Boards is becoming a Ghost Town

Lurkio

Eugene Norman wrote: »

All of those arguments are spurious. If it's easy to argue against somebodies beliefs then do so, don't ban them. And of course some Christians or religious think homosexuality immoral and perverted (a majority opinion a few years ago). Argue against them. Don't ban them.

Yes, because discussions about gay marriage that start off where people have to argue that gay people are human too and not paedos is a healthy and productive way to go. The same with the racists - you can't even take the piss out of them in places.

Eugene Norman

Lurkio wrote: »

Yes, because discussions about gay marriage that start off where people have to argue that gay people are human too and not paedos is a healthy and productive way to go. The same with the racists - you can't even take the piss out of them in places.

You're arguing your own strawman. Christians (and I am not one) don't think that gays aren't human. On the contrary they see a soul worth saving but don't like the lifestyle. That's still about 30-40% of the population. If you get rid of that group from boards that's 30-40% of your potential posters gone. (Maybe less given the demographics here but it's not a good idea).

As for racism, that word has lost meaning but generally it means those with a sceptical eye on migration.

Myrddin

We're actively looking at the following, based on the feedback so far:

1) Inactive & dead forums leading to bloated categories.
2) Inactive mods

We're also discussing some of the other core points raised so far. I mentioned before that a discussion isn't a guarantee of anything, but by all means we will discuss and make improvements where possible.

Secondly, these things take time. Not everyone is online at the same times, afk mods need to be contacted & given appropriate time to respond, & discussions on consolidating dead forums need to happen properly, and due consideration given to how to handle them (can they be saved, how, if not then what happens to their content, and so forth). Please don't expect anything to happen immediately, it won't.

Finally, thank you to those who have contributed to the feedback so far. If I can ask that we keep things constructive here too, because nobody wants to wade through pages of people arguing with each other while looking for feedback that can be used constructively...it slows down the whole process greatly. Thank again

smash

Myrddin wrote: »

Not everyone is online at the same times, afk mods need to be contacted & given appropriate time to respond, & discussions on consolidating dead forums need to happen properly, and due consideration given to how to handle them (can they be saved, how, if not then what happens to their content, and so forth). Please don't expect anything to happen immediately, it won't.

Why isn't there just one big uncategorised locked forum called 'archive' where old and locked threads can be shipped off to? Search engines will still pick them up and forums wont be bloated with old or locked threads. Users wont be able to reopen old threads then either.

KomradeBishop

K-9 wrote: »

The main forum was moving away from the stuffier feel when I started modding and continued while it still was busy. Some, I'd say all older posters, wanted higher standards but the mods always were conscious of trying to make the forum welcoming to newer users. I'd say if the cafe hadn't took off it would be more relaxed again, just progression. With the cafe we're now between a rock and a hard place. Joining up the 3 remaining fora would help but the cafe is were people are at, same as AH before.

As for opposite, unpopular opinions, I'd be very conscious of that in threads, probably to the extent those posters get away with more than usual. Cries of inconsistency!
It isn't a left or right thing, it's a group think thing. Get the consensus right wing or conservative (yes, that happens on boards) and you get the exact same behaviour.

As someone who holds views that are in the minority on both the left/right, the main problem I see consistently, is just tribalism in debates (not specific to any forum, so not talking about PC, but certainly more likely in certain topics) - and that being used to try and consistently move the discussion away from actual logical debate, and into rhetorical debate (especially debate laced with heavy condescension - I think mods should watch for that in particular, and come down on it, it's very bad for debate).

It's something that I appreciate is very hard to moderate, but it is that which leads to things becoming an echo chamber, and which poisons both the quality and tone of debate.

The inconsistency tends to arise, when this type of rhetorical tactic can be used to shut down opposing points of view - and is not acted on by mods, because when a large enough number of people engage in this tactic, it tends to be viewed as legitimate (I'm not even sure if people realize when they're participating in this either).

smash

KomradeBishop wrote: »

As someone who holds views that are in the minority on both the left/right, the main problem I see consistently, is just tribalism in debates (not specific to any forum, so not talking about PC, but certainly more likely in certain topics) - and that being used to try and consistently move the discussion away from actual logical debate, and into rhetorical debate (especially debate laced with heavy condescension - I think mods should watch for that in particular, and come down on it, it's very bad for debate).

Politics by it's nature is tribal.

