Boards is becoming a Ghost Town

KERSPLAT!

hullaballoo wrote: »

I know exactly where you're coming from and it would solve one particular problem but creating more forums on a site where there are already far too many forums is not going to be a solution here.

In fairness there are 10s that can and will likely be closed due to lack of traffic. This is opening a sub forum in a hugely popular forum for about 2 weeks every two years. I don't see an issue. It's actually a fantastic idea IMO

hullaballoo

gandalf wrote: »

Opening up the existing forum really pisses all over the existing community there.

The existing community consists of fans of 2 clubs dragging every thread started back to the rivalry between those two clubs, arsenal fans arguing over Wenger (in/out) and that's about it. Not a community I'd be in any major rush to preserve per se.

Nonetheless, it's not right that opening the forum up means no moderation.

hullaballoo

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

In fairness there are 10s that can and will likely be closed due to lack of traffic. This is opening a sub forum in a hugely popular forum for about 2 weeks every two years. I don't see an issue. It's actually a fantastic idea IMO

I suppose I'm coming from, or trying to come from the perspective of a newbie. A further sub forum here and there is perfectly manageable for a user who gets boards and its insane structure but if I was coming here anew in this day and age, I would clearly think fuck this for a game of soldiers.

KERSPLAT!

Yeah, maybe so. I don't think there would be an issue but it's definitely something to be taken into consideration should a sub forum be looked into

gandalf

hullaballoo wrote: »

The existing community consists of fans of 2 clubs dragging every thread started back to the rivalry between those two clubs, arsenal fans arguing over Wenger (in/out) and that's about it. Not a community I'd be in any major rush to preserve per se.

Nonetheless, it's not right that opening the forum up means no moderation.

That is an extremely ignorant post and one from somebody who obviously doesn't use the forum or understand it. In fact I reckon you are borderline trolling with those comments.

Cienciano

gandalf wrote: »

That is an extremely ignorant post and one from somebody who obviously doesn't use the forum or understand it. In fact I reckon you are borderline trolling with those comments.

Ah here, you're in denial. Boards soccer forum is a joke at this stage.

gandalf

Cienciano wrote: »

Ah here, you're in denial. Boards soccer forum is a joke at this stage.

What do you base that on? Do you use the forum at all?

Zaph

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

I don't know boards can get away with not deleting email addresses... That's data that was obtained for a set purpose and once the account is closed, what's the need for holding onto it?

I'm not entirely sure where you got the idea that Boards holds on to e-mail addresses on closed accounts, but I'm afraid you've been misinformed. The only personal information that Boards requests is the e-mail address you use when you sign up. When you close your account this e-mail address is stripped from your account and the field is left blank. The e-mail address itself is transferred to a table where it is held for a period of time (I can't remember exactly how long) to prevent it being used to open another account. However, it's important to note that all e-mail addresses in this table are salted, so anyone looking at the table would have no idea what any of the text in it actually represents. It's also worth noting that in this case "anyone" is limited to the site developers.

As regards PMs, I really wasn't sure what happened when an account was closed, so I've just had a look at the PM statistics on a closed account. On this account there were 14 PMs out and 16 in, but tbh it doesn't matter whether the account is open or closed, that is as much as is ever visible to me regarding that posters PMs. There is a persistent myth that resurfaces every now and then that admins can view a poster's PMs. Some have even claimed in the past that mods and CMods could also do this. The reality is that the only PMs I can see are the ones in my own inbox and sent items folder. This is the same for all mods and admins. However it is true that under extreme circumstances the site developers could access a poster's PMs. However the time, effort and consequently expense involved in doing this means that it will only ever happen should Boards be served with a court order to do so or they receive a Section 8 request from the Gardaí.

hullaballoo

gandalf wrote: »

That is an extremely ignorant post and one from somebody who obviously doesn't use the forum or understand it. In fact I reckon you are borderline trolling with those comments.

I am sorry to have offended you with my opinion of the soccer forum but as someone who reads it every day, that is my perception (less one or two other, probably more biased issues I have).

Your remarks about using/understanding the forum are probably inadvertently telling about the issues some people have with the site. You and I know that each forum has its own paradigm but what does someone new to the site see when they look at the SF?

