Feedforward & Trustees

The Recliner

OutlawPete wrote: »

That just solidifies my point even further so.

It is made by taking into account posts in FF public and private though

OutlawPete

The Recliner wrote: »

It is made by taking into account posts in FF public and private though

I understand that but that totally ignores the reasons I have outlined in previous posts of why I feel that is wholly inadequate.

I have stated many times on this thread why exactly I feel it would be beneficial if there were a small collection of non-moderators appointed as Trustees, which would allow them to join in a contribute to FF Private alongside Mods and Admin.

To now just nonchalantly say: "they can post in FF Public", is as if I hadn't made the damn points in the first place.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Facilitator =/= Moderator.

It does if that person has moderator duties.

I have a lot of time and respect for Overheal, if he were not part of FF, I would be asking why not.

However, he is here now and so has become part of the Administration and Moderation team, that's just the way it is.

It would apprear to me that the whole idea of what a Trustee was implied to be about, is now slipping away and what FF Private is becoming is really nothing more than just a transparent Mod / Admin Forum, where ideas will be discussed and the average user can watch, but just not have any input in, other than had they got involved with the issue beforehand in FF Public.

OutlawPete

RopeDrink wrote: »

Some people are incapable of doing so whilst making valid points - These things had to be considered when embracing people into FeedForward... Anyone can have the best intentions at heart but not everyone can convey them in a precise and to the point matter and/or be capable of a proper debate rather than get sucked into an arguement or prevent themselves (and/or others) from derailing threads beit intentionally or otherwise.

This is all sound and has been said many times and I think I would be correct in saying that the above has been pretty much what has been expected of someone that might be selected to become a moderator.

So is that not in essence saying that a Trustee must meet the same standards as a Moderator?

I ask this as that is contrary to what was pretty much the consensus on the 'Criteria for Trustees' thread and the 'WTF is FeedForward' thread.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Okay, I've been here a while and I'm still not sure what FeedFoward is, to be honest. Is there a concise way of describing it without having to read a wall of text?

P. Breathnach

Anabelle Nutty Guy wrote: »

Okay, I've been here a while and I'm still not sure what FeedFoward is, to be honest. Is there a concise way of describing it without having to read a wall of text?

My read on it:
- Feedback is dealing with issues after they have arisen and perhaps caused a problem, and trying to improve boards in the light of any lessons learned.
- Feedforward involves considering how boards works, and trying to find ways in which it might work better.

Feedback is firefighting; feedforward is planning.

OutlawPete

RopeDrink wrote: »

Do you not think it nice that a regular user was adopted into the system rather than, oh I don't know, just picking Mods/CMods/Admins to do it? Overheal is an example of this.

Of course I do.

My point is that he is now moderating FF and so that is his role.

Regular users will see him as such and surely you must see that.

I am not saying that he now has some kind of special allegiance to Admin and so his views will always be in accordance with thier thinking or he's for the chop, but undoubtedly there will be those that do see it that way.

All that aside, Overheal is just one user and I have already acknowledged Snyper as another, it is still not even close to enough of the regular user base being represented in the Trustee group though.

I take on board that this is all brand new, but I still get no sense from Admin yet that there is an intention to make sure that the regular user base will be represented to any great degree.

Surely with all the Moderators on that list they could suggest one or two regular members who they feel would be of benefit if they were appointed as trustees.

RopeDrink wrote: »

That isn't even close to how Moderators are picked - Moderators are picked based on showing their interest, desire and effort in the Forum they have been picked to look after ..

I have seen Moderators picked to moderate AH that I have never even heard of.

That's not to say they don't or didn't do a fine job, but just to say that "interest" and "effort" most certainty were not prerequisites in the past, that's for sure.

RopeDrink wrote: »

I can't relate to half of what you say because there just seems to be a major rift when it comes to Moderation.

I don't get what you mean by a "major rift".

I just don't feel the Trustee list should be so heavily weighted with Moderators.

I think at least 25% of those with write access there, should be chosen from regular users that Moderators and Admin would be happy to work alongside.

