Moderators

kboc

I have little interest in chat rooms on the internet, but nightly, i check boards.ie for the 3 or 4 areas which interest me in my personal life. I enjoy reading the comments and opinions of good people and some tools who post. But i very rarely post anything, i don't feel i can offer more than those who have done so already.

I am becoming increasingly disappointed and frustrated at the low tolerance that moderators are showing. Threads are being locked for small discrepancies in the charter/rules. Yes i can see why moderators cannot allow advertising and liabilism etc, but small issues!

I do appreciate that moderators are unpaid members of this forum, and they do a absolute necessary job. But the continued rate of "thread locking" etc will santitised the wonderful community of boards.ie beyond its proper function within a period of time.

This is not a personal grudge, no offence is meant. If somebody has an email address that i can direct my frustrations at then please do PM this to me.

Regards
Me

oscarBravo

We keep hearing that over-moderation will kill off boards.ie, but it keeps not happening.

If there are specific instances where you feel that a moderator is over-reacting, you could bring them to the attention of the category moderator, but if it's a generalised feeling that there's too much moderation, I'd have to respectfully disagree, and point out that the quality of the moderating is a major driving factor in this site's continuing growth.

Tallon

kboc wrote: »

If somebody has an email address that i can direct my frustrations at then please do PM this to me.

hello@boards.ie

The Recliner

kboc wrote: »

This is not a personal grudge, no offence is meant. If somebody has an email address that i can direct my frustrations at then please do PM this to me.

Feedback is appreciated by all on the site so it wont be taken as a grudge and no offense should be taken

However it would be helpful if you could provide some links as examples of where you feel threads have been locked prematurely (this shouldn't be taken as you singling out Mods but just using examples to demonstrate the issue)

It is easier to discuss things with examples, without them it gets vauge and wolly

Here is the perfect place to discuss it, you don't need to mail anyone about it but if you feel you do then go to http://www.boards.ie/contact/?

muffler

Would a mod be correct in locking this seeing as it's not much more than spam?

If you read as much as you claim then surely you know that posting multiple threads is classed as spam.

kboc

this is obviously hitting on a raw nerve here going by the reactions of people here. I rest my case.

oscarBravo

kboc wrote: »

this is obviously hitting on a raw nerve here going by the reactions of people here. I rest my case.

With respect, you haven't really made a case.

You claim that moderators over-moderate. Do you have any specific examples? You've suggested that the quality of moderation is detrimental to the site, but the statistics show otherwise.

I'm willing to have a conversation, but it needs to be two-way.

kboc

you know what, it does not matter. forget it.

AckwelFoley

kboc wrote: »

you know what, it does not matter. forget it.

Thats what i used to do quite alot when i was 13.

Make very broad arguements, once the attention has been given i would quote the above.

You were simply asked for an example, of where you consider threads to be locked without adequet reason, its not a challenge - its merely to enable discussion.

muffler

kboc wrote: »

you know what, it does not matter. forget it.

My old grandpa used to say "sh!t or get off the pot". Looks as though you're about done.

I can never understand why people make accusations and allegations and when asked for evidence to back up their claims they do a runner.

Dudess

kboc wrote: »

this is obviously hitting on a raw nerve here going by the reactions of people here.

No it isn't - three out of the four replies were civil and helpful, one was a bit more confrontational but making a fair point. A disagreement with you isn't an attack on you.

Beruthiel

kboc wrote: »

Threads are being locked for small discrepancies in the charter/rules.

Please report said threads when you think this is happening.

**Timbuk2**

The majority of the time, threads are locked for good reasons - and it is much more common for mods to give a reason after they lock the thread than in the past - this was one major gripe of mine when a thread was locked and no explanation given - it's not always obvious.

However, sometimes I think 'zombie threads', as they are so-called, are often locked without valid reason. While I appreciate that in some forums, e.g. Banking, Learning to Drive, Personal Issues etc., this makes sense as information in the past may be outdated, but there are occasions where threads are locked as they are too old, but there is no tangible reason for doing so, other than the charter mentions something about dragging up old threads.

But once a moderator leaves a reason on the thread, I am happy, and that seems to be common practice now, which is great!

Overheal

Beruthiel wrote: »

Please report said threads when you think this is happening.

+1. I have no problems reporting a locked thread if I think it was wrong to lock it.

Cabaal

Abit of a pointless rant, the OP rants about mods ruining things and when they are asked to produce any evidence they basically act like a teenager and say forget it.