Lurkio

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You're arguing your own strawman. Christians (and I am not one) don't think that gays aren't human. On the contrary they see a soul worth saving but don't like the lifestyle. That's still about 30-40% of the population. If you get rid of that group from boards that's 30-40% of your potential posters gone. (Maybe less given the demographics here but it's not a good idea).
.

None of that relates to what I was referring to in the post.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

As for racism, that word has lost meaning but generally it means those with a sceptical eye on migration.

No, it means people who are racist. When somebody starts sticking figures about "Afro-American" crime in an immigration thread, they aren't doing that for the craic.

smash

smash wrote: »

Why isn't there just one big uncategorised locked forum called 'archive' where old and locked threads can be shipped off to? Search engines will still pick them up and forums wont be bloated with old or locked threads. Users wont be able to reopen old threads then either.

I've seen other websites auto-lock a thread after a certain period of inactivity. I never understood why Boards didn't employ this policy, especially considering that bumping old threads is frowned upon.

KERSPLAT!

Karsini wrote: »

I've seen other websites auto-lock a thread after a certain period of inactivity. I never understood why Boards didn't employ this policy, especially considering that bumping old threads is frowned upon.

Yep. Posters are often told to use the search function but on the other hand told not to drag up old threads. It's definitely something that should be in place.

Beasty

But I can find example in Sports forum where threads may be inactive for an extended period, then burst to life when an individual (or team) hits the headlines, only to lie dormant again until he scores that all-important run, goal or perhaps appears in the tabloids for the worng reasons. In such cases sticking to existing threads rather than going over old ground again is of benefit

I appreciate that's not the case in all areas of the site, but I'm not sure closing threads suits a "one size fits all" approach

hullaballoo

Karsini wrote: »

I've seen other websites auto-lock a thread after a certain period of inactivity. I never understood why Boards didn't employ this policy, especially considering that bumping old threads is frowned upon.

I personally have never understood the aversion to having old threads bumped. We actively encourage users to use search in LD and it would make no sense whatsoever to then complain that the thread is too old. What's too old about it?

If the post is relevant to the thread or contains a question on the same topic, why is a new thread needed? We end up with numerous threads on the same thing even with this policy.

It makes no sense to me.

Skylinehead

I think if something new on a dead topic comes up, it's perfectly fine to bump the thread.

On the other hand, if a poster starts responding to points made 6 months ago, it should probably be closed.

FA Hayek

Lurkio wrote: »

No, it means people who are racist. When somebody starts sticking figures about "Afro-American" crime in an immigration thread, they aren't doing that for the craic.

Perfect example of what I alluded to before. Eugene is right. Terms like racist have lost all meaning as they are mainly used to shut down debate. One cannot even discuss certain topics without being cast out as some right wing stromfront pariah. I see it quite often the posters attack the motivation of the poster, not the actual post or content itself. It's a grey area that is not quite playing the man or the ball. Needs to be called out for what it is in my opinion.

Lurkio wrote: »

The person you refer to specifically above had a car crash falling out with a former associate on a thread in AH over matters non-political, in which an horrific amount of dirty laundry was waved about for public delectation. As a result they and the other person involved seemed to stop posting, as far as I recall (and I recall rather a great deal).

Who is this we are talking about now as I mentioned a few people?

One might say that - for example - a few that opposed gay marriage got a hard time of it, but there were quite a few that seemed to start from the position that gay people were in fact at best perverts and at worst child molesters in waiting.

Again, if you start from a position of smeering your opponent as the first step to debating then one wonders then why the boards is such a bitch fest. Can we have some examples of quite a few posters stating that homosexuals are in fact peadophile on boards? This is not something I have seen myself but interested in being proved wrong. And when I mean an example, not some spurious guilt by association or other such nonsense.

Again, expecting a "reasonable" discussion to come from that is a bit much. We really shouldn't have to go over this ground in the 21st century. These are discredited, redundant ideas, seemingly still held by a vocal minority and can have no real place, save for the sake of historical reference, in a sane discussion. CT theory or some specific forum perhaps, but not amongst the mainstream.

An appeal to some moral enlightened authority is just that. An excuse to create an echo chamber and protect certain ideologies from debate and criticism. Boards never tolerated outright racist posts, EVER. Yet over the past few years we have seen a gradual corporate politically correct editorial slant to whats acceptable and whats not. However, if you change the definition of racist or hate speech to suit, then you can pretty much ban anything you want. Echo chamber mission complete. Boards.ie is of course in their right to do this, but they cannot then be surprised that they find their community shrinking because of it as surprise surprise not everyone out there shares the same belief.

