Moderators

Insect Overlord

Jazzy wrote: »

but then I cant form an opinion on them can I ? ya'll seem very blasse about someone reading the site, it seems you have to like the content to read it. Why can't I read it and not like it?

If you know you're not going to like it, but you read it anyway, why do you think people here should sympathise when you later complain about it?

coletti

oscarBravo wrote: »

It is, and that is policy on the site. That is part of the role of a moderator, yes. No, because you're mis-characterising the role.

A moderator will make a decision as to whether there's anything to be gained from an old thread being dragged back up, which inevitably leads to old arguments being re-hashed. If something genuinely new and interesting is added, it may be worth while. That's a judgement call, and it's one that we entrust to the moderators.

In the example given, the moderator does a little more than making a decision as to whether or not there is anything to be gained from an old thread being added to ( or dragged up as you call it).

In the particular example, the moderator continues to warn the poster that, in the view of the moderator, the subject matter is not sufficiently interesting to him personally, and appears to tell the poster that, if he attempts to open a new thread to discuss it, then the moderator will not allow him to do that either.

To take the first part, that the poster was adding to an "old" thread, I don't see what is wrong with that if its relevant. The moderator isn't required to give a reason why he closed the thread due to the new post, so unless he volunteers his reasons, then we'll never know.

For me, that there is a general rule that old (the definition of old is uncertain) threads should not be added to, comes over as arbitary and without reason. If, for example, an old thread about a particular book lies idel for a year, and then some new information come out about it, why should it not be added to the existing thread?

How can a moderator decide whether or not anything might be gained in the particular example given? On what evidence has he based his decision? How can he know what might or might not be gained without guessing? How Why does it matter if anything is gained or not? Lots of threads don't gain anything, so why does this rule only apply to adding to existing threads, and not new threads?

If old arguments being rehashed is to be the gold standard, then does that mean you will welcome your attention being drawn to any thread where an argument is being made which has been made before, and then you can act swiftly to close the thread immediately?

What you apepear to be saying is that, even if others find a subject interesting, if a moderator doesn't find a subject personally interesting then its the policy of boards.ie to allow the moderator to close the thread?

Are you really saying that?

Wibbs

coletti wrote: »

What you apepear to be saying is that, even if others find a subject interesting, if a moderator doesn't find a subject personally interesting then its the policy of boards.ie to allow the moderator to close the thread?

Are you really saying that?

TBH I'm suspecting you're hoping someone will say that. The straight answer to your obviously loaded question is no, its not "policy". Can it happen? Sure we're human not machines, but in my experience it's rare. Well Ive not seen it too often anyway.

Zombie threads? Well the example you gave is a good one. Potentially fractious subject, well chewed. It dies off as these things will. New post comes along dragging it all up again. That equals more of the same. New thread on the same subject? Well you can see it going the same way with the same two or three posters going at it like dogs at a bone and nothing being usefully gained. A standard "Dey toook ur jerbs/they get free prams you know" type thread.

Every forum gets their version of the contentious, never gonna be settled, usually ends up in bans, more hassle than its worth for users and mods threads. Motors might be "all Alfas are unreliable crap boxes". Feedback might be "there's a mod conspiracy". After hours might be "Travellers eh? or "Jayzuz Irish women are bet down" of "Celeb X is useless". The Ladies Lounge/Gentlemans Club might be "Gender war". Humanities might be "abortion, right or wrong"(major minefield that one). Now the thread subjects themselves may actually be well worth a punt as a debate(save for the Irish women one), the problem is all too often we're back to two or three posters fighting their own corner with the same old points with no resolution possible. Usually getting wound up in the process. Oft time otherwise good contributors too. I know Ive had to drop PM's to good people to dial it back, or had to issue on thread warnings to people I really didnt want to if that failed. I doubt I'm alone in that one.