The SF is one of the better forums on the site because of dedicated and excellent moderation but that doesn't take away from the fact that it is 2 rival fans shouting at each other with Arsenal fans perpetually licking their perpetual wounds and a handful of other fans avoiding those posts inasmuch as possible.

I am being deliberately hyperbolic in order to distill the issues with one particular forum.

I pray for an early St Totteringham's day for you.

gandalf

I'm sorry but maybe you are reading one or two threads on the forum but it accommodates all soccer supporters no matter what teams they support.

On the first page at the moment there are discussions about seven teams, the League of Ireland, a number of International Matches and TV coverage, the Irish team, transfer dealings, dodgy football jerseys and one footballer. So you are blatantly misrepresenting the forum and the scope it covers. Yes certain teams take up more of the discussion but that is because of the level of support that they command in the general population.

Maybe try reading a few more threads and stop jumping to judgement so quickly.

Zaph

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I am quite certain the email is retained already in any case

I've explained above what happens with e-mail addresses on closed accounts, a process that has been approved by the Data Protection Commissioners. Regardless of what you believe may happen, all I can say is that in this case you are mistaken.

KomradeBishop

Sorry I was replying as I was reading, before getting to the end of the thread - have deleted my other posts.

What you could do, is provide a parting secret key on closed accounts - store the secret key in the account, and provide it to the users email address - and they can use that to reactivate the account (so long as they don't delete the email).

You can require that the accounts original password be entered as well (the secret key would just be an extra hash on top), so that this can't be a sly way of hijacking accounts, by accessing someones email.

Zaph

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Sorry I was replying as I was reading, before getting to the end of the thread - have deleted my other posts.

What you could do, is provide a parting secret key on closed accounts - store the secret key in the account, and provide it to the users email address - and they can use that to reactivate the account (so long as they don't delete the email).

You can require that the accounts original password be entered as well (the secret key would just be an extra hash on top), so that this can't be a sly way of hijacking accounts, by accessing someones email.

Tbh, I'm not a techie so I'm afraid I can't really say whether any of that is a) possible; or b) possible on the Boards software.

KomradeBishop

I've coded databases and securely managing user accounts myself before, it should be pretty trivially possible - in fact, if you just hash the email address with the password hash, and store only that final hash in the closed account, I think that should be all that is needed to reopen an account without even needing to send an email with a secret key.

That way, a user would just need to input their email and original password to restore an account. For already-wiped accounts it can't be made to work, but for future ones it would.

That's just off the top of my head, might need to think that through a bit more for any gotchas, but should work.

BMMachine

gandalf wrote: »

What do you base that on? Do you use the forum at all?

I'll go with it being a boys club (posts by trolls being deleted by mods in order for them not to pick up cards and to keep trolling) and entirely a forum based on who you are as regards how your opinion gets picked up or talked about.
And yes, nearly everything becomes about Man Utd - Liverpool. It is a bit of a joke and Im in no rush to go back and post there

Tipperary Fairy

I don't know what to tell you Zaph but I know when I closed an account previously I had tried to resign back up with the same email address and I was told it was in use or whatever it says.

Also you get a lot of talk about being able to spot reregs because they can see the email addresses

Zaph

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

I don't know what to tell you Zaph but I know when I closed an account previously I had tried to resign back up with the same email address and I was told it was in use or whatever it says.

As I said, once you close an account the e-mail address attached to it is blocked to prevent it being used to open a new account. I've outlined the process involved to ensure that the address is scrambled and held securely, but I can assure you it is not visible anywhere as [noparse]tippfairy@xyzmail.com[/noparse], for example.

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

Also you get a lot of talk about being able to spot reregs because they can see the email addresses

Not all re-regs close their accounts, so their e-mail addresses are visible and can be compared to the address on the new account. This is usually in relation to sitebanned posters rather than people who just close their accounts and re-register.

LuckyLloyd

511 wrote: »

It's well known fact inbreeding often does effect the level of intelligence of the incestuous couple's offspring, but liberals don't like to engage in debates about the genetics of non-whites because it's too much Adolf Hitler.