As an aside, I do not want to drag this feedback thread off topic so maybe we should end it here.

K-9

Legal Discussion I can see why, old political threads only if they are topical. You often get posters replying to people who don't post anymore or barely remember the thread.

Xaracatz

Boards is one of my go to sites, and has been for many years. Saying that, I don't post very often because there is nothing really that I want to say, and I am conscious of making some joke that will earn me a card or something (and I'm saying that as somebody who first joined boards about ten years ago and has never got so much as a warning).

I used to come here for a bit of craic / banter. I now come here if I have a question, and to read Irish opinions on current events (as I live abroad these days).

While it wasn't all fields back when I was more active, there were certainly a few more trees around. AH had lots of the more irreverent threads that were fun to read and take part in. And it was a community for sure. The disposable user accounts, I think, contribute to the loss of a community spirit.

Now AH (I'm not so sure of other forums) is like a recyclable, finite, list of things people are moderately outraged by; contributed to by those who want to disagree or find fault. Maybe that's just how the interwebz is going these days..

One thing I miss (although I use the mobile site 99% of the time - so it may be still around) is the Post of the Day and Thread of the Day. PoTD was whatever post got most thanks (I know it kept being on YLYL and then MT Cranium's weather posts - but still cool). TotD was a random thread, which was a really nice idea as it would bring you to fora that you weren't aware if. Maybe that could come back / be more or prevalent?

Anyway - long post. I still think a lot of Boards, and I know times change, but I'd love to see some movement towards the Boards it used to be rather than slowly re-inventing, re-vamping, and moving away from everything that made it such a great and unique site.

Calhoun

FA Hayek wrote: »

Perfect example of what I alluded to before. Eugene is right. Terms like racist have lost all meaning as they are mainly used to shut down debate. One cannot even discuss certain topics without being cast out as some right wing stromfront pariah. I see it quite often the posters attack the motivation of the poster, not the actual post or content itself. It's a grey area that is not quite playing the man or the ball. Needs to be called out for what it is in my opinion.




Who is this we are talking about now as I mentioned a few people?




Again, if you start from a position of smeering your opponent as the first step to debating then one wonders then why the boards is such a bitch fest. Can we have some examples of quite a few posters stating that homosexuals are in fact peadophile on boards? This is not something I have seen myself but interested in being proved wrong. And when I mean an example, not some spurious guilt by association or other such nonsense.




An appeal to some moral enlightened authority is just that. An excuse to create an echo chamber and protect certain ideologies from debate and criticism. Boards never tolerated outright racist posts, EVER. Yet over the past few years we have seen a gradual corporate politically correct editorial slant to whats acceptable and whats not. However, if you change the definition of racist or hate speech to suit, then you can pretty much ban anything you want. Echo chamber mission complete. Boards.ie is of course in their right to do this, but they cannot then be surprised that they find their community shrinking because of it as surprise surprise not everyone out there shares the same belief.

As an aside, I do not want to drag this feedback thread off topic so maybe we should end it here.

Couldn't have said it better, although what I do find funny is there are folks who have left because they don't feel discussion is closed down enough.

Turtyturd

Reading through this thread and I would have to agree with a lot of what has been said.

The main purpose of boards for me (and I'd imagine a lot of other people) now is as a source of information. You want to know about some gig, where is the cheapest place to find a certain game, need a movie recommendation, or looking for advice on a situation similar to one you are in boards is the place to come, although funnily enough it's easier to find this information on boards through google than on boards itself.

Boards is a community in the loosest sense possible, and any semblance of community is solely down to the group of posters involved. As someone else said it's a business first and foremost and the users come last in the list of stakeholders (the complaints about ads are a perfect example of this). Closing threads for being too chatty, or banning users in order to break up a group of posters is completely at odds with a community ethos.

Posted similar to this in the 'Is boards aware of it's online reputation' thread (which true to form was locked) but will say it here again. Bad (both incompetent and deliberate) moderation has had a negative impact on the site. The majority are fine and are happy to stick in the background doing their 'job' which makes to bad ones stick out even more. It isn't helped by the fact that the higher ups will back the bad mods to the hilt, bar maybe overturning the odd yellow card, rather than admitting there was a mistake in appointing somebody.