Good job, waste of time though if you won't back-up your claims.
:rolleyes:

Nevyn

kboc wrote: »

I have little interest in chat rooms on the internet, but nightly, i check boards.ie for the 3 or 4 areas which interest me in my personal life.

Boards.ie is not a chat site it is a discussion site with many forums each with it's own subjects and remits.
If a thread is not suited for the forum it may be it in gets moved or locked.
if a thread is not suitible for the site it gets locked.
if a thread goes off topic and is no longer suited to a forum it gets locked.

The site is not a series of chats or conversations but a series of discussion and if the level of dicussion disintegrates it is ended by the thread being locked.

Lenny Lovett

I tend to agree with the OP. The moderation, particularly IMO on the radio forum is very selective and regularly OTT. I have already adressed some issues with the Cmods and am waiting for a resolution so will not delve into the particulars now.

oscarBravo wrote: »

We keep hearing that over-moderation will kill off boards.ie, but it keeps not happening.

So you sound like you agree it's over moderated but that's ok because there's no sign of a fall off in users? Do the user numbers prove that the same members continue posting day in day out year on year or is that (and I suspect it is) that there is a high 'churn' rate in membership?

Cabaal wrote: »

Abit of a pointless rant, the OP rants about mods ruining things and when they are asked to produce any evidence they basically act like a teenager and say forget it.

Good job, waste of time though if you won't back-up your claims.
:rolleyes:

Very helpful addition to the discussion... I will happily add some examples when my current queries regarding some issues have been dealt with as they are being at present. If you don't hear back you can take it I've been banned/gagged!

Thaedydal wrote: »

Boards.ie is not a chat site it is a discussion site with many forums each with it's own subjects and remits.
If a thread is not suited for the forum it may be it in gets moved or locked.
if a thread is not suitible for the site it gets locked.
if a thread goes off topic and is no longer suited to a forum it gets locked.

The site is not a series of chats or conversations but a series of discussion and if the level of dicussion disintegrates it is ended by the thread being locked.

Yes. But at the whim of the Moderator. Not very democratic at all. Your idea of something being within the remit, having merit or being off topic or irrelevant may not be someone elses and, indeed, may not be correct but the Mods decision is final and, as I said, not very democratic.

As has happened to me you can catch the Mod on a bad day and he/she gets their knickers in a twist over something out of nothing, spits out their dummy and closes a thread or even imposes a ban. You have no immediate comeback. Again not reasonable or fair. Most of the moderation I've seen on the radio forum is petty...... I feel a ban coming my way for these opinions but... hey.. better out than in and our forefathers died so that we could have freedom of speech. It just hasn't quite spread to the internet yet... Maybe one day... I have a dream.....!

Oh, and a PS: Not all mods are totally honest in their reasons for bans either. However as you have been banned you have no real recourse without going through a long, slow tedious process. I would suspect that many mods are civil servants as the system works similarly to the civil service in that one could have benefits, for example, cut off at a whim or in error instantly but it's a hell of a job to get it remedied..... (a poor attempt at humour on my part but a good analogy nonetheless)

Barname

muffler wrote: »

Would a mod be correct in locking this seeing as it's not much more than spam?

If you read as much as you claim then surely you know that posting multiple threads is classed as spam.

Are your serious or is this very dry humour?

I am not being facetious, I would like to know.

(perhaps there is context to the post I am unaware of?)

Lenny Lovett

RopeDrink wrote: »

Yes Moderators can also make mistakes - Yes, we are human too thus I'm sure some may have acted out of frustration or other emotions but hey, considering they help this site in their spare time for nothing but immaterial gain (if at all

Or perhaps power? A form of, to use the crude analogy, penis extension perhaps?

RopeDrink wrote: »

The cold hard fact is that 75% of people who are unhappy with a decision do not follow any procedure in place to alter that conclusion - Heck half of them could be cured if people just PM'd the Mod in question and asked them about the situation themselves.

Have you ever actually tried this? I have and it doesn't work. Mods don't like thier authority being questioned in my experience. I keep all my PMs so have a few examples to back this up. Some mods can be extremely rude even bordering on abusive in their responses.

RopeDrink wrote: »

A lot of the so called 'less than helpful' replies given are purely because this thread-type crops up so damn often and at the whim of some disgruntled poster looking to vent but exiting the thread the split-second people pull them on it, much like the OP has.

It's all well and good waving a negative paint-brush but if you're going to criticise then at least see it through for the benefit of those you are aiming it at as well as yourself so you can learn from it all or get piece of mind or understanding - This is Feedback afterall, everyone is more than willing to assist or discuss.