Mods are slightly different than most users in this regard. We have to moderate that stuff and because of the day to day role, we get to see patterns and have a fair idea what's coming. Does this mean sometimes good stuff may well get lost in the mix? Does this mean that sometimes it looks like a Mod lockdown/over reaction? Yep but rather than point fingers at moderation of the signal to noise ratio, maybe point fingers at the noise.

oscarBravo

coletti wrote: »

What you apepear to be saying is that, even if others find a subject interesting, if a moderator doesn't find a subject personally interesting then its the policy of boards.ie to allow the moderator to close the thread?

Are you really saying that?

OK, rather than continue this interrogatory process - since this is the Feedback forum - why don't you outline precisely what policy you would put in place to cover such situations?

Lenny Lovett

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, rather than continue this interrogatory process - since this is the Feedback forum - why don't you outline precisely what policy you would put in place to cover such situations?

I mod on another forum and our policy is that, unless a thread is defamatory or otherwise damaging let it run. If there is no interest in it then it will automatically sink by itself. If there is further interest in it it will continue and being that there is interest in it there's no reason to lock it. Simple and sensible. The policy is that it's not for us to decide what the posters are interested in and we are there merely to facilitate fair free speech and certainly not stifle open debate and discussion.

oscarBravo

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I mod on another forum and our policy is that, unless a thread is defamatory or otherwise damaging let it run. If there is no interest in it then it will automatically sink by itself. If there is further interest in it it will continue and being that there is interest in it there's no reason to lock it. Simple and sensible. The policy is that it's not for us to decide what the posters are interested in and we are there merely to facilitate fair free speech and certainly not stifle open debate and discussion.

Clearly you feel that policy best serves the purposes of your site - fair enough. Similarly, we feel that the policy of allowing moderators to gently steer discussion works best for this site, and - at the risk of becoming repetitive - the growth figures suggest that it's a policy that is working well.

I accept that there are a small number of posters who would like the site to be moderated less actively, but unless you can actually demonstrate that the policies we have in place are harming the site in a tangible way, I don't see us quitting on a winning formula.

That's not to say that we can't do things better. We take feedback on board, and the site evolves constantly. But we're not going to stop doing what we're doing unless there's a good reason for it.

Aidric

oscarBravo wrote: »

- at the risk of becoming repetitive - the growth figures suggest that it's a policy that is working well.

Could you quantify and tease out a little what you mean by growth? Are you strictly taking about new sign ups? Surely a few thousand new members who don't actually contribute by posting doesn't actually constitute growth in the truest sense of the word?
Further, how many of these new sign ups become subscribers (ballpark %)?

Overheal

Aidric wrote: »

Could you quantify and tease out a little what you mean by growth? Are you strictly taking about new sign ups?

No, while there are 300,000 signups, it's not the only metric:

DeVore wrote: »

Boards.ie services about 2 Million unique, distinct people in a 90 period.

Biki wrote:

As of May 2005, boards.ie had over 38,000 members and 2.6 million posts. The site ran vBulletin 3.5.
As of August 2006, boards.ie had over 74,000 members and 5.0 million posts. The site now runs vBulletin 3.5.3.

And I remember hearing an interesting statistic recently that including Deleted posts, over 20 million have been now written to the site so far. There were more posts just in this past July than in the first four years of the site. Boards.ie is now the 66th largest Message Board site on the Internet. http://www.big-boards.com/highlight/108/

It's also bigger than Bebo: http://gizmodo.com/5620681/all-300000-biggest-websites-visualized-with-their-icons

Search-Version Here: http://nmap.org/favicon/




edit: even though its not the largest publicly viewable category, I assume the Hosted section constitutes the vast majority of the site's thousand+ forums?

coletti

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, rather than continue this interrogatory process - since this is the Feedback forum - why don't you outline precisely what policy you would put in place to cover such situations?

Clearly, a moderator guessing what others might not, be interested in, is not beneficial.

If the topic is interesting to others, why should a moderator decide that it should be banned for discussion simply because the moderator guesses it might not be interesting to him?

SkepticOne

Moderators are necessary and for the most part they do a good job but I think there's also the network effect at work driving numbers. If you are searching for a discussion on some issue, in particular one relating to Ireland, then it is more than likely to be boards.ie that has it. So that is where you will sign up.

