Making charters more visible or How do you solve a problem like the charters

seamus

The perennial problem. Charters have been equally great and painful since Dev first introduced them.

Great in that they allow for per-forum rules to be spelled out clearly, painful in that it's impossible to get people to read them.

What I'm suggesting here is making the charters more visible than just appearing on the forum listing. I very rarely look at the forum listings. I get a list of new postings and I scan through it. As a consequence I never read the charters.

And I imagine that's how most people work with boards. End consequence is more work for the moderators because nobody is reading the forum charter.

We can already see in Dispute Resolution that a big notice appears when you're making a thread. That one's a bit big, no-one wants to see that everywhere.
Instead maybe add a facility for mods to create charter "Headlines" - ten bullet points of the most serious rules specific to that forum, with a further link to the full charter.

This list then appears above the reply box when replying to a thread and also above the quick-reply box. Thus, users have no excuse for breaking those rules when they're spelled out right in front of them. Long-term a user can choose to "Hide these rules" for each forum individually, but then the rules appear again for all users if a mod updates them.

Seems to me like the most straightforward way of getting users to read the rules without degrading the actual end experience. The reason I put this in Feedback and not Site Development is because people use boards in different ways, so the above solution might actually just be a nightmare for 99% of users.

Full disclosure: I just got banned for not reading a charter. Mea Culpa. I'm not making any excuse for failing to read the charter, but if the rules were in front of my face as I describe above, then I wouldn't have posted and the mod would be less frustrated about having to take the time to ban me.

El Guapo!

Sounds like a good idea.

Another idea might be that when a user goes into a forum for the first time, or whenever a charter is updated, they are instantly brought to said charter, where they must read and then click "I Agree" before being allowed to proceed to the forum (similar to accepting terms & conditions on other sites).
This way, if a problem arises, they can't say they never read/didn't notice the charter.

I'm not sure if this would be easy to implement or not but it might be an idea.

Doctor DooM

Part of the problem is the way the internet works has shifted.

When I was getting into the whole forum thing, it was generally considered good practice to read a forum for a couple of weeks without contributing to get the lie of the land. On boards, within this initial period, I found I'd check out the charter.

These days that simply isn't so. I think the importance of charters does need to be stressed as there's plenty of FB/youtube/twitter users who are used to fire and forget (relatively) consequence free commenting.

Maybe there could be something in a users cookie which would check if they'd posted in a forum before, and if not, ask them if they'd read the charter before posting. Might be some overhead to that though.


BTW Seamus I'm going to bring you up next time someone says mods et al get preferential treatment

LoLth

not sure about the technical feasibility of that. It would have to be server side imho, otherwise it'd be a cookie and if you access the forum from a PC you havent used before you wouldnt have the cookie (or if you regularly clear your cookies).

If a server side checklist could be used then it woud be stored with your profile:
forum ID:
Charter accepted: 1/0

If a change was made to a charter, then the corresponding profile entries could be set to zero so the user has to accept the change, it doesnt happen often but when it does only a percentage of those that originally read the charter will go and read the change.

The idea of the "quickpoints" above the reply area and quick reply is a good one too. But I'm not sure about how it would work with screen real estate, especially for mobile users. However, this could be addressed with your option of hiding the rules. Again, this would need to be server side for consistency between devices.

It would remove the "i didnt know" defence though you'd be amazed how many times people break the site rules and say "I didnt know" even though they clicked "i agree" when they set up an account...

edit: that mod deserves a cookie

seamus

Yeah cookies is messy. If you maintain a table with userId/ForumId/charterAcceptedDate then you can build that into the user's session and the overhead then becomes quite minimal.

If LatestCharterDate > user.charterAcceptedDate(thisForumID) || user.charterAcceptedDate(thisForumID) > (now() - 6 months) {
showCharter();
}

5starpool

Doctor DooM wrote: »

BTW Seamus I'm going to bring you up next time someone says mods et al get preferential treatment

Seamus isn't a mod though.

From a user point of view, as long as it could be dismissed so it wasn't present for every post it wouldn't be too obtrusive, but if it was present too often it would be really irritating.

wnolan1992

I'd be against Seamus' idea of the bullet points headline like in DRP. I think it'd just take up too much room tbh, look how people reacted to banner ads being reintroduced. If it was a case that there was a banner ad then 10 bullet points I think it'd just get messy, not to mention if a mod needed to post an announcement to the forum, or if there was a site wide announcement (obviously that's an extreme example involving a whole bunch of criteria conspiring together).