Another disgraceful decision from a message board that is hell-bent on pissing off its userbase and destroying itself.

Bottom line is that either the data presented in that case is wrong / flawed or there is a counter argument along the lines of 'correlation != causation'. Or some other method of arguing the point. Because all the Admin in question has offered in return to a well presented (though not necessarily correct of course) post is some whataboutery and a decision that essentially limits the scope of political discussion on a discussion forum.

The more I see the more I think the supposed crazies screaming about boards limiting discussion due to political bias have a point.

#notagoodlook

Lovely Bloke

Had a reply from a soccer mod to a PM I sent regarding the putinbot trolls.

Seems a few of the Soccer Mods are away at the Euros. Wasn't it a GREAT idea to open the forum up to all and sundry without checking if the mod team would be available.

The forum, and threads about Russia in particular, is a shambles at this point.

Yet more ridiculous decisions "from the top", and the fact that the Admin who has shown the most interest in the forum was commenting on this thread while it was being discussed speaks volumes.

Good job lads, stick a fork in one of the busiest forums on the site. Good work.

I reported posts about this issue for two days, and nothing was done.

Where are the mods who aren't at the Euros? Where are the CMods? Where's the damn Admin who made the decision to open the forum?

Total dereliction of duties, total shítshow.

"Ah but it's only the soccer forum" - the usual crowd be out with their usual remarks.

Lovely Bloke

I thought having a pop at banned users, who can't defend themselves was not allowed?

Yet, here we have a CMod at that craic.

Totally classless, and unwarranted.

Well done.

gandalf

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Had a reply from a soccer mod to a PM I sent regarding the putinbot trolls.

Seems a few of the Soccer Mods are away at the Euros. Wasn't it a GREAT idea to open the forum up to all and sundry without checking if the mod team would be available.

The forum, and threads about Russia in particular, is a shambles at this point.

Yet more ridiculous decisions "from the top", and the fact that the Admin who has shown the most interest in the forum was commenting on this thread while it was being discussed speaks volumes.

Good job lads, stick a fork in one of the busiest forums on the site. Good work.

I reported posts about this issue for two days, and nothing was done.

Where are the mods who aren't at the Euros? Where are the CMods? Where's the damn Admin who made the decision to open the forum?

Total dereliction of duties, total shítshow.

"Ah but it's only the soccer forum" - the usual crowd be out with their usual remarks.

It is obvious to me that the last item that is considered these days is the effect a decision will have on the established boards community. I know the powers that be are itching to remove the restrictions on the soccer forums I remember Dav saying so in a post a number of years ago.

As the mod who originally put the restrictions in place I will reiterate they were put there for a very good reason and on the whole have been very successful.

As I said in my reply to hullaballoo the forum covers a lot more topics than Man United or Liverpool or Arsenal fans whinging about Wenger :rolleyes: Sure those teams take up a lot of the bandwidth but when you realise that the majority of football supporters in this country supports those teams it is hardly surprising.

I'd be curious to see if Boards management actually checked the mods availability for this opening up or if it was just foisted upon them from on high?

What solution are they going to bring to bear now to give the remaining mods a dig out?

Would they consider splitting the Euros threads into a specific time limited open sub forum for the duration of the Championships and reinstate the restrictions on the main soccer forum?

Lovely Bloke

^^ that won't solve the issue of the putinbots.

Beasty

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Where are the CMods?

I am working. I am on mobile with limited modding powers at present

I am not at your beck and call 24/7

Lovely Bloke

Beasty wrote: »

I am working. I am on mobile with limited modding powers at present

I am not at your beck and call 24/7

Nope, you're not, and I'm not asking you to be. The other CMod is posting away this morning though. :rolleyes:

It's a farce that there's nobody available to properly moderate the forum, when there's a big tournament match going on as there was last night, especially when the forum is open to any Tom, Dick or Vladi to troll the absolute shít out of the place for hours.

If it can't be moderated correctly it shouldn't be open access, simple as that.

But again, the hierarchy plainly don't give a toss about the general users.

Once there's someone posting, someone creating content, it's all good.

