Boards is becoming a Ghost Town

KomradeBishop

K-9 wrote: »

Kb, we've spent hours, going into days on this, no exaggeration.

K-9 wrote: »

Kb, a new forum was set up for you, to accommodate you.

The siteban was an error AFAIK, yet it is 2 years later? You are still going on about it. None of us ever said we were infallible.

I don't know why every couple of months this stuff gets dragged up on various threads across the site.

What I do know is, no mod, C-mod or admin shuts your opinion down. That seems at odds with what you say about modding on the site.

The Political Economics forum is gone - likely in part due to comments from posters in this thread who I've long had run-ins with, many of whom backslapped the comment from hullaballoo I quoted previously, personally attacking me and the Political Economics forum...


Nothing here, changes the fact, that my original ban got escalated after my account closed - when I did nothing to deserve that - and that after that was resolved, my ban was still escalated above its original conditions (which directly led to more problems down the line) - when I did nothing to deserve that...

It's not the siteban that is the main issue there either, my original ban was still escalated above what it originally was, after the siteban was removed - and the thread locked, stopping me from contesting that escalation.

That alone deserves pointing out, that mods can do that. Every mod escalation afterwards, was connected to that initial unjust escalation. Mods may not be 'infallible', yet I'm still the one left in the shít situation here, with mods not acknowledging all of the mistakes that led to that.

Mods/admins etc. did spend a very large amount of time on this - and I appreciate that - it still led to things incrementally escalating way out of control, in unjust ways, as mods never seem to acknowledge how these small escalations, set the stage for future ones...(I can see both sides to it, it became so overcomplicated that I have zero faith than any third party can get a clear view of it anymore - yet it also makes me cynical how at every juncture, new conditions always seemed to escalate/arise, while usually refusing to see the past injustices I had tried to point out...)


Anyway, for this thread, lets move on.

K-9

Mark Refined Wintergreen wrote: »

Well it's really fun and interesting to read and very relevant to what overall problems the site has

Honestly the main reason for declining traffic is probably the fact that it's a message board site. I joined when I was 18 and I really can't picture many people that age these days signing up with all the competition from bigger, simpler sites. It'd be like 18 year old me joining up to a cool club where people make jokes over landlines and write letters to each other, doesn't matter how good the content is, the medium is offputting and old-fashioned.

Every time this issue is raised moderation is one of the most consistently cited problems from the user base. I'm very much one of the bleeding heart perpetually offended snowflakes or whatever, and it still seems OTT pretty frequently to me. I understand that mods often see a clusterfcuk coming in a thread and take preemptive action before it gets too bad, but still. The user base of the site skews left, conservative posters probably feel a bit ganged up anyway and then the moderation compounds that.

And that leads to a situation where threads go from zero to meta in a couple of pages, someone says something, someone objects to it, first person goes immediately to 'I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SAY THE THINGS' rather than defending what they said. Cards, thread locked, and next time the topic comes up half the first page will be people saying 'oh we're not allowed to discuss this it'll probably be locked'. It is deeply, deeply boring to read as an established user and I can't imagine how off putting it is for a new or casual user.

I've taken conservative or against the grain views on subjects and I don't think I've felt mods closed it down. I've felt a bit ganged upon, but copped myself on. I'm on the minority opinion side, of course there are more posts on the other side. Those thanks? They're buttons on a website. Stop being a precious snow flake K-9 and debate my side!

You make valid points though.

But as I said previously, group think isn't a left or liberal thing. I've seen threads with more conservative group think and the same thing happens, just in reverse.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Myrddin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's exactly why it was removed, it was dead - one of the things so many have commented on in this thread so far (dead forums leading to bloat). No conspiracy, no surreptitiousness, just one small example of us clearing out an obviously dead/failed forum as requested by the community (it has been an ongoing point raised in this very thread, dead/quiet forums leading to bloated categories). Of course, there are many like it still open, but we'll get to them. We've been working with Cmods to identify & plan out the closure/merging of several dead forums across the site - it takes a while to discuss, plan & manage these things, but we'll get there.

Lovely Bloke

hullaballoo wrote: »

Yeah, I do know who he is.

Anyway, I was being facetious as I am wont to do from time to time. The self-aggrandisement makes me do it.

nope. you outright lied to make him look bad.

for some reason only known to you.

It's pretty low behaviour.

I suppose your excuse that it was "facetious" makes it ok.