Something like LoLth suggested would be good. Maybe that when someone clicks "Post Reply" or "Post QR", the server checks whether they've agreed to the charter and if they haven't it redirects to the Charter.

Even then, people are just going to click "Agree" like on every piece of software they download, but at least the "Oh, I didn't realise this was against the rules." defence would be gone.

seamus

For clarity, I'm saying the bullet points should appear above the reply boxes, not permanently at the top of every page.

Edit:

Like so

5starpool

Harsh rules there.

wnolan1992

seamus wrote: »

For clarity, I'm saying the bullet points should appear above the reply boxes, not permanently at the top of every page.

Edit:

Like so

That's my bad, misinterpreted your point.

Yeah, that could work, except maybe replace the checkbox with a link to the full charter where you can accept the charter. That box stays until you go to the full charter and accept.

Earthhorse

There's a checkbox in that mock up. I don't want to have to tick every time I post. Or even the first time I post in a new forum. I honestly don't think reading or not reading rules are why people fall foul of charters.

southsiderosie

Not to sound like a grumpy Daily Mail commenter, but this sounds a bit nanny state-ish to me. If people aren't willing to read the charter or at least observe the culture and norms of the forum before wading into threads, then too bad for them.

Personally, when I was a mod, I didn't have a lot of patience for people who barged into the forum and immediately began causing a ruckus (I don't have much patience for that as a poster either). Usually a warning or PM was enough to get people to either settle down, or stomp away in a huff. Sometimes I would also post an on-thread reminder with a quote from the relevant part of the charter, and that was often to just remind people of where they were posting (Politics), especially if a thread was moved over from another forum.

TBH, the bigger problem with charters are:

1) the slick trolls who skirt the line of the charter to the point where they can say "who me?" if called up on things, but can still cause problems all the same. These posters may turn into legal eagles in DRP.

2) The posters who can be extremely troublesome, but aren't necessarily violating some specific clause in the charter. These posters tend to turn into soul-crushing time sucks in DRP.

clairefontaine

They are too long. No one can possibly remember all those rules.

No one will read that much on the internet unless it is really really well written and entertaining, and the CHARTERS are not. They are boring and full of rules no one can follow because you cant remember them all, particularly on after hours, which would likely not exist if it followed its own charter.

Morag

clairefontaine wrote: »

They are too long. No one can possibly remember all those rules.

No one will read that much on the internet unless it is really really well written and entertaining, and the CHARTERS are not. They are boring and full of rules no one can follow because you cant remember them all, particularly on after hours, which would likely not exist if it followed its own charter.

Want to have a go at re writing one yourself?
I am sure if you could come up with something awesome it would be adopted.

seamus

southsiderosie wrote: »

Not to sound like a grumpy Daily Mail commenter, but this sounds a bit nanny state-ish to me. If people aren't willing to read the charter or at least observe the culture and norms of the forum before wading into threads, then too bad for them.

Absolutely. But every time someone does, a moderator has to take action. But for many forums, it's not a fixable solution. People keep breaking the same rules, over and over. It's frustrating for moderators to have this steady stream of people unfamiliar to their forum, breaking the same rules over and over.

My suggestion is not one for the benefit of the users, it's one for the benefit of the mods.

Where the boards.ie model has been stated by HQ to be moving towards a model where it's being made easier and easier for people to start new threads and respond to threads in the fewest clicks possible, charters will become ever more buried in the bowels of boards where new users won't find them, creating more and more work for mods.

clairefontaine wrote: »

They are too long. No one can possibly remember all those rules.

Well there is that too. Many charters are huge. Partly because you have rules lawyers who will argue the rule ad nauseum rather than accept that they've broken the charter and partly because you're trying to explain your rules to everyone. But it means that someone will see a 5000-character post and say "Fnck that, I'll just post and hope for the best". Most charters can be broken down into a small handful of very general guidelines. If you can show them to people, that's half the battle.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Just echo'ing what Doomy said - No matter how much you emphasize the charter, people will still outright bypass it in order to "Fire and Forget" as he puts it.

