people arent happy with what we have and I'm breaking some eggs.

DeV.

copacetic

DeVore wrote: »

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.

It's in the post you were replying to here. Is it true that that the 'trustees' are simply mods who volunteered + amadeus and seamus?

I think it's shameful that someone is leaking things from the mod forum, but thats not what is causing 'mistrust' (and it's a standard enough occurence). It's doing things in a certain way while implying that they aren't being done that way. When this happens of course it creates 'mistrust' but the real problem isn't Bostons antics, it's the apparently truthful revelations which cast things in a bad light.

As does banning him because you are frustrated that some mods can't be trusted. Whatever about his attitude on this thread, he comes across as more sensible and objective than a variety of 'trustees'.

AckwelFoley

Tbh, i think its always been the case that the members mould / influence the diorection of the site, perhaps it wasnt very transparent, but looking at the different tones of discussion on sometimes the same subject in the different forua are proof of this

I think the peeople who make the decisions on boards can only be commended for at least recognising that member input into the future of the site will at the very least a positive rather than a negative.

Nevyn

Boston is being an arguemenative querllous git atm, dunno maybe he's in his flowers :P
But his carry on and aserbic agressive posts nit picking and disecting everything
isn't helping and is tainting what FF is trying to be and even derailing this thread.

He's banned, let him off when he learns to not try and dominate the dinning room he'll be allowed sit at the table, if he can't/won't the rest of us will manage with out him.

AckwelFoley

copacetic wrote: »

Whatever about his attitude on this thread, he comes across as more sensible and objective than a variety of 'trustees'.

Is that supposed to contain sarcasam?

Dohnny Jepp

I dont think so, I think he just typed it with his forehead

Buford T Justice

DeVore wrote: »

The reason for the private forum is to discuss new members. Thats because people NEED to be able to give their opinion honestly without humiliating the user in public or feeling that they cant speak their minds. Not EVERYTHING should be washed in public, there are times for something called "decorum" and thats one of them.

That should be blatantly obvious really, and anyone who doubts that thats why it is being used for is welcome to PM any trustee they like and ask.

DeV.

Fair enough. I do think, however that it would be worth posting something like this in the charter or FF equivalent to make it clear to everyone firstly why there is a private forum, and its sole purpose. I'm sure it would go some way to help clear up any confusion and dispel some of the rumors / urban legends.

LuckyLloyd

Thaedydal wrote: »

Boston is being an arguemenative querllous git atm, dunno maybe he's in his flowers :P
But his carry on and aserbic agressive posts nit picking and disecting everything
isn't helping and is tainting what FF is trying to be and even derailing this thread.

He's banned, let him off when he learns to not try and dominate the dinning room he'll be allowed sit at the table, if he can't/won't the rest of us will manage with out him.

So is he banned because of his contributions on Feed Forward then? Rather than the stated reason?

Nevyn

Dev banned him and gave the reason but I think it was the straw that broke the camels back tbh.

DeVore

Please dont take words from other peoples mouths and put them in mine Lloyd. Thanks.


DeV.

Dohnny Jepp

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So is he banned because of his contributions on Feed Forward then? Rather than the stated reason?

The only thing he contributed was a virtual cancer to each thread he posted in. He is a clever troll who uses subtle bait.

My name is URL

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

The only thing he contributed was a virtual cancer to each thread he posted in. He is a clever troll who uses subtle bait.

And if it were someone else they'd probably have been banned outright a long time ago for posting stuff nowhere near as controversial as what Boston posts. I don't know if labeling him as a troll shines him in as bad a light as those charged with eliminating that factor in a consistent way tbh

DeVore

copacetic wrote: »

It's in the post you were replying to here. Is it true that that the 'trustees' are simply mods who volunteered + amadeus and seamus?

I think it's shameful that someone is leaking things from the mod forum, but thats not what is causing 'mistrust' (and it's a standard enough occurence). It's doing things in a certain way while implying that they aren't being done that way. When this happens of course it creates 'mistrust' but the real problem isn't Bostons antics, it's the apparently truthful revelations which cast things in a bad light.

As does banning him because you are frustrated that some mods can't be trusted. Whatever about his attitude on this thread, he comes across as more sensible and objective than a variety of 'trustees'.

well if you want to drag it back further... FF was an idea in my head alone. So, basically, I was the first and only person invited into FF. Then and get this cos it will bake your noodle, the next two people I invited were Amadeus (because he was a a dissenting voice I could respect) and Seamus (because he's a supportive voice who has laser logic imho).

Then I thought "hey, I'm doing exactly what I am trying to avoid, ie: decide lots of things without Mod input which will affect the mods without mod input". Right at that moment I broadened the base and invited any Mod who wanted to, to join Seamus Amadeus and I.

Then we set about deciding how to decide stuff and who else to invite.


And then I made the mistake of trying to explain this to everyone, some of whom simply wanted to **** on it.

Oh and I forgot to actually give Amadeus access in the end. Yeah, thats the only bit I actually regret.