Most people don't do this, or even want it - Some people hit a brick wall on one forum or at the hands of one or two Moderators (Justly or not) then go on a Moderator bash or slate the system in place that could fix it purely because it doesn't do what they want in as timely a fashion as they want.

It gets wearing after a while. And repeated hitting your head against a brick wall hurts!!!

RopeDrink wrote: »

Thats not me saying it's perfect, but it is there - I am part of many other forums where decisions are absolute and to even ask, or even think, of wanting it otherwise will result in nothing more than an F U and/or a ban for your effort.

Happens here too!

RopeDrink wrote: »

The OP has vented at a certain title and left the thread to it's own devices when pointed out.

Sad part is most people who responded just asked about the issue or tried to give some explanations.

Most likely he got fed up by the aggressive defensive nature of the first few responses. I did when I started reading the thread.

Look, in my experience most of the mods here are fine. A couple are obviously on power trips ably supported by other mods and in some cases by Cmods. That's for their own consciences. They should consider their actions and opinions a bit more before actioning them. And maybe realise that a person may have a right to question their decisions and also the poster (also a customer!!) may sometimes be right!

muffler

Barname wrote: »

Are your serious or is this very dry humour?

I am not being facetious, I would like to know.

(perhaps there is context to the post I am unaware of?)

At the same time he posted this thread he started another in the construction and planning forum above all places which I moved to here

Lenny Lovett

Furthermore, in my experience, Moderators do not always abide by their own rules. For example, I received a ban (that was subsequently retracted with an apology) but was given no prior warning. And again yesterday was banned, again with no prior warning, for a very trivial matter for which others who breached more serious rules received a yellow card. There's no consistency there. And the to be told it could take up to a couple of weeks to get a review of the ban? It certainly sounds like a civil service run organisation with turnaround times like that.

Anyway, on the issue of Moderators being voluntary. I don't understand why the have to be. The site is a commercial enterprise generating substantial income from advertising sales to major blue chip organisations. Hence if people are willing to volunteer to work for such an organisation it suggests they are on a power trip. No?

oscarBravo

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

So you sound like you agree it's over moderated but that's ok because there's no sign of a fall off in users?

No, I don't believe it's over-moderated. I believe the moderation is, by and large, excellent. We have a system of checks and balances to try to keep the moderation to a reasonable level.

My point is that people keep claiming the site is over-moderated, and always claim that the level of moderation will be the death of the site. I'm pointing out that the growth of the site gives the lie to that claim, demonstrating clearly that more people are happy with the level of moderation than are unhappy.

looksee

Anyway, on the issue of Moderators being voluntary. I don't understand why the have to be. The site is a commercial enterprise generating substantial income from advertising sales to major blue chip organisations. Hence if people are willing to volunteer to work for such an organisation it suggests they are on a power trip. No?

No.

Lenny Lovett

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, I don't believe it's over-moderated. I believe the moderation is, by and large, excellent. We have a system of checks and balances to try to keep the moderation to a reasonable level.

My point is that people keep claiming the site is over-moderated, and always claim that the level of moderation will be the death of the site. I'm pointing out that the growth of the site gives the lie to that claim, demonstrating clearly that more people are happy with the level of moderation than are unhappy.

But is there evidence that the numbers are building from existing users or is it, as I offered, that there is a high churn rate and many are leaving the fora disillusioned and more are joining albeit marginally more joining than leaving? If this is the case then the growth can only continue for a short period and then, like economic growth, it reverts to freefall. I believe that the contributors to these, and indeed any fora, are customers just like any business as, without a high level of posters the advertisers would not purchase space. However the Moderators do not recognise this fact and can tend to treat the 'customers' with disdain - something to be tolerated rather than nurtured?

tbh

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Furthermore, in my experience, Moderators do not always abide by their own rules. For example, I received a ban (that was subsequently retracted with an apology) but was given no prior warning

That's not strictly true. I banned a user on the radio forum. You then sent me a message, demanding to know why i had banned this user, calling my actions shameful and accusing me of stifling debate. Later, on thread, you commented on the ban again, and said that "the truth hurts some people". I took that then, and still do, as another dig at the ban. I asked you to explain your remark. You sent me a pm, which I am happy to publish, in which you denied any reference to my moderation and did not explain the remark. Unwilling to spend my time in a pathetic game of verbal ping pong, I banned you. I then decided that was unfair, lifted the ban and stepped down as radio mod. Not exactly the actions of a power tripper I would suggest. Since then you have been banned by the other radio mod, something I had no knowledge about, or influence in. You sent me a message accusing me of getting you banned, accsing me of having a vested interest on rte and of stifling debate. In short, in your one month in the radio forum, you made the moderation job so unpleasant that I turned my back on four happy years doin the job, rather than have to deal with you any further. I see you've decided to set up camp on feedback now, in
Much the same style as you posted in radio. It'll be interesting to see how you fare.