I don't believe for a second that the type of people you are looking for can only be found within the Mods of Boards, to the degree that that Trustee list suggests anyway.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Bare in mind it's still very very New ...

I do bear that in mind which is why I feel it so important to air these views now, rather than another six months down the line, when it will be far to late as things will be in full swing at that point.

DeVore

Some swift points.

Decisions are not made in HQ. They are made in my head. I check my head with two selected people from the community (Amadeus and Seamus) and two from the office (Darragh and Dav).... then I make it and post it. Check the time of the recent PMs decision, its like 3am or something (cos I have insomnia at the moment).

Secondly we had more non-mods in the likes of Spear and Amadeus etc but the problem is that while the left hand is choosing non-mods as Trustee's the right hand is picking mods for forums. The same qualities that attract us to invite someone to be a trustee, are the same qualities that make someone attractive as a mod.
And I know what you are thinking, stop people who are user-trustees from being mods but then you make a disincentive to agree to being a trustee for some.

Its messy cos it has to be that messy more or less, we can try to clean it up but it wont be more then cosmetic really. The process needs to be that long because its complex and serves a number of purposes. FFA threads allow a robust debate but can be dominated by vocal elements. OPPP threads allow all to have their "democractic" say but dont allow rebuttal. Public and private are needed because we would simply be awash with arguments and noise if they were all the one. This way avoids refusing the public their say while recognising that some people are much more insightful about community building then others due to sheer experience here.

FF is needed because bits of Boards are broken and need fixing and future planning and because I want to expose the community to the realities of having a limited amount of resources so you all understand why we can simply have that feature or why we do things in a convoluted way.

The majority of users should never go near FF imho, its the engine room and its complex and confusing and thats ok, people need to learn about boards before they understand what is going on in there. Its one of the things which makes us unique on the net, but as a result, it is confusing to the casual user. Thats because its not *for* the casual user.

its Mod heavy because they have the most experience, do the most work and shoud have the most say in where the bus goes. I have been spicing it up with independent voices and dissent-capable people but they keep getting nicked for mod of other forums

Oh, on the idea of AH trustee. No. And we wont be doing positive discrimination for women blacks or muslims either . I dont care who you are, I care whats between your ears and how much of it you will share with me. No one represents anyone but themselves in there, stop thinking of "them and us". Mods mod one tiny part of the site and are otherwise users everywhere else, so in a sense, there ARE lots of AH users in there already.

DeV.

The Recliner

OutlawPete wrote: »

To now just nonchalantly say: "they can post in FF Public", is as if I hadn't made the damn points in the first place.

That is not what I said at all, I apologise if I have ever suggested something like that, I would be ashamed if I commented on 99.8% of the Boards population like that, maybe I needed to expand on th point a bit but I thought it was clear that I was replying by saying that the public are not ignored because both Private and Public are taken into account

I have stated many times on this thread why exactly I feel it would be beneficial if there were a small collection of non-moderators appointed as Trustees, which would allow them to join in a contribute to FF Private alongside Mods and Admin.

And it has been stated that this will happen, I don't think anyone has declared that this is a bad idea and it was one fo the first things brought up when the idea of FF was kicked around

I just think you are being a bit impatient, FF is being set up so that in the long term there will be no need for a DeVore like figurehead to make decisions, it is being set up so that Boards can be self regulating, the process needs to be refined and honed until it works as it needs to be in place for a long time

Things in FF are moving at Glacial speed not normal Boards AH speed where things happen in real time and change by the minute

It will happen but it is a good thing to get the process right before we start throwing people at it

OutlawPete

The Recliner wrote: »

That is not what I said at all..

I was quoting Overheal.

The Recliner wrote: »

And it has been stated that this will happen, I don't think anyone has declared that this is a bad idea and it was one fo the first things brought up when the idea of FF was kicked around.

Precisely, it was one of the first things brought up and while no one has declared it a bad idea, no one has really said it will defiantly happen either.