It doesn't, and it's actually typical of the kind of interactions with the heirarchy that has boards with the reputation it has.

contemptible really

Lovely Bloke

Myrddin wrote: »

That's exactly why it was removed, it was dead - one of the things so many have commented on in this thread so far (dead forums leading to bloat). No conspiracy, no surreptitiousness, just one small example of us clearing out an obviously dead/failed forum as requested by the community (it has been an ongoing point raised in this very thread, dead/quiet forums leading to bloated categories). Of course, there are many like it still open, but we'll get to them. We've been working with Cmods to identify & plan out the closure/merging of several dead forums across the site - it takes a while to discuss, plan & manage these things, but we'll get there.

plenty other dead forums not deleted, so that's more than a little coincidental.

The wagon circling here is pretty funny, and I don't even think you or pawwed rig know you are doing it.

Myrddin

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

plenty other dead forums not deleted, so that's more than a little coincidental.

Yes there are, as I said in that post, we'll get to them. Some are more open & shut to handle, others require more planning & communication to handle. The Sports category has loads of very quiet ones, but rather than just closing them, we're discussing how we might still cater to those topics without having a forum for each one - and that's just one category, there's several others, & a LOT of forums to consider. Again, no conspiracies here...it just takes time.[/QUOTE]

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As a mod of the forum, this was exactly it. While I suspect that the forum might have had... ahem.... that reputation among those who might have been inclined to post there it was ultimately closed because there was virtually no traffic. That's ultimately it. I tried starting a few interesting threads to no avail.

Lovely Bloke

Myrddin wrote: »

Yes there are, as I said in that post, we'll get to them. Some are more open & shut to handle, others require more planning & communication to handle. The Sports category has loads of very quiet ones, but rather than just closing them, we're discussing how we might still cater to those topics without having a forum for each one - and that's just one category, there's several others, & a LOT of forums to consider. Again, no conspiracies here...it just takes time.

Sure, sure. :rolleyes:

Who are you trying to convince here? Or is that a line from the admin forum?

um7y1h83ge06nx

Things do seem a little quieter around here in comparison to a few years ago.

Boards is probably my most used and favorite website, been a member for almost 11 years now!

Other forms of social media such as Facebook and Snapchat don't encroach upon Boards I would feel. You cannot have the same depth of discussion on these as you can with a discussion site.

I do hate the new look of Boards though, reverted quickly to the legacy site.

Myrddin

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Who are you trying to convince here?

Anyone who is interested in the truth

Lovely Bloke

Myrddin wrote: »

Anyone who is interested in the truth

just like your pal Hulla.

He loves the truth.

Myrddin

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

just like your pal Hulla.

He loves the truth.

Lets not go down the road of us having to issue warnings/infractions in Feedback, we're all adults here, & should be able to debate & discuss like so. If all your interested in is posting this type of nonsense, take it elsewhere will you

droidman123

So thats it,shut up or i will click on my control panel and shut you up! This is exactly the type of thing that makes me post on boards only rarely now.

Myrddin

droidman123 wrote: »

So thats it,shut up or i will click on my control panel and shut you up! This is exactly the type of thing that makes me post on boards only rarely now.

I'm trying to keep things civil, & steer the thread back on topic which is Feedback on the overall site. I'm trying to do that without issuing any warnings etc, & am appealing to posters to drop being personal with each other, & get back to giving us feedback we can work with to improve the site. If that's 'over zealous', I give up

Lovely Bloke

Myrddin wrote: »

I'm trying to keep things civil, & steer the thread back on topic which is Feedback on the overall site. I'm trying to do that without issuing any warnings etc, & am appealing to posters to drop being personal with each other, & get back to giving us feedback we can work with to improve the site. If that's 'over zealous', I give up

you're an Admin, you could deal with the incident, instead of outright ignoring it.

Or is what Hulla did acceptable in Feedback?

Oh, sorry, did you not see it, or did nobody report it?

Far easier to reprimand me, isn't it.

Double standards, one standard for people with bold names defending Boards, and another standard for people with the gall to not blindly swallow the lines coming out of the pear tree house.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Myrddin wrote: »

we're discussing how we might still cater to those topics without having a forum for each one...

where does political economics fit, given the reason for the creation of the forum in the first place?

Myrddin

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Double standards, one standard for people with bold names defending Boards, and another standard for people with the gall to not blindly swallow the lines coming out of the pear tree house.

Not at all, we're all held to the same rules (it's rare enough, but mods can & do end up in the DRF believe it or not). Yes I quoted you, but my appeal to return to civility was for everyone, so my apologies if you felt it was directed solely at you The last sentence of my post was directed at you, because it you were trying to bring me in on it ("my pal Hulla", insinuating I'm modding only one side of the debate). I had to step in, the thread was being derailed, & it needed to be brought back to what it's here for.