Lord TSC

Will stress here, am speaking solely on my own behalf, not on the behalf of other moderators as a whole.

gandalf wrote: »

I'd be curious to see if Boards management actually checked the mods availability for this opening up or if it was just foisted upon them from on high?

I can't remember originally how the idea came up two years ago for the World Cup, but for the Euros this year, it was discussed among the mods weeks/months ago, and the unanimous decision at the time was that it was a good idea. The admins may have come in and "foisted" it upon us had we not made the decision, but in the end, the mods had green lit the idea before it ever got near that point.

I'll also refute one other point raised; the idea that moderators are not moderating or are unavailable is utterly wrong. There are still plenty of us reading reported posts, discussing issues that arise and actioning what needs to be actioned. Wherever this notion that all the moderators have flown the coup has come from, its 100% wrong. To add, just because one poster reports posts he deems are breaking the charter does not mean the moderators are forced to act on said reported posts. It simply means that the moderation team, independently of each other, had not (at time of reading the posts) seen cause to issue an action (be it a card, ban or otherwise).

What solution are they going to bring to bear now to give the remaining mods a dig out?

Thats begging the idea that the mods need a "dig out"; by and large, it's been business as usual in the soccer forum, despite some users saying otherwise. Reported posts as slightly increased over the last week, as is expected, but not to an unmanageable degree (nowhere close). The opening of the forum has not increased workloads on mods in any significant way. We've had to deal with a few obvious re-regs, and some low-post-count trolls but nothing out of the ordinary, and certainly nothing on the level that sends the message that we're dealing with a "**** show".

Would they consider splitting the Euros threads into a specific time limited open sub forum for the duration of the Championships and reinstate the restrictions on the main soccer forum?

Again, personal opinion here, but that would largely defeat the purpose of opening the forum in the first place, which was to drive new users to the soccer forum and generate new content, new opinions and new discussions. Having a separate sub-forum would likely just drive all the new users there, while all the current users would probably try to limit their discussions of the competition to other threads.

Lovely Bloke

Absolutely no comment on the putintrolls?

Excellent stuff.

If any mod looked at that and decided there was "nothing to see here" then I have to question their suitability to mod the forum.

Perhaps posting memes on the United thread is more important.

Mickeroo

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Absolutely no comment on the putintrolls?

Excellent stuff.

If any mod looked at that and decided there was "nothing to see here" then I have to question their suitability to mod the forum.

Perhaps posting memes on the United thread is more important.

I read and considered all your reports, seemed like you just disagreed with what they were saying more than anything. Your posts on that thread were pretty much on par with theirs in terms of quality. Either way they closed their account in a huff after I carded them so hopefully you can take some solace in that.

Lovely Bloke

Mickeroo wrote: »

I read and considered all your reports, seemed like you just disagreed with what they were saying more than anything. Your posts on that thread were pretty much on par with theirs in terms of quality. Either way they closed their account in a huff after I carded them so hopefully you can take some solace in that.

more of this tactic of attacking the person providing feedback to discredit their feedback

at least you know how to do feedback anyway they thought you good

if you can't recognise the putinbots for what they are then you really shouldn't be modding

it was an obvious attempt to deflect and derail anything critical of Russia, and they are known for it.

but yeah, I just "disagree" with them. Fair play

Turtyturd

So the mods green lit the decision then asked for input in the token feedback thread?

Trojan

And in the last 12 posts we see both claims of boards mods limiting discussion too much, and too little. They're damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

They have the patience of saints though.

Lovely Bloke

Trojan wrote: »

And in the last 12 posts we see both claims of boards mods limiting discussion too much, and too little. They're damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

the hell are you on about?

asking for Russiatrolls to be dealt with properly is not the same as asking for discussion limiting, and you well know it

Lovely Bloke

I also note that neither mod, nor cmod, nor ex-admin have actually commented on the russiatrolls, is that to be taken as the hierarchy do not see them, do not see them as a problem, or condone their posts?

Lord TSC

Turtyturd wrote: »

So the mods green lit the decision then asked for input in the token feedback thread?

Presuming that was in response to my comment....will happily add the word "provisionally" if you want. Had there been massive outcries from the regulars not to open it up, obviously said "green lighting" would have been fully reviewed. But there wasn't. I think Gav tried to raise the point in that thread multiple times, and largely it didn't get much response or backlash.

