Why is Boards.ie like the Ministry of Truth...

My name is URL

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Darragh just be honest and say it is about the advertising.

Reputation and advertising can go hand in hand, surely?

I get the impression (though could be completely off the mark) that it's more about Boards wanting to position itself as something more than an online community tbh. If celebrities and other media organisations have a dim view of what boards is about then it's harder for them to do so. Personally, I don't see why the site needs to be changed from what it is atm. I still don't like the amount of abuse which is present in many threads though.

TheZohanS

copacetic wrote: »

What is a disgrace is when someone takes time to explain in detail where they are coming from and all they get back is a concerted personal attack that appears to have nothing to do with the important topic being discussed.

If you see a personal attack may I suggest that you report it via the report button. And might I remind you that the thread is covering two topics, abuse and the disappearance of threads.

Darragh is talking about abuse on the site as if it's rife, it certainly is not. The mods crack down on it pretty much straight away, I was even infracted myself a few weeks ago for a remark that wasn't an insult but might have been deemed to be in the eyes of some posters. The mods erred on the side of caution.

There is no "poster on poster" abuse problem on the site and very little abuse by posters on non boards users and if there is a case of it occasionally it's cracked down on by the mods in a timely fashion.

Darragh

TheZohan wrote: »

A change that needs to happen? Says who?

Look at the Feed Forward forum, a lot of it is change for the sake of change bull crap.

The site is what it is and is growing, you don't need to meddle with this.

I can recall a thread being deleted by you Darragh because a competitor of the company mentioned was in negotiations re: advertising.

That's not to run the site, it's a bloody disgrace that the likes of this is going on behind the backs of users.

That is not the truth. I have never done that. I'd lose my job if I did. Do you honestly think the moderators, Admins, Dav and DeVore would allow me to do that? Have you any proof of that?

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Darragh just be honest and say it is about the advertising.

This isn't anything to do with advertising. To confine the conversation to that is not only short sighted, it's actually insulting AND shows me how little you understand the actual operation of a site like that.

Advertising is all well and good but if we dropped all rules, regulations and guidelines tomorrow, stopped all moderation and opened the floodgates (completely ignoring the legal side of things) and had not only abuse, but porn, torrents and all the other stuff we keep out of the forums, we'd still get advertising, albeit not of the quality that we aspire to. You won't see (m)any dodgy ads on this site simply because when we're told about them, we get rid of them and they're pretty much always on the Google network anyways.

My name is URL wrote: »

Reputation and advertising can go hand in hand, surely?

I get the impression (though could be completely off the mark) that it's more about Boards wanting to position itself as something more than an online community tbh. If celebrities and other media organisations have a dim view of what boards is about then it's harder for them to do so. Personally, I don't see why the site needs to be changed from what it is atm. I still don't like the amount of abuse which is present in many threads though.

Thank you. At least someone is seeing where I'm trying to head with that. However, going back to an earlier post in this thread that I made, Boards is not an online community

We're a platform for communities, certainly - we see that in many forums - but I'd be confident in saying that the community (as TheZohan would have you believe exists) is a tiny percentage of the overall userbase on Boards.ie - and I point to projects like /Vote or the feedback we get around new initiatives as evidence. Boards.ie is not a community website - it's a website for communities. We certainly don't think of it in the office as a "community" website, but hey, it's a big website - happy to be open to correction on it.

See, from where I'm sitting, with far more access to the statistics and knowing how many threads we get on site a week (approximately 7,000), how many posts we get a day (approximately 20,000) and how many users log in a week (29,500+ last week) coupled with the traffic the site gets (over 4.6 million uniques since January 1), what I'm seeing is most people don't care. They don't know or want to know. They come to read the topics they're interested in, participate in the forums they want to and post about what they want rather than think "Oh, I'm part of a community here". To say Boards.ie is a "community" is like saying there's a mobile phone community in Ireland - that anyone with a mobile is part of a community. They're not - people just use the site.