oscarBravo

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

But is there evidence that the numbers are building from existing users or is it, as I offered, that there is a high churn rate and many are leaving the fora disillusioned and more are joining albeit marginally more joining than leaving? If this is the case then the growth can only continue for a short period and then, like economic growth, it reverts to freefall.

We're not talking about marginal growth. It may be hard to believe, but most people are happy with the site. A tiny percentage of people are unhappy with the moderation - mostly people who have been on the receiving end of it. A small percentage have positive views about moderation, and the majority barely know it happens; they just know that the site runs well, isn't over-run by trolls, and is a friendly and helpful place to hang out.

I believe that the contributors to these, and indeed any fora, are customers just like any business as, without a high level of posters the advertisers would not purchase space.

Absolutely. Where we differ is in the belief that the "customers" are being treated badly.

However the Moderators do not recognise this fact and can tend to treat the 'customers' with disdain - something to be tolerated rather than nurtured?

Of course not. But we're not going to completely re-think how the entire site is run on the basis that a tiny, tiny handful of posters are expressing views about all the moderators being on power trips.

If there are specific issues, we'll deal with them individually. If you think the entire structure of moderation on the site needs to be overhauled, you'll need to make a much more compelling case than you have.

Lenny Lovett

In fairness TBH, you have goaded me into responding thus so I would respectfully ask the Moderators to refrain from banning me for putting my side of the debate across.

tbh wrote: »

That's not strictly true. I banned a user on the radio forum. You then sent me a message, demanding to know why i had banned this user,

"demanding"? Really? I did not "demand" anything. So Yes. Feel free to quote exactly the piece where I "demanded" to know why.

tbh wrote: »

calling my actions shameful and accusing me of stifling debate.

Did you actually read that PM properly? Again feel free to show where I "accused" you. Questioned maybe but "accused" I think not. However, feel free to prove me wrong Sir.

tbh wrote: »

Later, on thread, you commented on the ban again, and said that "the truth hurts some people". I took that then, and still do, as another dig at the ban. I asked you to explain your remark. You sent me a pm, which I am happy to publish, in which you denied any reference to my moderation and did not explain the remark.

The important bit is "I took that then, and still do, as another dig at the ban"
You are mis-interpreting what I said. If you choose to do so, surely that cannot be my problem.

tbh wrote: »

Unwilling to spend my time in a pathetic game of verbal ping pong, I banned you. I then decided that was unfair,

Why did you think it was unfair? From what you've posted here it doesn't appear that you thought it was unfair. Seems a big change of heart and very suddenly. Perhaps you just realised you were wrong? It's ok to be wrong and to admit to it. You are busy digging up the PMs that we traded so feel free to post up them all if you wish particularly the ones wher you chose to lift the ban and the one in which I replied to same.

tbh wrote: »

lifted the ban and stepped down as radio mod. Not exactly the actions of a power tripper I would suggest.

No. In light of yor posting here you're very sore over the whole episode so it's more like the actions of someone who made a wrong decision and was told to fix it!

tbh wrote: »

Since then you have been banned by the other radio mod, something I had no knowledge about, or influence in. You sent me a message accusing me of getting you banned, accsing me of having a vested interest on rte and of stifling debate.

And all of that is incorrect on my part is it???

tbh wrote: »

In short, in your one month in the radio forum, you made the moderation job so unpleasant that I turned my back on four happy years doin the job, rather than have to deal with you any further.

Oh Please!! Don't be such a drama Queen. If there was a grain of truth in that you would never have lifted the ban. More like you'd have banned me for life from the entire forum. Grow up man!

tbh wrote: »

I see you've decided to set up camp on feedback now, in
Much the same style as you posted in radio. It'll be interesting to see how you fare.

I felt I had to vent my frustration somewhere as I felt and still do that my
concerns were not being addresses when going through the other channels. You have a problem with me posting here too? Pfft!

Lenny Lovett

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're not talking about marginal growth. It may be hard to believe, but most people are happy with the site. A tiny percentage of people are unhappy with the moderation - mostly people who have been on the receiving end of it. A small percentage have positive views about moderation, and the majority barely know it happens; they just know that the site runs well, isn't over-run by trolls, and is a friendly and helpful place to hang out.