Personally I find myself using it less and less. After hours used to be great for procastination/passing a bit of time, now it's a combination of what was on reddit yesterday and daily stupid threads from three lads in desperate need of attention. I now contribute mainly to one thread in the Soccer Forum which has maintained a good atmosphere in spite of the moderation from 1 or 2 mods, but if I could find the same atmosphere anywhere else without mods looking to put a stop to it I would likely drop boards.

pickarooney

intheclouds wrote: »

Ah lads, why cant we just go back to this - so much info on screen! No ads!

https://web.archive.org/web/20110505195603/http://www.boards.ie/

That's still what my boards landing page looks like

Cookie_Monster

Myrddin wrote: »

We're actively looking at the following, based on the feedback so far:

1) Inactive & dead forums leading to bloated categories.
2) Inactive mods

We're also discussing some of the other core points raised so far. I mentioned before that a discussion isn't a guarantee of anything, but by all means we will discuss and make improvements where possible.

1 and 2 are not really core points though. The main reason for the current downturn is the appalling re-design. Thinking about inactive mods of fora is irrelevant if the site continues to remain mostly unusable, you'll see rapidly increasing numbers of both as a result.

pickarooney

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are a lot of these 'essential expenses' not basically paying people to make the site worse?

I tried to find a way to say that which wouldn't sound mean spirited but that's honestly the way it looks from here.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Or face what appears to be the reality and always has been pretty much and that reality is; when Boards.ie hit a certain point it wasn't and likely can never be fully self funding. At the crest of Board's wave and when ad revenue was higher it wasn't or barely, so what hope these days? The Daft group have a few choices 1) cut it loose and take whatever hit they take, 2) continue on ploughing resources at it in the hope of increased revenue down the line or 3) regard it as a loss leader with value beyond the purely financial, a gateway to the rest of their stuff that is making money and on the office side of things, simplify and add lightness. It appears no 2 is what they've been doing and here we are I'm not sure it's working.

Jester252

I feel the ruined AH by forcing politcal discussions to PC

AH is now full of soft threads, people opinions, and less of major news stories.

PC has all these threads but it doesn't have the numbers as AH.

There feels as if there isn't a one stop spot for news disscussion with a large section of boards.

Esel

Wibbs wrote: »

Or face what appears to be the reality and always has been pretty much and that reality is; when Boards.ie hit a certain point it wasn't and likely can never be fully self funding. At the crest of Board's wave and when ad revenue was higher it wasn't or barely, so what hope these days? The Daft group have a few choices 1) cut it loose and take whatever hit they take, 2) continue on ploughing resources at it in the hope of increased revenue down the line or 3) regard it as a loss leader with value beyond the purely financial, a gateway to the rest of their stuff that is making money and on the office side of things, simplify and add lightness. It appears no 2 is what they've been doing and here we are I'm not sure it's working.

I vote #3.

But what do I know? Enough to know a user-base when it jumps up and slaps me in the face...

mirrorwall14

I agree with the vast majority of this thread though I will admit I am a re-reg. My previous account was as a moderator and I wanted a clean break when I stepped down.

As another side to the debate, I stepped down as a moderator because I was tired of the abuse, the stress and the level of vitriol by posters. I was tired of posters who danced the fine line of attacking the post not the poster, whose every post involved an inner debate for me trying to decide if it could be infracted. I always tried to avoid the 'don't be a dick' reason as I felt it was a cop out but to be honest there just seemed to be more and more posters who were being 'a dick' so to speak.

I found the recession made even the far more moderate posters in my forum incredibly angry, short tempered and far more inclined to have rows. I feel it destroyed the community. Excellent posters left. Extra mod hands were appealed for and appointed but they were slow to take the reigns. Eventually after an epic pm exchange with a yellow carded poster I decided that was it, I didn't want anymore of it.

The sad part of it was that I was asked to be a mod because of my contributions to the forum. However at that stage I found I couldn't contribute because I was 'the' mod. i still don't contribute to the forum in the way I did, it killed it for me. I read it, not post. I still get horribly uncomfortable reading borderline posts in it

I'd wonder if there is a lot of posters like me too, who stepped up, became mods and burned out maybe closing their accounts too.

I miss boards in its former glory. I have raved about it to friends. I don't anymore. It's quiet. I used to be able to sit down and browse hundreds of the most recent threads and could never keep up. Now I can, easily. This makes me sad. And I bit the bullet and installed the Reddit app yesterday because I'm off sick and boards no longer has enough to keep me entertained alone

Wibbs

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

As another side to the debate, I stepped down as a moderator because I was tired of the abuse, the stress and the level of vitriol by posters.

