Who can see Private Hosted Forums?

LuckyLloyd

ken wrote: »

If I got infracted by Micky for being a dick and I PM'd him saying I was a bit pissed when I posted and was sorry. I would put my house on it that Micky (or any other mod/cmod/admin) wouldn't post the details in the mod/admin forum and take the piss out of me in there. The same cannot be said for members of private forums as has been shown.

Also another obvious point but between the members PFJ there is a fair few man years of modding experience on high traffic boards.ie forums. Mods and Admins are just people with the same biases and flaws as anyone else. All sorts of people become mods and admins from time to time.

Lovely Bloke

Lloyd, you bring a tear to my eye. I know you have been called worse names than wanker on private forums. The pfj forum, and pth being just two. By me sometimes. You've done the same but.,

You've been properly unbiased on this thread, and it's a credit to you.

Thanks

Lovely Bloke

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What about the mod specific forum concerned where a group is in the thick of it together modding a busy forum. Reckon it's only uber professional business speak that goes on in those mod forums? I'd reckon the word 'wanker' has been uttered in such places once or twice, and rightly so!!

you've modded soccer. it has a related soccer-mod forum. I'd say when you were a party to that forum (I know for a fact that people who weren't soccermods, sportscmods or admins have had access, but you have been a soccermod) people have been called ****. jaysis. probaby me.

:eek::eek:

by you

:eek::eek:

LuckyLloyd

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

you've modded soccer. it has a related soccer-mod forum. I'd say when you were a party to that forum (I know for a fact that people who weren't soccermods, sportscmods or admins have had access, but you have been a soccermod) people have been called ****. jaysis. probaby me.

:eek::eek:

by you

:eek::eek:

Well, strictly speaking, it was unlikely I used the word 'wanker' as it isn't my barb of choice. But the point is that people are naive if they think the mod / admin forums are populated only with highly objective and well mannered business speak. Mod and admin teams develop their own groupthink, biases and frustrations and use their private space to express them. Which is ony natural.

LoLth

The fact that there is a hmod of a forum should indicate that the admins and users should be able to trust the hmod to enforce the rules of the site or, at the least, the rules of their own hosted forum (not the rules put in place by boards.ie but the rules decided upon by the members / pervious hmods of that forum?). As an admin, if I could trust the hmods to do their job I wouldn't feel the need to look into private forums as much, recent events however have proven that more admin supervision is required, not less.

I find the argument that "many members of the PFJ were mods of busy forums" a strange one for a member of PFJ to raise. Surely then the question becomes, if you were mods of busy forums then you really knew already that posting private messages was not allowed (especially you LuckyLloyd given the poker feedback thread where permission was sought (by me and initially refused by you, a refusal that was honoured) before private messages were posted) and so, seeing a private message being posted in a private forum should have been flagged to the hmod if not an admin. Now throw in the fact that an ex-mod told a hmod that it was fine to post a private message... I would really love to be able to say I was shocked. The sad truth is, I wasn't. disappointed maybe but certainly not shocked.

to address the point of Private messages being discussed by mods and admins: we generally don't unless it has a direct impact on a modding decision. see edit at the bottom: Even in DRP, the admin asks for private messages to be reported not posted on the forum.

To be completely honest here lads, I'm finding this attempt at defending your actions in that forum almost incredible.

Yes a warning was given on thread for something that turned out to not be against the rules - though in review it probably should be and will be brought up for discussion. Already stated that I agree that this was handled wrongly, a private word with the hmod would have been better.


Members of the PFJ decided to start a public discussion outside of PFJ demanding that admin apologise in public / explain herself. That was an overreaction and was driven by personal opinion of the admin in question and admins in general.

Admins responded on thread here. Before I responded I checked the PFJ forum so I had a better understanding of what was being discussed and I find quite a bit that was actionable but was missed by the other admin. One incident of which was the repeated posting of private messages for discussion by other members of the PFJ without the sender's knowledge or permission. That's just ONE of the examples I found. So yeah, PFJ were undeserving of the on thread warning but get down off your high horses because there was a lot worse going on that your weren't called out on and that wasn't actioned by the hmods or reported to anyone by any of the users, including those that were mods or ex-mods of the site. It is ironic that it was PFJ members own actions that necessitated my doing background reading before posting a response that lead to that being discovered.

PFJ has not been closed but the members have elected to start an equivalent forum elsewhere.

that's where things stand at the moment. And that's where I'm locking this thread. When the admin in question returns she can unlock and respond if she feels there is a need. Until then this is going in circles and has become an exercise in pedantry and rhetoric, not to mention a tempting target for trolling.

Going forward, there will be a discussion with the hmods of private and public hosted forums to discuss changes required to the hosted forum charter and any other changes that might be required to ensure that all forums, even those that a not directly moderated by boards.ie , hosted here are conducted to at least some semblance of acceptable standard and that site rules are upheld and adhered to.

thread on hiatus.


edit: Its been brought to my attention hat I have not worded that bit about DRP PMs correctly and they are absolutely right. PMs *directly* related to the issue being discussed CAN be posted to the DRP thread by either party without permission. This is noted as an exception to the site-wide overall rule governing PMs and it only relates to PMs that have direct bearing on the dispute being reviewed. The point I raised was that, once an admin is called upon to review a DRP thread and act as final arbitrator, the admin will nearly always prefer to have the user or mod report any PMs they feel relevant that they would prefer not to have posted in public. It would be extremely rare for an admin to pass that PM on to the mods or cmods involved and will only describe the content if it affects the end decision. Yes its long and convoluted but its all there to protect the idea of a private message being...well, private. Perhaps "private hosted forum" should be re-named to "restricted access hosted forum" instead to avoid ambiguity and confusion in future.