P. Breathnach

coletti wrote: »

Clearly, a moderator guessing what others might not, be interested in, is not beneficial.

If the topic is interesting to others, why should a moderator decide that it should be banned for discussion simply because the moderator guesses it might not be interesting to him?

Have you read and considered the post that got this treatment? The figures given make no sense, and thus prove or indicate nothing, yet the poster tries to create a case on that nonsense basis. The only place such a thread would go is a rigorous examination of the foundations of the argument while some people who favour a more simplistic approach throw in some xenophobic comments while people of my disposition counter them. There is no shortage of such threads in the politics forums, an no obvious need for another.

Sometimes reviving an old thread as a place to start a fresh or renewed discussion reveals the poster's intent. The main, perhaps the only, thing this new post has in common with the old thread is that it involves shit-stirring with a focus on immigration.

Lenny Lovett

Insect Overlord wrote: »

If you know you're not going to like it, but you read it anyway, why do you think people here should sympathise when you later complain about it?

"If you know you're not going to like it"?? WTF is that all about? How will someone know if they're going to like it prior to reading it? Psychic?:rolleyes:

Otis Driftwood

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

"If you know you're not going to like it"?? WTF is that all about? How will someone know if they're going to like it prior to reading it? Psychic?:rolleyes:

Id imagine what Insect Overlord ment is that the previous poster (Jazzy) said he didnt find some sections enjoyable,ie the overall forum,not just a specific thread.If there are forums you dont like or where you think the moderation isnt great then why would you read them if its going to rankle you?

For example,I personally hate reality TV and all it encompasses so it would be kind of dumb of me to read threads/forums relating to big brother or the x factor as it would likely annoy the hell out of me.

Its not rocket science in fairness.

coletti

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Have you read and considered the post that got this treatment? .

Hard cases, it is said, make bad law.

Is it possible to consider whether, or not, it is generally acceptable that if a topic is interesting to others, should a moderator be allowed to prevent discussion of it and decide that it should be banned for discussion, simply because the moderator guesses it might not be interesting to him?

RolandIRL

in all the forums i browse, i don't think there's any mod who closes threads that aren't interesting to him/her unless it's going to cause problems like flame wars or unless it's not relevant to that forum (though they usually move it then)

P. Breathnach

coletti wrote: »

Hard cases, it is said, make bad law.

What's that got to do with it?

Is it possible to consider whether, or not, it is generally acceptable that if a topic is interesting to others, should a moderator be allowed to prevent discussion of it and decide that it should be banned for discussion, simply because the moderator guesses it might not be interesting to him?

No, it's not the function of a moderator to ban topics because he is not interested in them.

But that's not what happened in the case you cite, and no matter how often you claim that it is, it is still not true.

tbh

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I mod on another forum and our policy is that, unless a thread is defamatory or otherwise damaging let it .

Which forum would that be, Lenny? It'd be interesting to compare styles.

demonspawn

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Have you seen the European Union subsection recently? Case in point really. Soon the whole politics section will be a wasteland of right-wing fundamentalism.

Edit: My room mate used to post on the politics section quite frequently, but soon left out of pure frustration. He laughs at me when he sees me posting here. He's a bit of an arse, so I didn't take much heed but he's proving to be quite correct, unfortunately. I really enjoy posting here but there is definitely a sense of favoritism and over-zealous moderators.

P. Breathnach

demonspawn wrote: »

Have you seen the European Union subsection recently? Case in point really. Soon the whole politics section will be a wasteland of right-wing fundamentalism....

Are you suggesting that the politics mods are unduly sympathetic to right-wing fundamentalists? I have noticed mods, in their capacity as posters, disagree with them.

But disagreeing with somebody is not a reason to ban them.

It looks to me as if the libertarian posters, people with whom I strongly disagree, generally adhere to the posting rules and thus avoid infractions or bans.

P. Breathnach

It is important to distinguish between a moderator being a participant in a forum and moderating that forum. As a participant, a moderator is not required to be neutral; the expectation is that moderating decisions be impartial.