And now we are here.

DeV.
And yes, I'm drunk and listening to Zero Punctuation reviews, but that doesnt make what I'm saying any less true.

5starpool

I don't believe you. Pistols at dawn imo.

randylonghorn

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

The only thing he contributed was a virtual cancer to each thread he posted in. He is a clever troll who uses subtle bait.

In fairness, I'm not convinced Boston is a troll, at least in the classic definition: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
(from Wiki, my bold)

He often has good points to make, he just has a wonderful way of sticking needles under fingernails when making them, whether he always realises it or not (I think he does sometimes at least).

I also however understand why DeV has lost patience with him on the specific issue which he has cited as the reason for the ban.

EDIT: And having written that post, I have just realised: way off-topic, but feck it, if I delete it someone is bound to have quoted it already! :P

Dohnny Jepp

I think he fits the classic description of a troll perfectly( especially in regards to your bolded text), but that is what I think and if I'm wrong and he is just a misunderstood user. . . well it won't be the first time I was wrong .

Anyway this thread is WTF is feedforward, not WTF is Boston . So lets get it back on el targeto.


EDIT: Damn you randy for unbolding that sentence.

/shakes fist :P

leninbenjamin

I've been casually observing the whole feedfoward thing for a while now, and one thing is becoming clear to me: it's a complete over complication.

Dev, the whole requirement for Feedfoward imo stemmed from perceived lack of transparency with the workings of the site. I'd say 90% of all major disputes I've seen in my time on boards have stemmed from us vs. them notions and victimisation mentality (some cases rightly, some cases wrongly, but that's neither here nor there).

By creating feedforward in such a way that's it's being placed in the hands of a certain few trustee's and the creation of all these restrictions and artificial conventions seems to go against the fundamental need for feedfoward. And from the whole Boston saga it's becoming clear how easily it is for all involved to become sidetracked from the primary issues using such a convoluted framework.

Seriously, simplify the whole thing. Why not make FeedForward a restricted access form like Soccer is, that way access is still a privilege, only open to those who are actively interested in it, yet gives all those willing to participate and open and even floor upon which to express themselves?

DeVore

f*ck it Randy we're 18 pages* into a topic that was derailed back on page three, why stop now.

DeV.

*yes I read boards with the default number of threads per page. Bite me.

DeVore

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I've been casually observing the whole feedfoward thing for a while now, and one thing is becoming clear to me: it's a complete over complication.

Dev, the whole requirement for Feedfoward imo stemmed from perceived lack of transparency with the workings of the site. I'd say 90% of all major disputes I've seen in my time on boards have stemmed from us vs. them notions and victimisation mentality (some cases rightly, some cases wrongly, but that's neither here nor there).

By creating feedforward in such a way that's it's being placed in the hands of a certain few trustee's and the creation of all these restrictions and artificial conventions seems to go against the fundamental need for feedfoward. And from the whole Boston saga it's becoming clear how easily it is for all involved to become sidetracked from the primary issues using such a convoluted framework.

Seriously, simplify the whole thing. Why not make FeedForward a restricted access form like Soccer is, that way access is still a privilege, only open to those who are actively interested in it, yet gives all those willing to participate and open and even floor upon which to express themselves?

But thats what it is, that PLUS an open public area so people dont even have to wait for access to be granted.

But apparently without even giving it a chance people already know how its going to work and turn out which is frankly astonishing because I have no freakin' idea so either I'm thick or everyone is talking bollix and projecting their beliefs and suppositions onto it before it has even had a chance to be still born.

Oh yeah. Its the later.

DeV.

Shield

Please tell me Dav has the car keys...

Dohnny Jepp

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I've been casually observing the whole feedfoward thing for a while now, and one thing is becoming clear to me: it's a complete over complication.

Dev, the whole requirement for Feedfoward imo stemmed from perceived lack of transparency with the workings of the site. I'd say 90% of all major disputes I've seen in my time on boards have stemmed from us vs. them notions and victimisation mentality (some cases rightly, some cases wrongly, but that's neither here nor there).

By creating feedforward in such a way that's it's being placed in the hands of a certain few trustee's and the creation of all these restrictions and artificial conventions seems to go against the fundamental need for feedfoward. And from the whole Boston saga it's becoming clear how easily it is for all involved to become sidetracked from the primary issues using such a convoluted framework.

Seriously, simplify the whole thing. Why not make FeedForward a restricted access form like Soccer is, that way access is still a privilege, only open to those who are actively interested in it, yet gives all those willing to participate and open and even floor upon which to express themselves?

I think Dev mentioned somewhere in hindsight he would have rathered FF not have gone "live" as soon as it did.

I think the only real problem people have is that they look at the list of trustees and don't see many users. Had FF not gone live till say this friday and the extra time was used to get a list of suitable users to be trustees then IMO the majority of issues would be gone.

How in ever, its early days, its always gonna be a little messy till everyone involved finds their feet. Give it a week and everything will be fine, so i think anyway