Excessive moderation sucking the fun out of AH

RDM_83 again

Martypants1 wrote: »

We better ban the talk of riding and sex then or the talk of doing drugs? Hardly appropriate for a 13 year old. Will be interested to hear your thoughts on this considering adult content isn't shown or broadcast on radio before the watershed.

That's been brought up before and weirdly young users are only a concern when preserving whatever the current status quo is

Martypants1

looksee wrote: »

People who know each other and are in the same room can do all the slagging / banter they wish and can read the mood as it progresses. You can't do that when you are interacting with a bunch of strangers on line. So you err on the side of being a reasonable human being and not trying to upset people. And your idea of what might be upsetting might be different from another person's, so a third party - the mod - gets to arbitrate.

If you think about it, what you appear to be arguing about the mods upsetting you by their decisions is just the same argument as you upsetting people by your comments. Does that make you a delicate flower?

Can't really make you a delicate flower if you get penalised for having the craic in a forum that's supposed to be more craic than the rest of the site.

When you watch tv late at night, some programmes might say "some viewers may find this offensive". If someone gets offended, well that's their problem, they decided to watch. The same should be for after hours.

Why isn't there a poll for this thread? The results would be conclusive.

As I said before, nothing is going to come of this thread anyways no matter how many people complain about the modding.

The Hill Billy

Martypants1 wrote: »

Like, I have used that back in the kitchen phrase to girl friends before, it's called banter. Surely AH should have looser strings than the rest of the site.

I use similar phrases IRL too, & yes, I too would like to see similar levels of banter again in AH. When we previously had it it was generall healthy, civil & without malice. The problem is that there are arseholes out there who take such phrases & attitudes to the extreme to further their own warped agendas. They relish in winding people up & getting their digs in persistently at their targets.

It makes for an unpleasant atmosphere in the forum & a lot of work for the mods trying to keep the place tidy & at the same time attempting to keep the majority of posters happy.

Martypants1

The Hill Billy wrote: »

I use similar phrases IRL too, & yes, I too would like to see similar levels of banter again in AH. When we previously had it it was generall healthy, civil & without malice. The problem is that there are arseholes out there who take such phrases & attitudes to the extreme to further their own warped agendas. They relish in winding people up & getting their digs in persistently at their targets.

It makes for an unpleasant atmosphere in the forum & a lot of work for the mods trying to keep the place tidy & at the same time attempting to keep the majority of posters happy.

Which is why something should be done to track these people. Have a thumbs up and down button. If they -200 thumbs down do a review of the persons posts or something.


Why not try something different instead of always saying no or giving reasons why something wouldn't work. Why not try it?

How about a more useful rep system?

How about a mod looks at a post when it's reported 3 times or so (excluding spam etc)

Cabaal

Martypants1 wrote: »

How about a more useful rep system?

We've had that before, it turns into a popularity contest, much worse then the thanks button.

How about a mod looks at a post when it's reported 3 times or so (excluding spam etc)

So you want a rep system where if other posters use that rep system more then three times it reports the post? That would create an unreal amount of work for mods.

We already have a report post feature, if users have concerns they can use that without the need for implementing a rep system

Fr_Dougal

What could be implemented, and might work out really well, is the use of prefixes for threads similar to what's used in the DRP & Bargain Alerts fora.

Something like 'Lighthearted' for threads about a funny story in the news, or 'Crime', 'Did you know' etc.

Could be a good way to set the tone of threads and give posters the heads up on what sort of moderation to expect.

Just a thought.

looksee

Martypants1 wrote: »

Which is why something should be done to track these people. Have a thumbs up and down button. If they -200 thumbs down do a review of the persons posts or something.


Why not try something different instead of always saying no or giving reasons why something wouldn't work. Why not try it?

How about a more useful rep system?

How about a mod looks at a post when it's reported 3 times or so (excluding spam etc)

And how would you differentiate between people who were down voted because of their posting style, their unpopular (but legitimate) opinions, or those who were being ganged up on?

And why would you wait for 200 down votes if someone was being seriously obnoxious? This system would result in reducing the whole site to the level of the most active thumb clickers. I certainly don't want to have my reading of the site interrupted by having to make a judgment on every post and giving it a thumbs up or down.

How about if we just accept that Boards is not a democracy (though it is more democratic than most other sites) it is a benevolent dictatorship (from the top). If you really can't cope with that overall concept then feel free to start a site that does allow free-for-all posting, or join one of the ones that exists.

I joined Boards about 10 years ago and posted for about 6 months (I think, I haven't checked) but then I got completely fed up with the aggression, bigotry and insistence by posters that if you did not post in line with their rather juvenile attitudes you were to be mocked. So I didn't post for about 18 months or so. Eventually I came back and found things were beginning to change, and I stuck with it, and now find it a good place to share ideas and opinions.