Is there factual evidence of all of the above, for example, survey results etc or is merely opinion? If so where can the evidence be seen. I would be interested.

Please don't misconstrue what I'm debating here as sh1t stirring or trolling etc. I very much enjoy posting on these type of fora but find invariably the moderation is OTT to be honest. And I feel that it does kill off the debate. Taking the radio forum, for example, there is just one moderator on that and it does have quite a high turnover of postings. So one moderator gets to decide whether everyone is right or wrong in a split second decision and if you disagree then tough! You get banned. Hardly democratic?

RolandIRL

No one said boards is democratic. it's a business. we post our opinions/facts on their website. they (not we) could get into legal trouble based on what someone has posted here. i think the moderation here is top notch. i'm a member of a few other forums where it's basically a free-for-all. insults/abuse etc is common along with people advertising etc and it gets sickening very quick.

^in reference to the one mod thing, you talk to him/her via PM, and if you're still unhappy with the decision, you talk to the CMod. still unhappy? go to the Help Desk, and an Admin will get involved. no banning unless you were abusive in any of the above procedure.
only Admins can site-ban you. Moderators can only ban you from their forum.

boards has a nice environment in which anyone who has something worthwhile to say can say it and isn't drowned out by trolls/spammers. you get to know the people you post with. i know i've made some friends from boards.
the moderators are doing all of this for free, and because they're interested in the fora they moderate.

tbh

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

No. In light of yor posting here you're very sore over the whole episode so it's more like the actions of someone who made a wrong decision and was told to fix it!

Again, not true. I had communicated with the catmods, explained my reasons for banning you and had received assurances from both of them that, upon inital review, they were ok with actions I took and trusted mento do what I felt was best for the forum. No-one asked me to review the ban, no-one told me to unban you and I was not asked to step down. That is 100% the truth

And all of that is incorrect on my part is it???

yes, all of that is incorrect. I would never put another mod in the awkward position of asking him to ban someone for me. Even if I thought he would. I never reported a single post on the liveline thread. The day you got banned, I was driving to Donegal. The first I knew about your ban was the message I got from you accusing me of getting you banned. I have nit now, nor ever have had, any interest, vested or otherwise in RTE. I banne you because of several unpleasant interactions I had with you. I decided that that way unfair and I stepped down so I wouldnt have to have any more interactions with you. I have since seen the rubbish you have written about me here, In pms to me and in the reported posts forum, and I've had enough now

The people on boards know me, and the posters in the radio forum know me. They can read my side of things and your side of things an make their own mind up.

You have a problem with me posting here too? Pfft!

I actually don't have a problem with you posting on here. I made a judgement on the type of poster you are, and subsequently doubted that judgement. Every post you make reassures me that I should trust my instincts more in future. You post away. But I'll not be replying any further.

Lenny Lovett

tbh wrote: »

Again, not true. I had communicated with the catmods, explained my reasons for banning you and had received assurances from both of them that, upon inital review, they were ok with actions I took and trusted mento do what I felt was best for the forum. No-one asked me to review the ban, no-one told me to unban you and I was not asked to step down. That is 100% the truth

Hmm.

tbh wrote: »

And all of that is incorrect on my part is it???

[/I]
yes, all of that is incorrect. I would never put another mod in the awkward position of asking him to ban someone for me. Even if I thought he would. I never reported a single post on the liveline thread. The day you got banned, I was driving to Donegal. [/QUOTE]


Really? well you posted on that thread at 11.36am, 12.54am and 1.11pm. Able to post and drive at the same time. No end to your talents;)
See from post 6336:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055522789&page=423

tbh wrote: »

The first I knew about your ban was the message I got from you accusing me of getting you banned. I have nit now, nor ever have had, any interest, vested or otherwise in RTE. I banne you because of several unpleasant interactions I had with you. I decided that that way unfair and I stepped down so I wouldnt have to have any more interactions with you. I have since seen the rubbish you have written about me here, In pms to me and in the reported posts forum, and I've had enough now

The people on boards know me, and the posters in the radio forum know me. They can read my side of things and your side of things an make their own mind up.

Again, you made incorrect allegations in the previous post accusing me of making "demands" on you and "accusing" you. You say you would have been happy to post these PMs containing the accusations. It is most unfair that you make these untrue allegations and do not back them up with the evidence. Again and again you attempt to discredit me!