Absolutely. There will always be people who break the rules because they intentionally ignore them. But I believe that there is a not insignificant amount of work created for the mods because rules are broken out of genuinely not being aware of them - especially forums with very specific rules*. Most people don't want to be dicks and will stay more-or-less within the rules if they're aware of them.

As for being unwilling to tick a box every once in a while before you type out a whole post, that's just plain old obstinance for obstinance's sake.

*For example, Animals and Pet Issues has a specific rule which bans links to donedeal under any circumstances. Someone will not be aware that this is an issue without reading the charter. Whereas the rule which bans animal cruelty is obvious even without reading the charter.

Earthhorse

seamus wrote: »

As for being unwilling to tick a box every once in a while before you type out a whole post, that's just plain old obstinance for obstinance's sake.

No it isn't.

Earthhorse

seamus wrote: »

As for being unwilling to tick a box every once in a while before you type out a whole post, that's just plain old obstinance for obstinance's sake.

Ah no seriously though, it isn't. It's about not wanting to make boards more mods and rules centric than it already is and not wanting to feel patronised - even occasionally - as I use the site.

I've been on boards something like 10 years now and I've around 16,000 posts and despite that the only rule I've managed to fall foul of was the MCD rule which was plastered all over the site in bold print, by mentioning a comedy gig I'd been to.

I don't think this is a problem with quality of charters but a problem with quality of users.

seamus

Earthhorse wrote: »

I don't think this is a problem with quality of charters but a problem with quality of users.

I don't disagree. This is exactly the problem that I'm trying to address

Earthhorse

Well, I guess we'll just have to not disagree to disagree then.

clairefontaine

Seamus,

A growing number of people on the internet don't actually read very well or at all. Its not that they are illiterate, it's that their eyes scan left right and up and down too fast to process what they are reading.

When you have charters that read like the magna carta or the 95 thesis you will run into problems.

When you have so many complicated rules that they can't be followed through with any sort of consistency because de facto the get broken all the time they are pointless.

southsiderosie

seamus wrote: »

Absolutely. But every time someone does, a moderator has to take action. But for many forums, it's not a fixable solution. People keep breaking the same rules, over and over.

Then that poster should be banned.

If people are stumbling into a forum and making the same mistakes over and over again, moderators can a) keep gently correcting, b) crack the whip regardless or c) try to work with HQ to figure out a way to make it harder for people to start threads in that specific forum. I don't think that this should be a site-wide issue.

seamus wrote: »

It's frustrating for moderators to have this steady stream of people unfamiliar to their forum, breaking the same rules over and over.

My suggestion is not one for the benefit of the users, it's one for the benefit of the mods.

Where the boards.ie model has been stated by HQ to be moving towards a model where it's being made easier and easier for people to start new threads and respond to threads in the fewest clicks possible, charters will become ever more buried in the bowels of boards where new users won't find them, creating more and more work for mods.

But I don't think you can disregard users.

If you have to check something off one time before you post in a forum then fine, but to do this constantly would be annoying, especially for the majority of posters that are not troublemakers.

seamus wrote: »

Well there is that too. Many charters are huge. Partly because you have rules lawyers who will argue the rule ad nauseum rather than accept that they've broken the charter and partly because you're trying to explain your rules to everyone. But it means that someone will see a 5000-character post and say "Fnck that, I'll just post and hope for the best". Most charters can be broken down into a small handful of very general guidelines. If you can show them to people, that's half the battle.Absolutely. There will always be people who break the rules because they intentionally ignore them. But I believe that there is a not insignificant amount of work created for the mods because rules are broken out of genuinely not being aware of them - especially forums with very specific rules*. Most people don't want to be dicks and will stay more-or-less within the rules if they're aware of them.

As for being unwilling to tick a box every once in a while before you type out a whole post, that's just plain old obstinance for obstinance's sake.

*For example, Animals and Pet Issues has a specific rule which bans links to donedeal under any circumstances. Someone will not be aware that this is an issue without reading the charter. Whereas the rule which bans animal cruelty is obvious even without reading the charter.

Politics has a short and long version of the charter for this very reason. The short version essentially boils down to 'this isn't Liveline, so contribute to reasoned debate or GTFO". The longer version is more technical.

I know there are a few weird quirks in every forum (the 'scumbag rule' in Politics has ruffled a few feathers) but it is what it is.