In the politics forums, people sometimes go beyond the limits in abusing other posters, and the moderators have to deal with personal attacks and ad hominem arguments. I have the impression that when a moderator is attacked, there is more leniency, presumably because moderators anticipate that they might be accused of abusing their powers in dealing with such attacks.

tbh

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

just a note - whenever I've seen scofflaw post as a mod, he signs off "moderately" - when posting as a user, it's "cordially".

Sparks

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

"If you know you're not going to like it"?? WTF is that all about? How will someone know if they're going to like it prior to reading it? Psychic?:rolleyes:

To give an example we see once or twice a week, people regularly read threads from the hunting forum and then express complete shock and disgust that the hunters in the hunting forum actually kill the animals they hunt. Worse yet, they then eat them.

Me, I think if you notice a thread called "Hunting Photos thread" from the Hunting forum on the front page, then you pretty much know what you're getting into when you click on it to read through it; but that's just me, it seems.

coletti

I don't often take part in the political threads on boards.ie, mainly because scofflaw seems to be there 24/7 and gives the appearance that he runs the political forum for his own benefit. While its hard to be a moderator and a contributing member, I find the almost certainty that scofflaw will intervene in virtually every thread and almost reply to every post off putting, especially as he appears to do so with an air of superiority and a feeling that his views are the only ones which are the truth!

It doesn't make for a very good discussion ,usually.

Scofflaw

coletti wrote: »

I don't often take part in the political threads on boards.ie, mainly because scofflaw seems to be there 24/7 and gives the appearance that he runs the political forum for his own benefit. While its hard to be a moderator and a contributing member, I find the almost certainty that scofflaw will intervene in virtually every thread and almost reply to every post off putting, especially as he appears to do so with an air of superiority and a feeling that his views are the only ones which are the truth!

It doesn't make for a very good discussion ,usually.

Of the 21 threads currently on the front page, I've posted in only half, most of them with purely moderation posts. I'm involved in only 5 of them - and that's after having been fairly engaged recently. Of the 20 most recent in the Economics forum, I've posted on only 4, one of them, again, purely as a moderator. I'm even less active in posting in Political Theory, and not at all in US Politics.

"virtually every thread and almost reply to every post "? Right.

regards,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

coletti wrote: »

I don't often take part in the political threads on boards.ie, mainly because scofflaw seems to be there 24/7 and gives the appearance that he runs the political forum for his own benefit.

I have to say I find this sort of passive-aggressive attack particularly distasteful. "Gives the appearance"? What's that even supposed to mean?

He's not there 24/7 and he doesn't run the forum for his own benefit - the other Politics moderators would have a thing or two to say about it if he did. So less of the "seems" and "gives the appearance" crap - if you've something to say, say it, and if you've nothing to contribute but innuendo, don't bother.

While its hard to be a moderator and a contributing member, I find the almost certainty that scofflaw will intervene in virtually every thread and almost reply to every post off putting, especially as he appears to do so with an air of superiority and a feeling that his views are the only ones which are the truth!

It doesn't make for a very good discussion ,usually.

Feedback forum, not vague bitchy accusations forum. What do you propose - that we prevent moderators from actively contributing to forums they moderate? Because that's not going to happen.

demonspawn

I'd like to give examples by using quotes from certain posters on the politics forum but I'm banned for a week, an unfair ban might I add.

One poster that has continuously heaped abuse on posters in FlutteringBantam. He even followed a politics poster to AH with the intent of trolling and causing trouble. Needless to say, I took that opportunity to tell FB what I thought of him and caught a 1 day ban. Fair enough.

I have yet to see FB cop a single yellow card for his overly aggressive and insulting/abusive posting style. Maybe when my name is all italicized and shiny I can get away with as much as FB does on a daily basis. He has attacked me personally, I have reported him for it, and have then been told by a mod that he was not attacking me personally. I'll go log off and find the post and let you decide.