Furthermore

If celebrities and other media organisations have a dim view of what boards is about then it's harder for them to do so.

It doesn't bother me if "celebrities" and "media organisations" and even potential advertisers have a dim view of Boards.ie - it bothers me that ANYONE does. Anyone who hears about us in a negative sense, we lose out on.

This isn't about advertising - I don't earn anything more if we have more advertisers. We have a company who handles our sales. If the shareholders want the site to earn more money, then that's their job. Not mine.

This *is* about me having an impact on and a say in developing what could be Ireland's best website. It's a matter of professional pride in the time and effort I invest into this website for its members and readers. That's what this is about more-so for me - as I'd say it is for many of the moderators and admins who donate their time to the site.

And yes, I get paid to work on the site, but not all hours, not on weekends and not like this. I could have just ignored this. I didn't. I believe the site deserves more than that.

My name is URL wrote: »

Personally, I don't see why the site needs to be changed from what it is atm.

There's no big changes planned. No big "plan" behind all this. We'll still host forums. We'll still host discussions - just ones that have a lot more actual discussion and less of calling people a c*nt. Which I still don't see a need for.

Darragh

TheZohan wrote: »

If you see a personal attack may I suggest that you report it via the report button.

Just so you know, I've reported that comment. I'm telling you this because I want to be as honest about it as I am about everything else.

TheZohanS

Darragh wrote: »

Just so you know, I've reported that comment. I'm telling you this because I want to be as honest about it as I am about everything else.

Can you pm me, thanks.

Darragh

TheZohan wrote: »

Can you pm me, thanks.

No. You want to have an open discussion, let's have one. I have nothing to hide, but you've just accused me in writing of doing something that affects this site and its users and that is something we need to deal with.

parsi

Darragh wrote: »

And so it continues.

Okay, so what is abuse? Well, I don't think that it's necessary to call someone - anyone - a c*nt. I don't think it's necessary to refer to someone, as in Snyper's examples earlier, saying "so and so is a bignose cnut" or "so and so is a wanker" when you're discussing them or work they did. I suppose in some ways it depends on the forum culture and the tone of the thread, but overall I don't think it adds anything to the conversation, or is necessary and/or more to the point, is something that someone would say to the person face to face.

It's like commenting on the post, not the poster as per our site guidelines.

Legal is a concern, yes, but not solely the primary one. Reputation is as big as abuse. Once again it comes down to what people want the site to be known for, what people want their membership to reflect and what people think of Boards.ie when they hear it. "That site where everyone just abuses everyone" is not particularly the reputation I want, but is, unfortunately, one of the reputations we have.

I realise this is a big change for the site in some respects, but it's one that needs to happen. That's why we're having this debate in public. I realise too I can be shown a few thousand examples of where abuse has gone unchecked but that really does have to stop.

Is there any case someone can make where we SHOULD allow abuse?

It seems that abuse is allowed as long as its about a group/organisation that is highly unlikely to want to interact in a financial sense with Boards:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71145145&postcount=211

TheZohanS

Darragh wrote: »

No. You want to have an open discussion, let's have one. I have nothing to hide, but you've just accused me in writing of doing something that affects this site and its users and that is something we need to deal with.

I think it would be best if we have the discussion off thread first and then post the results. It's not hiding anything it's just good housekeeping, you'll understand when you pm me. You currently have your profile set to no Pm's.

Darragh

TheZohan wrote: »

I think it would be best if we have the discussion off thread first and then post the results. It's not hiding anything it's just good housekeeping, you'll understand when you pm me. You currently have your profile set to no Pm's.

Post it on the thread. I don't see a need to discuss anything privately. You made the accusation publicly. You said

it's a bloody disgrace that the likes of this is going on behind the backs of users.

And now you want to have a PM discussion that will look to anyone reading it as the same thing. I don't want that for the site. So, if you have proof of your accusation, make it. I've also opened this to all admins and moderators to point this out if I've done so.