Finally, many of the troublesome 'newbies' are actually re-regs, so I'm not sure that inserting 'charter checkpoints' will really do anything.

Squeaky the Squirrel

seamus wrote: »

*For example, Animals and Pet Issues has a specific rule which bans links to donedeal under any circumstances. Someone will not be aware that this is an issue without reading the charter.

"Why?" was all I could say to that, couldn't think of one good reason for it (other that it's your ad) so I went off to check if their was one...

- No Linking to Donedeal or other advertising site in order to complain about advertisements-We all agree that animals should not be advertised in this way but complaining on the forum will not help the issue.Complaining directly to the site in question might be a better way to voice your opinion.

It's not any circumstances. Still can't see the point in it though, if someone wants to rant about ads, why not? If you don't want to read it, scroll on by.

The Site is being ruined by Rules and pissed off Mods/Admins annoyed at having to spend a bit of time Modding.

Taltos

Not sure I 100% agree with the last one.
Don't think the site is being ruined by too many Rules or with having to spend occassionally more time modding than posting.

Something to remember is that the mods pretty much all started out as regular posters who enjoyed and hopefully still do - contributing to some of the forums here and more than likely to a high level the ones they now mod.
In my case what drives me to mod is to ensure that the forums I help with stay on track helping the OPs, yes sometimes that means we have to take action against a poster who either consciously/or not posts against the charter - but just sit back and imagine how some threads could descend if we didn't jump in.

The majority of the posters where I am (99.9%) are just amazing - the help and advice they offer to complete strangers continues to boggle the mind. It is the small % of trollers/otherwise that the rules are there for. Whether they just don't like rules or maybe just don't like other people the guidelines are there to help set the expectation that either they "play nice" or just stay away. Personally I hate banning folk, I even dislike issuing Yellows, (I know it seems like the opposite sometimes). Unfortunately though some posters either through stubborness or maybe caring too much seem intent on going off on one - where I see this happening or at risk of happening is where I jump in.

Back to your original quesiton - how to make the charters more noticeable - thanks to this thread I am going to look into updating my sig to include links to the forums I am active in. This mightn't help everyone, but maybe just one until some other mechanism is used. In the meantime all I can do is direct newbies to said charters with a slap on the wrist but for the serial or serious offenders there really is only so much grace you can give.

Am just glad we have such a strong team of posters, co-mods, cat-mods and admins - each play their role in making boards work, whether it's the advice/help/reporting from our team of posters to the advice of our co/cat-mods or the guidance and flak our admins offer/take - each and everyone of these help this forum what it is. Now I'm off to the gaming forum to check on ps4/vita news

Dades

I think there's an assumption being made here that needs to be examined.

Are people going to change their posting habits because the charter is now more obvious? I'm not convinced. Society is full of rules and laws and guidelines and yet our prisons are still full. A common claim for posters on the wrong end of the mod-stick is ignorance of the charter, but I'm not sure this isn't just a little obvious.

Except in specific cases where charters have special rules that aren't common to any other forum, the majority of forums are based on the same intent. So unless it's a rule specific to an individual forum that is broken repeatedly, I don't really believe shoehorning the charter into the page is going to make much difference to anyone with a mind for trouble.

nesf

I doubt the average poster bothers to read charters carefully. It doesn't seem to affect their ability to come on here and post and never attract mod attention. Once you used to the overall culture of the site most forums are not going to surprise you in any way rules wise. Politics, PI etc being exceptions.

Beruthiel

seamus wrote: »

Full disclosure: I just got banned for not reading a charter.

:eek: :eek:
/Faints.

Headlines" - ten bullet points of the most serious rules specific to that forum, with a further link to the full charter.

Or, you could just read the charter.

Sounds like a good idea but I for one don't really want to see lists of rules everywhere.
I'd put good money on it that most people still wouldn't read the list!

Wibbs

Beruthiel wrote: »

I'd put good money on it that most people still wouldn't read the list!

This in a big way. Not unless we start holding people down and do this

And that would be unethical. Wouldn't it? Though...

Beruthiel

Wibbs wrote: »

And that would be unethical. Wouldn't it?

Only borderline unethical, so, I'm cool with it.

LuckyLloyd

seamus wrote: »

For clarity, I'm saying the bullet points should appear above the reply boxes, not permanently at the top of every page.

Edit:

Like so

Great idea, fair play.