I think it's a very clear conflict of interest to have a moderator such as Scoff with very deep-rooted political beliefs directing the politics forums. Do mods get to choose what forum they're in charge of? If so, perhaps that needs to be looked at. I'd rather have a mod that doesn't give a damn about politics moderating that section of the forums. Also, I think mods should really only deal with posts that are reported by other users.

tbh

demonspawn wrote:

I have yet to see FB cop a single yellow card for his overly aggressive and insulting/abusive posting style. Maybe when my name is all italicized and shiny I can get away with as much as FB does on a daily basis. He has attacked me personally, I have reported him for it, and have then been told by a mod that he was not attacking me personally. I'll go log off and find the post and let you decide.

fb, legend that he is, has seven pages of infractions. The latest of which was issued two days ago. Guess who issued it? You'll kick yourself! Bantams last ban- guess which forum? Guess which mod? I also hardly need to point out that fb is not a mod, and Donegalfella is.

demonspawn

tbh wrote: »

fb, legend that he is, has seven pages of infractions. The latest of which was issued two days ago. Guess who issued it? You'll kick yourself! Bantams last ban- guess which forum? Guess which mod? I also hardly need to point out that fb is not a mod, and Donegalfella is.

I'm only going on my own personal experiences and the replies I've received from FB. The last card he got was probably me telling the AH mod that he was only there to troll as start fights, which he was. The AH mods seem to be much more diplomatic in their approach. I just caught a week long ban for losing the head on a particular thread, but my posts were not deleted as they would have been on politics forums.

FB has attacked me personally and nothing was done when I reported it. I was basically told I was imagining things.

Some people are not taken by a group of activists who have nothing better to do than waste taxpayer's money.

My advice to these people wold be:

Listen pal, get a job and when you are a taxpayer and contributer to the state, rather than someone who is dependent, maybe I might , I say again, might, listen to you.

This post has been changed since I made a complaint, no edit notice on the post whatsoever. My quote of this post has also been altered. I'm a bit shocked actually, I went back to quote this to prove my point and it's been altered.

The line "My advise to these people would be:" was not in the original post.

Overheal

demonspawn wrote: »

I'd like to give examples by using quotes from certain posters on the politics forum but I'm banned.

Politics is perfectly viewable without a login. Just copy the highlighted text you wish to quote and put it in

tags. You can also do

Username wrote: »

ie.

Demonspawn wrote: »

you can also use the permalinks on each post: On this post there is a permalink in the Top-Right corner where it says #126.

This post has been changed since I made a complaint, no edit notice on the post whatsoever. My quote of this post has also been altered.

If a user publishes a post theres about a 30-60 second grace period to fix typos and regrettable language. Edits after this show up on the log. If there is an edit log on your post which you say has been edited, ask an Admin or CMod to inspect the changelog to see who edited your post and why. You can Always inspect changelogs on your own posts, provided you have access to the forum.

tbh

demonspawn wrote: »

I'm only going on my own personal experiences and the replies I've received from FB. The last card he got was probably me telling the AH mod that he was only there to troll as start fights, which he was. The AH mods seem to be much more diplomatic in their approach. I just caught a week long ban for losing the head on a particular thread, but my posts were not deleted as they would have been on politics forums.

FB has attacked me personally and nothing was done when I reported it. I was basically told I was imagining things.




This post has been changed since I made a complaint, no edit notice on the post whatsoever. My quote of this post has also been altered. I'm a bit shocked actually, I went back to quote this to prove my point and it's been altered.

The line "My advise to these people would be:" was not in the original post.

The facts are the facts tho dude. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything about you or anything, but all the stuff you're saying about preferential treatment simply isn't true, and the facts back that up. You say he doesn't get infracted - he does, the last time by scofflaw. That would seem to support scofflaws argument rather than yours. You say you'd be treated differently if your name was in italics, but bantams isn't and donegalfellas (another poster I've a lot of time for btw) is. That would seem to backup scofflaws argument rather than yours. You see where I'm coming from? By the way, the only way you can edit a post and not have an edit note appear is if you edit it almost immediately after you post it. That would suggest that bantam edited his post himself, rather than as the result of instruction. It seems line you've made an assumption about how boards works and are retroactively looking for 'facts' to back it up. However if you go the other way, and use the facts to come to a conclusion, your conclusion just doesn't add up.