Wolfe Tone

The reason why I said that Darragh is that you doubted the reaction to the interview would lead to any more celebs doing interviews. Strangely that reaction was deleted and you cite legal reasons. In the last few minutes I have reported two posts both of which clearly insult the owner of a pub. If we are going to be consistent surely these must be deleted too to remove the possibility of boards being sued for defamation(you claimed boards was at a risk of this, I disagree with regards to insults) as a result of insults.

You go on about the sites reputation, and not wanting it to be one of people getting slagged. It is my opinion that this boils down to money, nothing to do with users. Its my opinion that the thread was deleted in a foolish attempt to censor the reaction and not scare off potential interviews with more celebs. And fair enough. I just dont like to be misled. I dont think that the thread was deleted for legal reasons whatsoever.

TheZohanS

I'm 90% certain it was a thread deleted by you with a footnote re advertising, if it wasn't you then it was Drav and I apologise unreservedly.

Is it yourself or Drav that deals with advertising?

Darragh

It's me primarily. I'm still waiting for the proof. Are you now also accusing Dav of possibly doing the same thing?

TheZohanS

Darragh wrote: »

It's me primarily. I'm still waiting for the proof. Are you now also accusing Dav of possibly doing the same thing?

I have no proof unless you give me access to the Reported Posts Forum, it wouldn't take me any longer than five minutes to find it.

If you search yourself or have someone else search you will find it. Bearing in mind the thread is from over a year ago.

AckwelFoley

Darragh wrote: »

going back to an earlier post in this thread that I made, Boards is not an online community


.

..and there is the issue

It really imo has little to do with Dave mac and more to do with some members fear of losing what they love.

Members do feel part of a communitty here, im a proud boardsie, and while i couldnt care less if some halfwit calls boardsies fcukwits, others do care - and some members fear the idea of the community changing to something other than what they have come to love.

Darragh, i feel you might be taken the criticism here too personal, and also i think some parties are too vehemently against any commercialisation of the site

But the one thing i strongly disagree with is saying boards.ie is not an online community -if its not a community, its just another website.

Darragh

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The reason why I said that Darragh is that you doubted the reaction to the interview would lead to any more celebs doing interviews. Strangely that reaction was deleted and you cite legal reasons. In the last few minutes I have reported two posts both of which clearly insult the owner of a pub. If we are going to be consistent surely these must be deleted too to remove the possibility of boards being sued for defamation(you claimed boards was at a risk of this, I disagree with regards to insults) as a result of insults.

You go on about the sites reputation, and not wanting it to be one of people getting slagged. It is my opinion that this boils down to money, nothing to do with users. Its my opinion that the thread was deleted in a foolish attempt to censor the reaction and not scare off potential interviews with more celebs. And fair enough. I just dont like to be misled. I dont think that the thread was deleted for legal reasons whatsoever.

Firstly I didn't ask for any threads to be removed or deleted. I posted my comment in that thread and then left it open for discussion. What you're referring to is the exchange below:



The thread was removed by an AH cMod - you might ask them why they did it. However, there was more about that thread and what happened around it than the thread itself.

I'm not citing legal reasons with that thread. Never have said that was the reason. I'm saying that Boards.ie has legal obligations and people can get sued for defamation because of comments they make on this site.

To hide it behind accusations of putting commercial reasons is lazy, predictable and a pity. It means we'll never move further in the conversation.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

In the last few minutes I have reported two posts both of which clearly insult the owner of a pub. If we are going to be consistent surely these must be deleted too to remove the possibility of boards being sued for defamation(you claimed boards was at a risk of this, I disagree with regards to insults) as a result of insults.

I'm sure the moderators of the forum will look at those posts and judge for themselves.

It is my opinion that this boils down to money, nothing to do with users.

Yes, that's your opinion. It's not the truth though.

_blank_

Darragh wrote: »

It's me primarily. I'm still waiting for the proof. Are you now also accusing Dav of possibly doing the same thing?