The Recliner wrote: »

I just think you are being a bit impatient, FF is being set up so that in the long term there will be no need for a DeVore like figurehead to make decisions, it is being set up so that Boards can be self regulating, the process needs to be refined and honed until it works as it needs to be in place for a long time.

I totally get that but isn't it best to say this stuff now while the house is being built, rather than coming along at the end and saying: 'You missed a bit there lads'.

DeVore wrote: »

its Mod heavy because they have the most experience, do the most work and shoud have the most say in where the bus goes.

Without the passengers (regular users) this forum would just be a Bus Garage, with Drivers and Mechanics sitting around playing cards as there would be nobody to ferry to and from their chosen destinations.

Yes, I know Mods are regular users also, but most Moderators on this site are afraid of their own arse to challenge an administerial thinking..

I can think of five or six only that have the guts to say: 'Hang on a second, we are heading for the ditch if we keep in this direction, it'll create more problems than it will solve'.

Most would rather just drive through the ditch and keep on over the fields pretending all is well as the passengers go nuts in the back screaming that the driver is a fruit cake and should never have been selected to drive this route.

It's all fine and dandy saying that FF Public is there for everyone who wishes to contribute if they feel they can add something constructive but if it then goes into what basically looks like a Mod Forum with a two way mirror, then it just all seems a little hollow.

The average user on Boards needs to represented in FF Private in my opinion, I don't believe for one moment that it just so happens that the type of people you are after are all already Mods.

What does that say about the rest of the users on Boards that have put a lot into the forum over the yeas, that the only people that that it is felt meet the criteria for Trustee status, are by and large .. already Moderators.

You say that if some Trustees are deliberately not Mods, then this then gives a disincentive to become one .. well, good.

I'm sure there are many excellent long term users of Boards that have no wish to moderate (or even have the time) but yet would still like to lend their voice as a regular user to a forum that has given them just as much as they have given it.

DeVore wrote: »

I dont care who you are, I care whats between your ears and how much of it you will share with me.

Nobody is suggesting that you (Admin et al) select users that don't have what it takes, just that you stop popping into the Mod canteen when you want to add another name to that Trustee list.

DeVore wrote: »

No one represents anyone but themselves in there, stop thinking of "them and us".

That is very naive of you if you don't mind me saying.

There is a "them and us", and that Trustee list just reinforces that feeling of it tbh.

People talk about After Hours as being an intimidating place to post, I think it has nothing on Feedback.

Over the years, I have seen regular users make very well made points here and get ignored and then seen a member of Admin come along and make pretty much the same point and go on to thanked and back slapped of the thread.

It all just seems a little impenetrable.

DeVore wrote: »

Mods mod one tiny part of the site and are otherwise users everywhere else, so in a sense, there ARE lots of AH users in there already.

Then what was the point of Amadeus asking users what they felt should be the criteria for selecting Trustees at all, if all those opinions was just going to swept aside and ignored?

Overheal

OutlawPete wrote: »

I was quoting Overheal.

And while I can appreciate that reads like a brush-off, its really not. But from my perspective im less interested in who is/isnt a trustee and what is being said. Back when we had our dry run I was reading everything in both forums regardless of which was which. And I plan to continue the trend. I think it would be tragic if people didnt contribute their ideas just because they were or weren't a trustee.

Gordon

OutlawPete wrote: »

most Moderators on this site are afraid of their own arse to challenge an administerial thinking..

Sorry to cherrypick, but that statement is completely untrue.

Ponster

Gordon wrote: »

Sorry to cherrypick, but that statement is completely untrue.

Pretty much the opposite I'd say. Most mods manage to get their job done without even knowing who the admins are! Some others look forward to the admins messing up so they can rub their noses in it.

The rest of us have little trouble in telling them when we believe they are wrong.

OutlawPete

Gordon wrote: »

Sorry to cherrypick, but that statement is completely untrue.

Ponster wrote: »

The rest of us have little trouble in telling them when we believe they are wrong.

Well, it must happen in the Mod Forum because I rarely see it in Feedback, other than the half dozen Mods I eluded to.

