The Standard of Posting

K-9

What?

Mods probably spend most of our time on reported posts.

KERSPLAT!

NI24 wrote: »

I've thought about doing so but then I thought, well, isn't that considered an abuse of the Cmod's time? Even the regular moderators make it obvious that they consider reported posts an abuse of their time.

Fire up some examples of mods saying that.

Mods rely heavily on reported posts. We welcome and encourage them.

NI24

The Hill Billy wrote: »

You need to trust the mods. This topic has been done to death in this forum & we're not doing it again in this thread.

So let me get this straight Hill. On the one hand you say trust the mods, yet on the other hand you say if you don't trust the mods, go higher up. If the mods are trustworthy then why suggest going above their heads at all, huh? Why does the DRP thread exist?

In fact, I can think of one moderator off the top of my head who continually brought down the standard of posting over and over and over again, yet he was allowed to do so over and over and over again. He has recently closed down his account, but it didn't stop him (for years, I might add) from dragging discussions down into the toilet where his opinions belonged. I have also seen posters whose opinions I loathed get banned simply because it wasn't the popular opinion on the thread at the moment. So it's no wonder the op thinks the standard in threads has gone down when moderators themselves are frequently incapable of

a)quality posting themselves and
b) not letting biases and sheer laziness drag down a thread.

I'm sorry if moderators' egos are bruised when they are criticized for it, but nobody held a gun to their heads and forced them into this role so the excuse that is often trotted out of "unpaid volunteers" doesn't really fly with me.

Also Hill, like I said about the gun to the head, you are under no obligation to post in this thread, and, unless my eyesight has left me, you are not the feedback moderator, so it is not up to you to decide what will or will not be discussed. Whether or not moderators are actually acting on reported posts is 100% related to the topic at hand.

Actually, it seems my eyesight has left me. You are an administrator which I'm guessing is higher than moderator and so you have the power to steer the discussion any way you want. So steer away....

NI24

K-9 wrote: »

What?

Mods probably spend most of our time on reported posts.

Well I'm happy to hear that. Doesn't mean they do anything about it, unless it's an obvious troll or something.

K-9

Sometimes we might not do anything, but note the RP and keep an eye on a thread or a poster. It would be rare nothing was done.

Maybe the RP didn't get the action you deemed necessary, but that is different to mods ignoring reported posts.

Sometimes forums might not have a mod about due to different reasons, I'd suggest reporting it again or contacting a C-Mod to bring it to our attention. We try and keep track of things like that but things can be missed, so a pm would be appreciated.

NI24

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Fire up some examples of mods saying that.

Firstly, no mod would come out on a forum and say that directly. Secondly, they were in PMs from over a year ago and I have since deleted them. But thirdly, and most importantly, it's always a passive aggressive jibe that is phrased in such a way that when confronted on it, they can have plausible deniability. And to their credit, it's an ingenious way of abdicating responsibility from what they've said.

K-9

NI24 wrote: »

Firstly, no mod would come out on a forum and say that directly. Secondly, they were in PMs from over a year ago and I have since deleted them. But thirdly, and most importantly, it's always a passive aggressive jibe that is phrased in such a way that when confronted on it, they can have plausible deniability. And to their credit, it's an ingenious way of abdicating responsibility from what they've said.

There isn't much in there we can address though, it's too vague.

We'd a similar problem in politics with a poster alleging an ex mod said something about bias. Despite assurances from other mods, C-mods, admins and IIRC, the owner of the site, the poster still probably believes the ex-mod.

We can't do anything about that, people are entitled to their opinions, even if loads of people say they are wrong.

As for minority opinions in a thread, I'd be conscious of trying to ensure debate actually happens in a thread, back slapping threads are just boring, but we have to be consistent as well, it's a balancing act. If a poster doesn't help themselves on a thread, not a lot we can do, otherwise we are inconsistent.

NI24

@K-9 There's no need to keep defending yourself-- Hill Billy is an administrator and has made it perfectly clear that moderators don't have to be held accountable for their decisions and in a weird way I agree. Boards is a private site, they can be as biased as they want, they can be as transparent as they don't want and if people don't like it they can go to reddit, which is where people are headed anyways. And boards can go down in history as the bloated dinosaur that it has become...

K-9

Maybe you can name the site that does this moderating stuff well then, and give us something we can actually work on.

Ave Sodalis

I think even just keeping forums (or even just threads) that are made for advice solely for advice and clamping down hard on those that try to wander, or judge, or even just have some "witty" comment.