Normal users don't have access to deleted threads, anywhere.

parsi

Adverts was a community offshoot of Boards but was allowed to become more commercial which has led to a massive increase in scams, dishonesty and general badness.

Boards is however becoming less of a community - more folk just dip in, make their trenchant point on a single subject and then feck off. I was a subscriber for a couple of years (felt that my money was paying for a stick or two of RAM) but didn't renew when it became apparant that some fora were full of one-trick ponies who banged on with the same unmoderated abuse time and time again against groups of people who were the scapegoats-du-jour.

AlmightyCushion

Darragh wrote: »

I'm not citing legal reasons with that thread.

Just on this point. Both yourself, Dav and a few admins (can't remember which off the top of my head but I could check if needs be) said that my actions (re: the sticky and the mcsavage thread) could have got the site in legal trouble.

southsiderosie

Darragh wrote: »

And so it continues.

Okay, so what is abuse? Well, I don't think that it's necessary to call someone - anyone - a c*nt. I don't think it's necessary to refer to someone, as in Snyper's examples earlier, saying "so and so is a bignose cnut" or "so and so is a wanker" when you're discussing them or work they did. I suppose in some ways it depends on the forum culture and the tone of the thread, but overall I don't think it adds anything to the conversation, or is necessary and/or more to the point, is something that someone would say to the person face to face.

It's like commenting on the post, not the poster as per our site guidelines.

I loathe the word c*nt. But it is part of the Irish lexicon, and as such, I'm not surprised that it comes up here.

Personally I find the misogynistic overtones in some of the forums more disturbing than naughty words. It seems odd that Alison O'Riordan or Cheryl Cole can't be targeted as individuals, but women as a group can be routinely mocked.

Darragh wrote: »

Legal is a concern, yes, but not solely the primary one. Reputation is as big as abuse. Once again it comes down to what people want the site to be known for, what people want their membership to reflect and what people think of Boards.ie when they hear it. "That site where everyone just abuses everyone" is not particularly the reputation I want, but is, unfortunately, one of the reputations we have.

I realise this is a big change for the site in some respects, but it's one that needs to happen. That's why we're having this debate in public. I realise too I can be shown a few thousand examples of where abuse has gone unchecked but that really does have to stop.

Is that the reputation of the site as a whole, or of specific forums on the site?

Darragh wrote: »

Is there any case someone can make where we SHOULD allow abuse?

If someone makes a living on their looks, then criticism of their looks should be up for grabs. If someone makes a living on heaping abuse on others for laughs, why would people on boards not be able to do the same? Just as the forum shapes the tone of the debate, so should the person being discussed.

I think the bigger problem here though is that there seems to be a perception among users that comments are being labeled as "abuse" when they apply to individuals who are powerful and/or wealthy enough to have a solicitor call the admins. Whether this is true or not, it is how it comes across from the user end.

Gordon

TheZohan wrote: »

A change that needs to happen? Says who?

Look at the Feed Forward forum, a lot of it is change for the sake of change bull crap.

The site is what it is and is growing, you don't need to meddle with this.

Nothing wrong with trying to make things better. The world would be such a boring place if the only reason change happened was because "it's broke, fix it".

I can recall a thread being deleted by you Darragh because a competitor of the company mentioned was in negotiations re: advertising.

That's not to run the site, it's a bloody disgrace that the likes of this is going on behind the backs of users.

Charming, just pop that out there, when you admit that you're not even sure it's true. The irony considering the discussion of defamation that's been going on in this thread. That's really no way to post dude. In fact, that's disgraceful.

Wolfe Tone

Charming, just pop that out there, when you admit that you're not even sure it's true. The irony considering the discussion of defamation that's been going on in this thread. That's really no way to post dude. In fact, that's disgraceful.

Going by whats being said Darragh would have to sue the company he works for!

Gordon

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Going by whats being said Darragh would have to sue the company he works for!

lol universemplode!

Wolfe Tone

Darragh wrote: »

Firstly I didn't ask for any threads to be removed or deleted. I posted my comment in that thread and then left it open for discussion. What you're referring to is the exchange below...............................