Gordon

OutlawPete wrote: »

Well, it must happen in the Mod Forum because I rarely see it in Feedback, other than the half dozen Mods I eluded to.

Just goes to show how much work goes on behind the scenes in every aspect of boards life

OutlawPete

RopeDrink wrote: »

If many people have this grave dislike for the number of Moderators in the Trustee list then try suggesting to the FFor team that it'd be beneficial for them to take in more regulars ..

That is what I am doing.

RopeDrink wrote: »

rather than berate the team or paintbrush Mods with your idea of how they think.

I am not "berating the team", just criticising moderators whose main aim in Feedback over the years seems to be to backslap.

I have made as many complements of the Admind / Mod team in Feedback, as I have criticisms.

When I started a thread here on Feedback complementing Boards I was accused of wanting to be a mod and now when I criticize something which I think is wrong, it is implied that I must have wanted to be a Trustee.

That's just the kind of crap I hate about Feedback.

People being accused of having an ulterior motive no matter what they say.

I love Boards, have done for years and have no interest in ever being a Trustee or a Moderator (not that I would ever be offered either and quite rightly too, considering how I have trouble being objective and tend to like throwing a few toys around, every now and then).

It is other, far more intelligent and articulate posters, that I wish to see have write access to FF Private.

I am quite happy being a regular poster, who infrequently posts the odd opinion in Feedback and FeedForward Public.

To somewhat paraphrase Groucho Marx:

"I don't care to belong to a club forum that would have people like me as a member moderator".

DeVore

If you have any suggestions, shoot! Anyone can propose we do discuss them and we do adopt them. Might be best to PM me or one of the trustees or facilitators. They can propose new members too.

DeV.

DeVore

How can we talk about "The mods" as a static group who have, from the start, circled the wagons when so many new ones have arrived in the last 18 months. So many more have stopped modding.

How can we talk about a disinclination to dissent when Krank Korner was the direct kick in the pants I needed to execute on what I had always wanted to build, which is FeedForward. Did any of those mods get shot in some Chinese style retribution? In fact Amadeus (at the time not a mod) became one of the people I asked to check my head.


There is subjective opinion, trotted out here by the same names and there is objective fact which simply doesnt tally with or support the former.


I'm sorry, I havent involved myself more with these sorts of allegations because I lack a common basis from which to communicate. How can you argue with the allegation that the cheese-people are eating the moon when you know for a fact that the moon isnt made of cheese.

DeV.

OutlawPete

RopeDrink wrote: »

I've not really read into what your concern with Moderators is because it has no real bearing on the topic

Dev made a comment on why the Trustee list is Mod heavy and how Mods should have the "most say in where the bus goes".

My comments were in direct response to that.

It is just so rare to see Mods and Admin all have the same opinion on a thread and then see one Mod say:

"Well, actually I agree with the OP and what they say actually could work if we just .. etc etc".

It's the taking on board the opinions of non-mods over felllow Mods and Admin, that I feel is all too rare.

I think also that Mods are the last ones to point out when something needs changing (in public at least) and so that is why I feel that more Mods need to step up and suggest changes when they feel they would be beneficial to Boards.

Perhaps they do so behind the scenes and it is all just really Mods not wishing to air their dirty laundry in public.

My whole point is based on the concern that FF Private might just become another Mod Forum and FeedForward just another part of Feedback.

I appreciate it is just early days.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Technically you're a Moderator...

That would be a bit like the security guard of a Joke Shop, referring to himself a cop ..

DeVore wrote: »

How can we talk about a disinclination to dissent when Krank Korner was the direct kick in the pants I needed to execute on what I had always wanted to build, which is FeedForward.

These are part of the five or six Mods I have been mentioning all along.

DeVore wrote: »

Did any of those mods get shot in some Chinese style retribution?

No, but Dr.B wasn't to know what reaction he was to receive exactly.

Surely KK was set up as all other avenues of achieving transparency were proving to be futile.