Having said all that, I do not very often go into AH, and it would be no hardship to me to stay out if people want to post 'light hearted banter' (or sexist, racist, scatological humour depending on your view point). I think it is probably hitting the right note at the moment, though I did see a recent thread closed rather unnecessarily, I thought. Its not my call though, the mods have leeway to steer a forum in the direction they deem appropriate - short of Dav micromanaging all the forums on the site, that is the only sensible approach.

dudara

Martypants1 wrote: »

Which is why something should be done to track these people. Have a thumbs up and down button. If they -200 thumbs down do a review of the persons posts or something.

We had that before and it really degenerated into thanks-whoring and post-shaming. It's not a system I would ever want to see back here.

How about a more useful rep system?

How about a mod looks at a post when it's reported 3 times or so (excluding spam etc)

How is that any different to what we currently have. Every Reported Post is logged in the mod forum and most mods will receive an email when a post is reported (depending on settings). So if a mod receives several emails reporting the same post, they will look into it.

The Hill Billy

Up/Down-voting & Rep systems would be open to abuse by those you think it may help weed out.

We need to get rid of the trouble-makers with as little upset to the forum as possible. That's the challenge that the AH Mods have on a daily basis, & this may lead to what some members see as excessive moderation.

If you have suggestions on how to ease moderation, yet keep the homophobes, misandrists, misogynists, transphobes & racists out - we're all ears.

Martypants1

looksee wrote: »

And how would you differentiate between people who were down voted because of their posting style, their unpopular (but legitimate) opinions, or those who were being ganged up on?

And why would you wait for 200 down votes if someone was being seriously obnoxious? This system would result in reducing the whole site to the level of the most active thumb clickers. I certainly don't want to have my reading of the site interrupted by having to make a judgment on every post and giving it a thumbs up or down.

How about if we just accept that Boards is not a democracy (though it is more democratic than most other sites) it is a benevolent dictatorship (from the top). If you really can't cope with that overall concept then feel free to start a site that does allow free-for-all posting, or join one of the ones that exists.

I joined Boards about 10 years ago and posted for about 6 months (I think, I haven't checked) but then I got completely fed up with the aggression, bigotry and insistence by posters that if you did not post in line with their rather juvenile attitudes you were to be mocked. So I didn't post for about 18 months or so. Eventually I came back and found things were beginning to change, and I stuck with it, and now find it a good place to share ideas and opinions.

Having said all that, I do not very often go into AH, and it would be no hardship to me to stay out if people want to post 'light hearted banter' (or sexist, racist, scatological humour depending on your view point). I think it is probably hitting the right note at the moment, though I did see a recent thread closed rather unnecessarily, I thought. Its not my call though, the mods have leeway to steer a forum in the direction they deem appropriate - short of Dav micromanaging all the forums on the site, that is the only sensible approach.

I don't want my reading of the site showing just PC comments and not being allowed to express my opinion for fear of getting banned.

It's better to have all opinions that are out there expressed rather than one who is just inoffensive to a group of people don't you think?

And you can read your posts that don't cross the line occasionally in a forum specific thread. After hours is supposed to be a bit of craic.

There's just no desire of the site to improve.

And I already use reddit because I can express my opinion and take the piss out of people without being banned. I'm not very active on boards apart from irish specific things because mods are just happy to ban people willy nilly.

There's already 70k active users on the ireland sub on reddit. Something will need to be done to improve here or the site will decline even more.

And my suggestions were hardly finished product yet you felt the need to shoot them down.

Martypants1

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Up/Down-voting & Rep systems would be open to abuse by those you think it may help weed out.

We need to get rid of the trouble-makers with as little upset to the forum as possible. That's the challenge that the AH Mods have on a daily basis, & this may lead to what some members see as excessive moderation.

If you have suggestions on how to ease moderation, yet keep the homophobes, misandrists, misogynists, transphobes & racists out - we're all ears.

Yet the site is being abused by people who are just looking to be offended.

I've said enough on this thread so I'm out for now.

The Hill Billy

Martypants1 wrote: »

...And I already use reddit because I can express my opinion and take the piss out of people without being banned.

...because mods are just happy to ban people willy nilly.

You want to take the piss out of people? - stick to the other site. We prefer discussion here.

People don't get banned willy-nilly. People get banned because they contravene site rules. If the site rules don't you - try another site.

Martypants1

The Hill Billy wrote: »

You want to take the piss out of people? - stick to the other site. We prefer discussion here.

People don't get banned willy-nilly. People get banned because they contravene site rules. If the site rules don't you - try another site.

Sigh. You don't understand light heartedness then?

I give up, clearly I've misunderstood what AH is for. It's obvious from this thread that it's for serious discussion only without any scope for craic.

I'll continue, like many others following the trend to have craic on other sites and leave the irish specific things to boards.

oscarBravo

Martypants1 wrote: »

Sigh. You don't understand light heartedness then?

You can't be light-hearted without taking the piss out of someone?

looksee

The problem arises when you are being light-hearted and the receiver is feeling abused. So then they are light-hearted back and you get offended at their missing your light heartedness and responding with abuse ... and its all downhill from there.