The Hill Billy

NI24 - You asked about two different matters...
1. Reported posts in general & the transparency with which they are dealt. My response - This ha been done to death & reporters of posts will not receive individual responses to say what action will be or has been taken.
2. If you have a specific issue with moderator action - PM a CMod. Do not hijack this thread because you have an issue with a particular mod action which appears to be the case based on your response.

NI24

The Hill Billy wrote: »

NI24 - You asked about two different matters...
1. Reported posts in general & the transparency with which they are dealt. My response - This ha been done to death & reporters of posts will not receive individual responses to say what action will be or has been taken.
2. If you have a specific issue with moderator action - PM a CMod. Do not hijack this thread because you have an issue with a particular mod action which appears to be the case based on your response.

Yes, I understand that this is not the discussion which is why I asked K-9 to stop being so defensive. And for the record, it is not one particular mod action, it was several, and I'm not the first to complain about it.

So anyways, the op complained about the standard of posting and a moderator immediately jumped in to put the blame on the posters. Which is funny, because moderators are quite prolific posters, so it was basically moderators trying to deflect blame when they are just as much apart of the problem as anyone else, probably even more so when they are supposed to set an example of proper posting and keep civility in threads.

Sup dude's experience is not new, it has been said numerous times that many forums on here are unfriendly, snobbish, and, well, to use a crude phrase, a "circle-jerk". And there are essentially 3 reasons for this:

1) moderators not doing their job
2) the posters themselves and
3) the general cliquey and provincial nature of Irish culture

Obviously number three isn't going to change that's just how Ireland is in general and it's an Irish site.

Number two is the reason the site exists in the first place as posters are the backbone of the site, but if you start dictating too much what posters can post, the tone in which they can post it and so on, then people will just get tired of walking a tightrope and leave.

Number one is probably the biggest influence on the quality as moderators are responsible for posters keeping to the general guidelines and leading by example and fostering an environment for differing opinions, not just opinions different to their own but different to the collective opinion of the thread or forum. And in that last respect, boards fails miserably, hence the reason a lot of forums see very little traffic and why some are almost collecting cobwebs at this point.

When you see, as I have seen, extremely fair, popular and prolific moderators, not posters mind you, but moderators leaving boards for reddit, and specifying its because of the declining quality, then its obvious there's a problem. Whether it's new rules being implemented at a higher level which is making it increasingly difficult for moderators to do their job we will never know, as we are not privy to that information. But whatever the reason, numbers here are down, forums have become increasingly hostile to people who don't hang around them on a consistent basis and its becoming stale.

Would also like to add that I have been reading this site for a very long time (over 8 years now) and in the past would go so far as to suggest it to people, but too many times in the last year and a half I've had people tell me it's extremely unwelcoming, boring, etc. etc., so it's not just my imagination.

looksee

The OP posted saying that posting was too lax and that other forums were becoming like AH; in other words, he suggested, too casual and jokey. Now we are being told that people are leaving because the moderation is too tight and is resulting in boring threads where people are told what they can and cannot say.

Can someone please clarify which direction modding should go, to satisfy everyone?

Edward Hopper

looksee wrote: »

The OP posted saying that posting was too lax and that other forums were becoming like AH; in other words, he suggested, too casual and jokey. Now we are being told that people are leaving because the moderation is too tight and is resulting in boring threads where people are told what they can and cannot say.

Can someone please clarify which direction modding should go, to satisfy everyone?

A strong weak, whilst riggidly lax, form of moderation.

Azalea

Boards is by far the best site of its ilk out there. It'll have its problems naturally - it's pretty big now - but compare it to TheJournal.ie or Politics.ie or any of the newspaper comments sections or Facebook...

Ave Sodalis

Azalea wrote: »

Boards is by far the best site of its ilk out there. It'll have its problems naturally - it's pretty big now - but compare it to TheJournal.ie or Politics.ie or any of the newspaper comments sections or Facebook...

These aren't modded though. I don't really accept the "well there's worse out there so put up with it". Surely Boards is striving to improve the whole time?

Azalea

sup_dude wrote: »

These aren't modded though. I don't really accept the "well there's worse out there so put up with it". Surely Boards is striving to improve the whole time?

Sher you've got people simultaneously to you saying it's over moderated and people can't express an opinion that's not PC (rubbish of course - it's not what you say, it's how you say it) - I think it does a good job with the resources it has. The mods are volunteers so it's never going to be perfect, particularly as it gets bigger.

looksee

Even if they were paid professionals I reckon you would still get stuff that different people would disagree with/ complain about.

Ave Sodalis

Azalea wrote: »

Sher you've got people simultaneously to you saying it's over moderated and people can't express an opinion that's not PC (rubbish of course - it's not what you say, it's how you say it) - I think it does a good job with the resources it has. The mods are volunteers so it's never going to be perfect, particularly as it gets bigger.