It's not really a good argument that all Mods must have it in them to go against the grain when they feel it appropriate, just because the Mods involved in KK did and yet are here they are, all still Moderating (or indeed, back moderating).

These particular Mods are a rare breed and if all Mods were of that calibur, I wouldn't be bothered in the slightest about the Trustee list being full of them, without so much as a non-mod in sight, as it wouldn't really matter to me then.

DeVore wrote: »

If you have any suggestions, shoot! Anyone can propose we do discuss them and we do adopt them. Might be best to PM me or one of the trustees or facilitators.

Grand so, will do that.

AckwelFoley

The term mod on this site in association with the "them v's us" is a little skewed.

This site has alot of mods and alot of forums, many og the mods on the list of trustees mod a very small amount of forums, and in effect are outside that forum are plain ol users. Perhaps there is a them v's us feeling out there because mods tend to agree on points similar to the admin, but thiats not a conspiracy, its perhaps because of reasonable knowledge on whats involved, or better understanding of the forum that mods and admins would have...

For example i would find myself agreeing with the admins in general much of the time, im not a mod, i never will be - but because my name isnt bolded you dont notice that im agreeing with "the man"

If i think something is absolut hogswash, i will happily tell them and voice myself, i have and will, i wasnt asked to be a trustee to tow the line, but i wont pull against them either with a different opinion for the sake of being heard.

OutlawPete

snyper wrote: »

..but i wont pull against them either with a different opinion for the sake of being heard.

You think anyone would want you to?

Other than the popcorn eating voyeurs I mean.

DeVore

Then I'd ask you the same question that I asked Jacaranda recently:

How many times do you think they have do that and been *wrong*.

Often the mods seem to clump together as you refer to, simply because the person wants to do or be allowed to do something clearly idiotic.



You're answers to my points about Kranks Korner make no sense to me either but as I said, this springs from you and I differing on our core beliefs of whether the moon is made of cheese or not.

DeV.

Sparks

Speaking as a mod, I'd have to say that the idea that we wouldn't disagree with other mods or the admins is farcical. But what might be more accurate is that we tend to do so in a civil fashion (at least most of the time). We tend to sound more like

I don't think that's a great idea, it's too easy to abuse it by X, Y or Z

and less like

Are you just ****ing thick or what you gob****e? We try that and every ****ing idiot in AH will be taking the piss by sunday. What kind of muppet are you?

But then, I happen to think that that's a good thing...

WindSock

*Ponders requesting a Thunderdome Mod forum*

:pac:

OutlawPete

Sparks wrote: »

But then, I happen to think that that's a good thing...

Who doesn't think that is a good thing, who wants people speaking to each other like that in Feedback?

That comment implies that there is someone that does, who is it?

Or, are you trying to suggest that, because I think Mods and Admin should not be so sycophantic, then that must mean that I want them to personal abuse each other in discussions.

DeVore wrote: »

How many times do you think they have do that and been *wrong*.

No idea.

But I have seen many opinions expressed by very articulate users who made very good points and they just got ignored, Admin and Mods seemingly more interested in just backing each other up rather than addressing the users points.

DeVore wrote: »

Often the mods seem to clump together as you refer to, simply because the person wants to do or be allowed to do something clearly idiotic.

I'm sure that is the case sometimes, but others it is not.

Let's use the WC thread in AH as an example.

Many Admin and quite a few Mods have strenuously opposed to such a thread happening over there.

Very few Mods said it was a good idea and the AH Mods were cool enough to Poll the forum in response to URL's thread, it got the go ahead and now it seems to be a success.

Now, all these Mods and Admin and that were opposed to it, is that still there position?

Or is it like I expect and because a few Moderators now believe it be a good idea, it's cool for them to endorse it now and so that is what they will do.

I don't mind Admin or Mods backing each other up or even been wrong if that is what they turn out to be.

What grates with me is when you see certain Mods and certain Admin going along with flock without giving the issue much thought at all.

Of course, I'll be accused now of being a mindreader.