Lovely Bloke

but that was before the refusal to deal correctly with the putintrolls

The Moldy Gowl

The phrase putintrolls or whoeverbots gives my eyes serious damage from being rolled back so far.

Lovely Bloke

The Moldy Gowl wrote: »

The phrase putintrolls or whoeverbots gives my eyes serious damage from being rolled back so far.

fair play loadsa thanks

The Moldy Gowl

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

fair play loadsa thanks

Don't worry. They are only thanksbots.

Using those terms just make you look like a raving lunatic no one takes seriously.

Lovely Bloke

cool story, loadsa more thanks

smash

This thread has gone to shít.

GavRedKing

Dav asked us in 2014 our thoughts on opening the forum.

Some were against it, some were for it but we all agreed to give it go and test it, as long it didnt mean the forum was being opened up going forward.

It wasnt mentioned in the feedbck thread at the time and some users jumped the gun before being allowed to discuss it in feedback, despite peoples concerns the WC in 2014 and the opening of the forum was a success pretty much.

This year for the Euros I approached Dav to open it again and dropped him a PM, he said he'd have no problem opening it up if we wanted it, I went to the Mods and CMods and after seeing that the WC went off without much trouble we said yes but decided this time to tell people in the feedback thread and get feedback and responses on it, not many posts outlined an issue with opening the forum so I went back to Dav to give him the thumbs up for it and here we are.

The Moldy Gowl

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

cool story, loadsa more thanks

At least I'm not acting like a moody teenager using stupid terms that mean nothing except to make you look like an idiot.
So at least there is that along with my cool story.

ibarelycare

smash wrote: »

This thread has gone to shít.

I feel like that's the intention. Let it go to shit so it can be locked and forgotten about.

smash

ibarelycare wrote: »

I feel like that's the intention. Let it go to shit so it can be locked and forgotten about.

Business as usual then.

FriendComputer

511 wrote: »

It's well known fact inbreeding often does effect the level of intelligence of the incestuous couple's offspring, but liberals don't like to engage in debates about the genetics of non-whites because it's too much Adolf Hitler.

Another disgraceful decision from a message board that is hell-bent on pissing off its userbase and destroying itself.

Just for anyone that says certain opinions should be argued against instead of banned: this is what you're up against; you don't like the facts? Well you would say that, you liberal!

Some people are so deep in this stuff that there is no debating them.

FriendComputer

511 wrote: »

It's well known fact inbreeding often does effect the level of intelligence of the incestuous couple's offspring, but liberals don't like to engage in debates about the genetics of non-whites because it's too much Adolf Hitler.

Another disgraceful decision from a message board that is hell-bent on pissing off its userbase and destroying itself.

Just for anyone that says certain opinions should be argued against instead of banned: this is what you're up against; you don't like the facts? Well you would say that, you liberal! (and before someone jumps on this as some sort of "gotcha", I'm obviously using the word "facts" facetiously. They're seldom anything of the sort or are presented in a massively misleading way)

Some people are so deep in this stuff that there is no debating them.

FriendComputer

Dupe post.

FriendComputer

Okay, for some reason whenever I try to edit my post it brings up a blank scree and... as you can see, when I do get through it duplicates it.

4zn76tysfajdxp

The Moldy Gowl wrote: »

The phrase putintrolls or whoeverbots gives my eyes serious damage from being rolled back so far.

The feedbacktrolls (or "feedbots") truly have run riot. Probably a Stalinist conspiracy to discredit the West. lol

Lovely Bloke

didnt take you long

LoLth

I know posters beating the crap out of one another means you're not beating the crap out of the mods/cmods/admins but it really does undermine the genuinely good points that have been raised elsewhere in the thread.

as a recently returned admin and mod of feedback I've been avoiding active moderation of this thread in the interest of allowing opinions to be expressed. I apologise if that has come across as intentionally letting the thread "go to ****" - though as mod I can hardly be given all the credit for that, the content surely has some input there

so, a friendly mod-nudge to cut the personal attacks and insults and drop the bickering please.