Considering you went on about google, defamation and peoples reputations as well as solicitors letters.....
As well as

Just on this point. Both yourself, Dav and a few admins (can't remember which off the top of my head but I could check if needs be) said that my actions (re: the sticky and the mcsavage thread) could have got the site in legal trouble.

Darragh, the concern I have is that the site may become too comercialised. Is it worth clamping down on dissent to have these interviews?

I think of boards as a community. I know posters here, some "in real life" I recognize there avatars etc(Micky really confused me when he started taking other peoples!) and I enjoy reading peoples posts on certain things(Wibbs for example). People have gotten to know each other through boards. I remember Dev referring to "boards babies".
And you held an interview with some fella who insulted everyone? Then the inevitable response was deleted. Having him on insulting everyone, even if it was joking or whatever, was stupid.

Why are these interviews held in the first place? I assume to boost traffic?



Darragh,it really looks like that thread was not deleted to get rid of legal issues.(which I believe did not exist and "legal issues" are being used as a smokescreen to hide the truth)
It is my belief that these interviews are intended to boost traffic and raise boards.ies profile in the media world. Thats why that thread was deleted as it didnt further that goal.

Now you can say thats not true, but that is the perception created. And as you have mentioned reputation so many times I am sure you realise that appearances are very important. To me thats how it looked. And to many others too.

NeedaNewName

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Darragh just be honest and say it is about the advertising.

I think Darragh has been quite open and honest in his discussion in this thread and has mentioned that advertising is important, it now pays wages and keeps the site ticking over.

He has also mentioned that boards.ie is no longer one community but a collection of many.

All of which I find to be true from my experience, these days.

Are people just not reading what he wrote or choosing to ignore it, for whatever reasons?

Nodin

southsiderosie wrote: »

If someone makes a living on their looks, then criticism of their looks should be up for grabs. If someone makes a living on heaping abuse on others for laughs, why would people on boards not be able to do the same? Just as the forum shapes the tone of the debate, so should the person being discussed.

I think the bigger problem here though is that there seems to be a perception among users that comments are being labeled as "abuse" when they apply to individuals who are powerful and/or wealthy enough to have a solicitor call the admins. Whether this is true or not, it is how it comes across from the user end.

.....leading to a two-tier system regarding freedom of expression. Absolutely.

Nodin

NeedaNewName wrote: »

I think Darragh has been quite open and honest in his discussion in this thread and has mentioned that advertising is important, it now pays wages and keeps the site ticking over.

Just to note, He's also said

This isn't about advertising - I don't earn anything more if we have more advertisers. We have a company who handles our sales. If the shareholders want the site to earn more money, then that's their job. Not mine.

This isn't anything to do with advertising. To confine the conversation to that is not only short sighted, it's actually insulting AND shows me how little you understand the actual operation of a site like that.

Advertising is all well and good but if we dropped all rules, regulations and guidelines tomorrow, stopped all moderation and opened the floodgates (completely ignoring the legal side of things) and had not only abuse, but porn, torrents and all the other stuff we keep out of the forums, we'd still get advertising, albeit not of the quality that we aspire to. You won't see (m)any dodgy ads on this site simply because when we're told about them, we get rid of them and they're pretty much always on the Google network anyways.

Dravokivich

TheZohan wrote: »

I'm 90% certain it was a thread deleted by you with a footnote re advertising, if it wasn't you then it was Drav and I apologise unreservedly.

Is it yourself or Drav that deals with advertising?

I'm in no way affiliated with the operation of this service...

:pac:

Darragh

On the 12 December 2009, a thread was put in Consumer Issues with the title "Avoid Just-Eat[dot]ie"

In this thread one of our members detailed problems (since resolved) they were having with that site and also mentioned another competing site of theirs (not involved) called feedme[dot]ie.