After you have read Feedback for a long time you can start to see certain patterns and it's crystal clear which Admin / Mods give thought to debates and which of them don't.

There are certain Mods / Admin who rarely address a users points in a thread, they will however fall over themselves to be the first on a thread to back each other up when something negative is said though.

Regular users can be guilty of this though, where better to trying and impress Moderators and Administration, than by peacocking in Feedback.

Look at all the attention that is now been paid to my one comment that some Mods are afraid to disagree with Admin.

Yet, the points I have made more than a dozen times about how having a few non-mod Trustees from the busiest section of Boards, has got very little constructive criticism.

Yes, the idea that Trustee Mods aren't enough has been addressed, but the positive aspects of such members being Trustees has not been.

DeVore wrote: »

You're answers to my points about Kranks Korner make no sense to me either ...

You used KK as an example of how Mods are not afraid to go against the grain and how, because nothing negative has happened to them since, this clearly must mean that they were confident in their endeavors.

My point is that, the Mods involved in KK were not to know that there would be no negative residue from their actions, it turned out it was well received by yourself and others (I believe) but how could they have known that beforehand.

Perhaps you think that I am suggesting that somehow if Mods and Admin disagree with each other, that I feel that something bad happens them, I don't.

I just think that over the years Feedback has been very sycophantic in nature and when regular members have disagreed with Admin thinking, the Tsunami of support from fellow Admin and Mods has been laughable.

FeedForward has the ability to change all that and that is precisely why my feelings are so strong on the issue of Trustees.

Sparks

OutlawPete wrote: »

Who doesn't think that is a good thing, who wants people speaking to each other like that in Feedback?

I'd love to think that precious few did. But I'm a cynical git at the best of times, so I think quite a few people would think it was an indicator of healthy debate and an absence of sycophancy

Or, are you trying to suggest that, because I think Mods and Admin should not be so sycophantic, then that must mean that I want them to personal abuse each other in discussions.

Actually, I didn't mean you. You're posting in FF - that puts you in a fairly small percentage of people to start with. Whom I meant are those who think that because we don't punch each other in the head to start a conversation, that we're necessarily sycophantic, as though the world really was as Glen Beck portrays it, with black and white divisions between precisely two sides who are identically split on every possible issue.

For example, there are mods and admins and cmods whose judgement I will trust whether or not it agrees with mine, even if they disagree at the time. But just because I trust their judgement doesn't mean I'll agree with it or that I'm always going to accept it. And that kind of thing doesn't seem to be accepted by many who post in FB or HD. Instead it's accusations that we're all a closed-ranks clique who're out to screw over the average user in a lifelong petty power-trip...

DeVore

I'd love to know who these admin-sycophants are because if I do something out of line I get slapped like a red-haired stepchild.

DeV.

OutlawPete

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, I didn't mean you. You're posting in FF - that puts you in a fairly small percentage of people to start with. Whom I meant are those who think that because we don't punch each other in the head to start a conversation, that we're necessarily sycophantic, as though the world really was as Glen Beck portrays it, with black and white divisions between precisely two sides who are identically split on every possible issue.

No bother, my reply was unnecessarily defensive to be fair, apologies.

I assume malice and underhanded digs in most of the replies to my offerings.

A few years of posting on AH will do that to you

Overheal

OutlawPete wrote: »

That's just the kind of crap I hate about Feedback.

People being accused of having an ulterior motive no matter what they say.

OutlawPete wrote: »

I assume malice and underhanded digs in most of the replies to my offerings.

To be fair :pac:

But I have seen many opinions expressed by very articulate users who made very good points and they just got ignored, Admin and Mods seemingly more interested in just backing each other up rather than addressing the users points.

In Feedforward?

OutlawPete

Overheal wrote: »

In Feedforward?

Not really, more so in Feedback.

AckwelFoley

OutlawPete wrote: »

You think anyone would want you to?

Other than the popcorn eating voyeurs I mean.

..oh yes, very much so, ive come across these people in many areas of life, more so than just the internet -work, sports etc.

You have too, you perhaps just havnt noticed