And I appreciate what mods do. I still don't see that as a reason to brush things under the carpet.

What if it gets to the stage (although in some, it's nearly there already) where there's certain forums where it will only be the regular posters who will be posting because it would be too initimidating for other posters.

Boards isn't a set forum. Some forums and threads are going to be more lighthearted than others. However, I think the line is getting a bit too blurred and it's getting harder for posters who are looking for advice, to just get advice instead of remarks etc.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

Mods rely heavily on reported posts. We welcome and encourage them.

Most of yez do. I've received a pm that would imply the opposite, though not from AH.

dudara

Nodin - if you're not happy with a response, then you entitled to take it up the ladder to a CMod.

Beasty

Mods are human. They are selected pretty much on their posting history here (it's very rare that anyone gets appointed on the back of knowing someone in real life). Everyone has different "styles". Sometimes that "style" may not be entirely appropriate in a modding capacity, but until we see them in action it's simply not possible to predict that.

If we think a mod's behaviour is inappropriate (which may be on the back of PM's or reported posts from "regular" posters), we may have a quiet word. Usually that's the end of the matter, but it's certainly not unknown for mods to step down or indeed be de-modded if they continue to overstep the mark.

As has been mentioned a number of times, CMods are the next port of call if anyone remains dissatisfied with the actions of a mod. We will check it out (although we may then take the view that a mods actions were entirely appropriate, and further action may not be warranted)

dudara

Mods, CMods and Admins are a series of checks and balances. But in order to take any action or investigation, we have to have something to work on. Reported posts and reported PMs are a big source of our data and it's something that all Boards posters can do.

K-9

Edward Hopper wrote: »

A strong weak, whilst riggidly lax, form of moderation.

Apparently I'm not the only one confused by the contradictions in that post, probably me being defensive though!

Politics is an example of Boards catering to different demographics and styles. The cafe light touch moderating appeals to a lot of people and has a high post count, the general forum a bit stricter but less busy. That's the way online has gone, less quality and more noise.

We cater for both styles. Some find the cafe too lax, others the general forum too harsh. That's always the way, you can't please all the people, all of the time and indeed, some people can't be pleased, any of the time.

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

Apparently I'm not the only one confused by the contradictions in that post, probably me being defensive though!

Politics is an example of Boards catering to different demographics and styles. The cafe light touch moderating appeals to a lot of people and has a high post count, the general forum a bit stricter but less busy. That's the way online has gone, less quality and more noise.

We cater for both styles. Some find the cafe too lax, others the general forum too harsh. That's always the way, you can't please all the people, all of the time and indeed, some people can't be pleased, any of the time.

You asked for examples earlier. I present AskHistorians on Reddit, it achieves (in my opinion) a far higher standard of average post than any forum on Boards, but it does that by having far harsher and heavier moderation than any forum on here. It is not uncommon to open a thread and see of thirty replies only two not deleted already. It's far in excess of anything tried or asked for here but it does get the job done (for the specific kind of forum wanted)

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/

The moderation is well done but is wholly unsuitable for almost every forum here because the focus of the forum has to be extremely narrow for it to work. You could try to moderate say Politics like this but you'd kill the forum doing it I think.

Ave Sodalis

nesf wrote:

The moderation is well done but is wholly unsuitable for almost every forum here because the focus of the forum has to be extremely narrow for it to work. You could try to moderate say Politics like this but you'd kill the forum doing it I think.

What about taking each thread as they come rather than entire forums? Some threads are really just looking for advice and no more. They aren't that hard to spot surely?

Ave Sodalis

Another example is currently in motoring. The OP asked for a car that can tow a horse box. They're only a few posts in and it's turned to licensing already. The OP wasn't asking about licensing. Yet, reporting something like that would seem like nit picking. If I was the OP, it would annoy me because I was asking advice on which vehicle to get, not which license.

I still think this is more an issue to be solved by moderators coming together, than post reports.

nesf

sup_dude wrote: »

What about taking each thread as they come rather than entire forums? Some threads are really just looking for advice and no more. They aren't that hard to spot surely?

If you change the rules on a thread by thread basis you're going to make it very confusing for users. Occasionally it makes sense for special cases but in general you want the same rules applying across all threads in a forum.

Ave Sodalis

nesf wrote:

If you change the rules on a thread by thread basis you're going to make it very confusing for users. Occasionally it makes sense for special cases but in general you want the same rules applying across all threads in a forum.

It's not really changing the rules though.