The problem with the thread was, as so often happens, because Boards.ie is so Google friendly, that it rose in the search engine rankings for the OTHER website, even though it was nothing to do with them.

So, on 24th December 2009 at 17:04, (please note the date), after that website had contacted me to see if I could help, I unapproved the thread, reporting it to the moderators of the forum with the following message - and I'll screenshot it so there's no accusation of changing - and here's the link to it for mods to verify its accuracy.



So, what I did, on Christmas Eve, was turn off the thread until I got a chance to check with the Admins what we normally do in those situations and it seems I just never turned it back on. Until tonight. It's here - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055768501

When things like that happen, we HAVE to discuss them and take appropriate action. It makes sense. NEITHER website that is mentioned in that thread have, to my knowledge, advertised with us. It wasn't do do with that. It was to do with comments on the website causing unnecessary trouble.

NOW, what TheZohan accused me of doing:

TheZohan wrote: »

I can recall a thread being deleted by you Darragh because a competitor of the company mentioned was in negotiations re: advertising.

That's not to run the site, it's a bloody disgrace that the likes of this is going on behind the backs of users

is completely NOT what happened. It doesn't happen. Our sales team will tell you that they come to us asking for threads to be removed for potential advertisers and we don't do it. Its precisely for this bloody reason that we spent so long on pages like http://www.boards.ie/legal and http://www.boards.ie/terms

I may have used the term "approach" that TheZohan took to mean "advertising" but since he never asked me about it, he never checked to see if he was correct and because he completely failed to verify his assumption, he is, I'm glad to say, completely wrong.

HOWEVER, what he did on this thread was accuse me in the wrong of something I didn't do. He made a statement which I may have said was defamation under Irish law (link)

a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society

and could have followed up on.

Now say I wasn't working with Boards.ie. What I'd have done, if I'd wanted to follow up on that was

• email Boards.ie to get it taken down (work for Boards.ie)
• Ask for TheZohan's details to follow up legally, be told to get a Section 8 request. Go to the Gardaí or my solicitor and submit that (work for Boards.ie)
• Through my solicitor request any details relating the TheZohan, his posting and his logs for evidence in the trial. Under a court order Boards.ie would be legally obliged to provide this (work for Boards.ie)
• Go through the legal system (with Boards.ie involved) and if it came to trial, quite possibly Boards.ie being involved would be a major story for some other rival outlets, thereby meaning another blow to reputation and more work for Boards.ie.

Can you see why I'm eager to avoid such things on site? Can you see the amount of time and work that takes - time and work better spent anywhere else?

Don't worry TheZohan, I'm not going to follow this up legally. Consider it a polite request to make sure you have ALL your facts right before posting up an accusation.

Not everyone has as much patience as I do.

Darragh

Des wrote: »

Normal users don't have access to deleted threads, anywhere.

And?

Darragh

snyper wrote: »

..and there is the issue

It really imo has little to do with Dave mac and more to do with some members fear of losing what they love.

Members do feel part of a communitty here, im a proud boardsie, and while i couldnt care less if some halfwit calls boardsies fcukwits, others do care - and some members fear the idea of the community changing to something other than what they have come to love.

Yes Snyper, some members do. I acknowledge that and appreciate it. As I said though, most people who use this site don't.

But seeing as you say you feel part of a community here, same question to you as I put in my very first post in this thread:

Are you happy to be a member of a website that is primarily known for abuse?

snyper wrote: »

Darragh, i feel you might be taken the criticism here too personal, and also i think some parties are too vehemently against any commercialisation of the site

But the one thing i strongly disagree with is saying boards.ie is not an online community -if its not a community, its just another website.

I'll repeat this again - Boards.ie is a website of communities. Saying it's a community website is like saying everyone with a mobile phone is a member of the mobile community.

As for taking the criticism personally - I only take accusations or personal insults personally - the rest I take professionally. I won't let my reputation be damaged unjustly, I don't like seeing other people's reputations damaged unjustly and I HATE seeing the site's reputation damaged.

And that, for me, is the issue.