This is a very common complaint with mods and yes I can understand why many think this and I can certainly see how this complaint can lead to burn out, but let's face facts here, there's a huge amount of role bias going on and some real persecutive is required. Wood for the trees time.

If you're a mod it is very easy to see posters as being a problem, because quite simply you're dealing pretty much exclusively with the problem posters. This goes double if you're moderating a busy forum. However this is not a reflection on the vast majority of people on Boards, who you never have to deal with, who are perfectly cool people and this perception all too often translates into an attitude change with some moderators and the sound posters on Boards can sometimes run afoul of it.

The way I see whatever role I have is not dealing with problem posters, it is first and foremost to help keep the sound posters path clear of noise, which includes spam and yes problem posters when they arise.

mirrorwall14

Wibbs wrote: »

This is a very common complaint with mods and yes I can understand why many think this and I can certainly see how this complaint can lead to burn out, but let's face facts here, there's a huge amount of role bias going on and some real persecutive is required. Wood for the trees time.

If you're a mod it is very easy to see posters as being a problem, because quite simply you're dealing pretty much exclusively with the problem posters. This goes double if you're moderating a busy forum. However this is not a reflection on the vast majority of people on Boards, who you never have to deal with, who are perfectly cool people and this perception all too often translates into an attitude change with some moderators and the sound posters on Boards can sometimes run afoul of it.

The way I see whatever role I have is not dealing with problem posters, it is first and foremost to help keep the sound posters path clear of noise, which includes spam and yes problem posters when they arise.

Oh I would agree that there are sound posters. But being a Mod you spend your time trying to protect those posters from the difficult ones. Or at least I did. Maybe I was just bad at it. I didn't think so but sure who knows

K-9

Ach, most pm's I get aren't that bad, some even listen to well meaning advice! You get the odd unpleasant one but that's just trolls.

The general ethos should be to make the forum better for the 95% of posters who never cause a bother, that's what we are here for. We're human though, we get things wrong, sometimes we have to make judgment calls that don't have clear right or wrong answers, but it's just the Internet at the end of the day.

Mods should be able to take a step back from modding now and again otherwise yep, burnout.

_Kaiser_

K-9 wrote: »

but it's just the Internet at the end of the day.

Nail on head, but too many people seem to have forgotten that (on all sides)

It used to be that using the Internet required a degree of cop on and the ability to not take things too seriously or personally.... but that's (d)evolved into a scenario where not only are too many people taking offense to (IMO) trivialities, but actively LOOKING to be offended, or (even more ridiculously) to be offended on the behalf of others.

Add that mindset to the "right on" echo chamber and validation-seeking mindset and you end up with a sterile washed out environment where dissent from the consensus isn't tolerated and met with as much vitriol as they would complain about receiving.

The result is that you end up with petty sniping and unnecessary work for the mods, and posters who get frustrated with it and stop posting entirely.

"Don't be a dick" should be amended to include "and remember, it's JUST the Internet!" I think

Wibbs

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Oh I would agree that there are sound posters.

No MW, and with the greatest respect(not being a lickarse for future ref ), by far the vast majority of people on this site and community are "sound posters". On the highest traffic forums you might have a rolling figure of a couple of hundred people busy posting and out of that lot you may have two or three that are an issue. Even with so called "problem posters" you would have even there a minority that are actual morons/toddlers looking for attention/****.

Like K-9 said even with the posters that have crossed some line or other, again the majority are generally grand if you engage with them like another human being. I can say that with more than one "public enemy number one" I've actually had some pretty interesting and informative PM exchanges. I will admit now that there have been a couple of "problem posters" that I've been sorry I've had to moderate.

But being a Mod you spend your time trying to protect those posters from the difficult ones.

It depends on how you come at the "role". My take - and god knows I've failed more times than I like to admit - is that if you're a mod on any forum your job is to moderate. To help where needed and dial things back where you can and clean up spillage when it happens and most of all add content to the forum you've been given extra buttons to press over.

For me the Mod title is a service role. In short I am a servant to the community. It isn't, nor should be some step up hierarchy role. And if the extra buttons rev you up to the notion of ban hammers and being a "Goderator" then at the very least you need to step back and look at what we're actually trying to do here as a community.

Or at least I did. Maybe I was just bad at it. I didn't think so but sure who knows

Oh no MW, you weren't "bad at it" at all, quite the bloody contrary IMHO. It is very easy, especially in high traffic forums to forget the community and just see reported posts and problem posters as the role.