K-9

The Hill Billy wrote: »

I use similar phrases IRL too, & yes, I too would like to see similar levels of banter again in AH. When we previously had it it was generall healthy, civil & without malice. The problem is that there are arseholes out there who take such phrases & attitudes to the extreme to further their own warped agendas. They relish in winding people up & getting their digs in persistently at their targets.

It makes for an unpleasant atmosphere in the forum & a lot of work for the mods trying to keep the place tidy & at the same time attempting to keep the majority of posters happy.

And if mods go tough on the arseholes people will say mods and the DRP is too harsh. Delicate flowers.

#thebantz

Martypants1

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can't be light-hearted without taking the piss out of someone?

You are not understanding the term taking the piss.

I.e someone might say I have a funny taste in their mouth. One might reply "that's what ya get for shifting your sister". Standard taking the piss craic.

oscarBravo

Martypants1 wrote: »

You are not understanding the term taking the piss.

I.e someone might say I have a funny taste in their mouth. One might reply "that's what ya get for shifting your sister". Standard taking the piss craic.

Have you actually been prevented from expressing yourself in this hilarious manner?

4zn76tysfajdxp

It is a waste of time to discuss something like humour with any of the administrators. If it isn't a Boards Gathering Card, something about coke and hookers or a reference to Quake LAN parties in 1999 it's not funny.

The Hill Billy

Too old school for me.

Fr_Dougal

Who administers the Administrators? Hmmm?

Martypants1

oscarBravo wrote: »

Have you actually been prevented from expressing yourself in this hilarious manner?

It was an example and you're just being anal.

:rolleyes:

Not surprised to see moderators thanking your post and agreeing with you though,

looksee

Martypants1 wrote: »

It was an example and you're just being anal.

:rolleyes:

Not surprised to see moderators thanking your post and agreeing with you though,

There you are you see! Oscar Bravo particularly mentioned how hilarious your post was and yet you take exception!

Beasty

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Who administers the Administrators? Hmmm?

The "office" who in turn are "administered" by the owners. If you want a say I suggest you put an offer in for the business....

Wibbs

looksee wrote: »

I joined Boards about 10 years ago and posted for about 6 months (I think, I haven't checked) but then I got completely fed up with the aggression, bigotry and insistence by posters that if you did not post in line with their rather juvenile attitudes you were to be mocked. So I didn't post for about 18 months or so. Eventually I came back and found things were beginning to change, and I stuck with it, and now find it a good place to share ideas and opinions.

Jayzuz L, you can't be saying that. It's all sorts of confusing to the various groups. One group holds AH was better "in the old days", another reckons it was nastier then and yet another reckons it's nastier now. I've seen a couple of people who seem to hold all three opinions at once.

From what I can see AH was always the "problem child" and feedback and wider opinion has held that pretty consistently down the years. Feedback on the place outside of the year involved seems to break down roughly into; naysayers, AH has never been better types, trolls who want to see things burn, obsequious trolls trying to curry favour and mods trying to navigate that mess. And throughout AH has matured as a forum. As I said earlier go back in time through the pages and it's pretty clear to see.

The Hill Billy

This has rambled on long enough. Thread will be closed at midnight tomorrow - Monday. Any further quality input - let's have it by then.

tHB

looksee

In the entire thread I rather think you will find maybe 30 or so posters, some of whom (including me) have expressed much the same opinion several times. Reduced to one 'vote'/opinion per poster - I haven't added it up but I reckon you will find a two thirds or so 'AH is ok' view. (Maybe I am just seeing what I want to see!)

Pawwed Rig

dudara wrote: »

So if a mod receives several emails reporting the same post, they will look into it.

Just to clarify that every reported post is looked at whether that be reported by 1 or 100 posters.

riffmongous

looksee wrote: »

In the entire thread I rather think you will find maybe 30 or so posters, some of whom (including me) have expressed much the same opinion several times. Reduced to one 'vote'/opinion per poster - I haven't added it up but I reckon you will find a two thirds or so 'AH is ok' view. (Maybe I am just seeing what I want to see!)

You think Feedback is representative of AH though?

Canadel

looksee wrote: »

(Maybe I am just seeing what I want to see!)

I see dead people. And I see mods. I see 7 different mods on this page alone. Boards has become a discussion site where too often the main focus and discussion involves and surrounds its moderators. You only have to read through the other 10 pages of this thread to see how revered mods are, mostly amongst themselves. Which is fine, but there is a divide between many regular posters and moderators, hence the existence of this thread. Mods are vital, and I don't think anyone on this thread disagrees with the idea of moderation, but the excessive moderation of After Hours is destroying what is undoubtedly the best and most important forum on Boards.ie. And that is a tremendous shame.

This thread was created because posters genuinely care about After Hours, and that a mod has posted on this very page that they are closing the thread, is evidence enough that this is something that can't be resolved when this divide exists between regulars and mods. There will always be a power divide, but when that power becomes unpredictable and celebratory, it becomes unreasonable.