So let me try again, can we ALL, get back to the issue at hand now? There's been some great feedback given so far, & so much to discuss & work with...let's not let the thread descend into petty arguments after all the helpful stuff that it started with.

smash

Aylin Salmon Savanna wrote: »

Other forms of social media such as Facebook and Snapchat don't encroach upon Boards I would feel. You cannot have the same depth of discussion on these as you can with a discussion site.

Snapchat is in no way competition for boards. Facebook on the other hand is. On FB you have local community groups, sports groups, clubs, news groups and business pages that boards just can not ever compete with. The difference is that boards is perceived as giving anonymity, which it doesn't.

Penn

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

plenty other dead forums not deleted, so that's more than a little coincidental.

The wagon circling here is pretty funny, and I don't even think you or pawwed rig know you are doing it.

And plenty of dead forums have been previously removed. There was a huge cleanup of the Games category a while back to get rid of dead forums, including one I myself modded.

Guess which Games CMod organised that cleanup? Myrddin. So I'm more than willing to take him at his word.

These things take time. Identifying which forums are dead. Which still have active but small bases. Where else can they be accommodated. Which forums fall under which sub-headings if the sub-headings are to be changed. Which forums are quiet now but could get a lot busier with future game releases. Which mods are willing to take on or give up forums.

It's not a simple process, and if forums were just gotten rid of or merged without such considerations there'd be uproar.

Myrddin

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

where does political economics fit, given the reason for the creation of the forum in the first place?

Given the traffic in the forum, nowhere Serious answer - depending on the context of the discussion, Politics, Politics Cafe, or Economics would seem to cover the bases. The dedicated forum died a death on its feet really.

Myrddin

Penn wrote: »

Guess which Games CMod organised that cleanup? Myrddin. So I'm more than willing to take him at his word.

I was Cmod for the Games category at the time, & ran a feedback thread to see what users felt we might do to make the category better. One of the prevailing points raised was the huge bloated mess the category had become, full of dead & dying forums. I set about then discussing things with all the mods within that category, & trust me when I say this, it took AGES to work things out...there's so many considerations (some of which are listed above) - and that's just one category, with one team of mods, trying to do one cleanup. To do this across the entire site is no small feat, & it wouldn't be done in go either, it'll be broken up into smaller tasks that'll be incrementally done.

osarusan

K-9 wrote: »

What I do know is, no mod, C-mod or admin shuts your opinion down. That seems at odds with what you say about modding on the site.

I think you should take a look at the first reply to the thread KB started in Feedback on an issue in the Economics forum. Think about the decision in the Economics forum that caused the thread to be started too.

Here's the thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057524046

I don't think I've ever seen a worse, more insulting, more dismissive response to a legitimate query in feedback (the legitimacy of which was acknowledged by Dav later in the thread).

Would you say that the original decision and response is something that is at odds with what I've quoted from you above? It seems to me like the very definition of shutting an opinion down.

ancapailldorcha

It's not shutting down opinion, it's the fact that Komradebishop insists on shoehorning this opinion into as many discussions as possible. This has been explained multiple times by mods, Cmods, admins & now Dav.

osarusan

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's not shutting down opinion, it's the fact that Komradebishop insists on shoehorning this opinion into as many discussions as possible.

That doesn't even make sense.

ancapailldorcha

osarusan wrote: »

That doesn't even make sense.

Yes it does.

KERSPLAT!

There are some posters trying to make this an "us against them" thread and Jaysus some mods really aren't helping.

ancapailldorcha

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

There some posters trying to make this an "us against them" thread and Jaysus some mods really aren't helping.

Well K, I was a mod of the forum that was closed. KB seems to think that the forum was closed because of some agenda against him. I think I have a right to defend myself there.

osarusan

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't.

What the/some mods/admins see as KB's constant shoehorning of stuff into threads might be presented a justification for shutting him down in the example I linked to, but it's still shutting him down. It stretches credulity to argue otherwise, when the mod openly admitted limiting the scope of what could be talked about in that forum for the express purpose of excluding the kind of stuff KB posts on that theme.

I think it's fairly obvious that KB is viewed by lots of mods/admin as a windbag, soapboxer, etc, but the response to that is by no means uniformly reasonable. I'd say it is utterly unreasonable in the first response in the thread I linked to, absolutely to the point of being a dick. You can see also that in hullaballoo's 'facetious' responses earlier.

Anyhow, we are way off topic now, gone into something quite specific, my apologies for that.

I've said what I wanted to say in response to an earlier post by K-9.

smash

If you have a point then maybe it's fine to give an example, but at this point the thread has turned in to a personal crusade...