Boards is becoming a Ghost Town

Maireadio

smash wrote: »

It's really not as simple as that. A very quick glimpse of your post history and I saw a post in a thread about people being "thick c*nts" where you have absolutely slated people you've worked with. If your identity was made known and they say it, it could potentially damage your career going forward.

And again, there's that responsiblity thing. Use boards in work? Then if you are worried, don't call your workmate thick cúnts! And if you are worried about your posting history, don't use boards in work. Or close your account. And going back a few pages in the thread, don't reveal enough about yourself on boards to allow yourself to be identified IRL! People are making out like this is heard to do. It's not. It is really easy to be vague enough about yourself so that people have no idea who you are. I realise that if you make a suspect post and were being investigated, you could be found, but thats's not what I'm talking about here. Users shouldn't give enough to reveal themselves and if they do reveal themselves, then they have to take on the responsibility of either standing by or explaining aspects of their posting history if asked about it. If people feel like they don't come across well in their posting history, well, who's fault is that? And if they close their account and start afresh, well, what does it matter if the posts of their old board handle are up there?

From the people who want their posting history deleted all I hear is "Waaahhh, I don't want people to see that I acted like a complete cúnt on boards three years ago".

intheclouds

Beasty wrote: »

Are they "infracted" or is a note put on their profile (which I have seen done) confirming their prior account (which can only be viewed by Mods & Admins and is there simply as a note, not any form of "disciplinary action")?

Put it this way, in the 150 or so appeals I've dealt with in the DRP I cannot recall a single one concerning an infraction given for "re-registering". If I had and there was no other reason for an infraction being given I would quickly overturn it.

I can only speak for my own experience.

I was given points (penalty points?), 2 of them, to last 2 years I think.

I didnt go to DRP because my pm's with mod/CMod/Admin showed me that there was no point.

I have no faith in DRP anyway, its just lip service imo (but thats a different issue).

smash

Maireadio wrote: »

From the people who want their posting history deleted all I hear is "Waaahhh, I don't want people to see that I acted like a complete cúnt on boards three years ago".

That's not what I've seen people saying.

One eyed Jack

Maireadio wrote: »

From the people who want their posting history deleted all I hear is "Waaahhh, I don't want people to see that I acted like a complete cúnt on boards three years ago".

I don't think anyone actually said that though at all. That's you putting your own reasoning on the numerous legitimate reasons that have been given already.

My own position on it is that there are already rules in place that forbid dragging up a users post history (I think it comes under "don't be a dick!", could be wrong), and it's just bad form really IMO. Fine, if posters are going to do that, it's up to them, but then those same posters aren't likely to be taken seriously when they complain about users doing what they can to protect themselves from that sort of behaviour.

That's posters taking responsibility for what they post is it not? Or had you something else in mind that they should only do what you find acceptable?

That's why I'm saying that I have no problem with the way things are currently, but if Boards expects it's users to contribute to discussions, and yes, some of those discussions are personal and people can be identified, then posters absolutely have every right to say they would like more control over their data. Boards will continue to haemorrhage users and fail to gain new users while it's still unable to provide users with more control over their data.

I totally get the idea you're suggesting that it's people's own responsibility for themselves what they choose to post and how they contribute to a discussion, but I also think it's fair to say that other people don't see things the same way you do.

osarusan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My own position on it is that there are already rules in place that forbid dragging up a users post history (I think it comes under "don't be a dick!", could be wrong), and it's just bad form really IMO.

Bad form if it's something like this:

'So you say you go out for lunch twice or three times a week but you said six months ago that you go out for lunch once or twice a week.'

Absolutely fine with me if it's something like this:

'So you said that anybody who breaks the law should be ashamed of themselves but in a thread last month you openly admitted to drink-driving regularly and you think there's nothing wrong with it. '

'On this thread you're saying you don't have enough money to fill your car with petrol but on another thread you announced that you'd just bought a new HD TV and you're off to France for the weekend.'

I've no problem with this kind of stuff being highlighted.

Neyite

Maireadio wrote: »

From the people who want their posting history deleted all I hear is "Waaahhh, I don't want people to see that I acted like a complete cúnt on boards three years ago".

I'm starting to see that no matter what people say, you'll only hear the sound of your own voice and as far as you are concerned, your opinion is all that matters.

I gave many very valid reasons why a person might want to have some control or restrictions over their posts and "acting like a complete cúnt" was not one I'd considered. In fact even the phrase "acting like a complete cúnt" didn't occur to me until I read your post.

ancapailldorcha

smash wrote: »

Sure the journal have often taken quotes from AH. Although that's hardly special

Yeah but this is an actual book, not some crappy news website few people outside of Ireland have heard of.

One eyed Jack

osarusan wrote: »

Bad form if it's something like this:

'So you say you go out for lunch twice or three times a week but you said six months ago that you go out for lunch once or twice a week.'

Absolutely fine with me if it's something like this:

'So you said that anybody who breaks the law should be ashamed of themselves but in a thread last month you openly admitted to drink-driving regularly and you think there's nothing wrong with it. '

'On this thread you're saying you don't have enough money to fill your car with petrol but on another thread you announced that you'd just bought a new HD TV.'

I've no problem with this kind of stuff being highlighted.

That's it really I think - the circumstances are very much dependent upon context, and everyone's going to have their own standards of what is and isn't acceptable. Your second example there while I understand the intent, I'd still think it was crossing the line tbh. I think the whole cross forum posting thing is also bad form and I've seen a couple of posters doing it in threads recently to undermine a posters opinion.

I'd report a post like that tbh, a lot sooner than I'd be thinking "heh, that poster really showed them!" kinda thing.

smash

smash wrote: »

That's not what I've seen people saying.

People also can write things on their worst days, in their worst moods, and it simply doesn't accurately reflect who they are. It's just a snapshot, not a portrait, of a character.

Maireadio

smash wrote: »

That's not what I've seen people saying.

Not in so many words, no.

One eyed Jack

Maireadio wrote: »

Not in so many words, no.

Not in any words!

Maireadio

Neyite wrote: »

I'm starting to see that no matter what people say, you'll only hear the sound of your own voice and as far as you are concerned, your opinion is all that matters.

Neyite, I've made, what, five posts on the topic? And, yup, I feel strongly about it. And yes, I believe in my opinion. Why would I be here putting forth my opinion if I didn't care? I don't believe people should be allowed to have posts deleted. Maybe some generic username slotted in, but I have reservations about that too.

I'm actually finding the people who want more control over what they post far more obdurate but, sure, you agree with that viewpoint so you are probably not choosing to see that.

Nobody is exactly backing down here, Neyite, so kindly don't make out that I'm the only one not budging here. Cheers.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not in any words!

Sweet jesus, I never said people actually said those actual words. Christ.

That was my take on the subtext of a lot of the posts here. I could of course be wrong there but that was my take. I never said that was exactly what people had said. And maybe I am wrong. Or maybe I'm right.

I'm actually amazed I have to point this out to people?

I said I wasn't going to post on this topic anymore this morning and didn't keep to that. I really wish I had kept to it now. Over and out for now until some other point of discussion comes up that might be of interest to me.

osarusan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's it really I think - the circumstances are very much dependent upon context, and everyone's going to have their own standards of what is and isn't acceptable.

Certainly, that's why I don't think bringing up something a poster previously said/said elsewhere is necessarily bad form.

It will all depend on what's brought up and how relevant it is. You mentioned 'undermining a poster's opinion' but I see nothing wrong with this if it's relevant.

Sometimes it will make the poster who is going through the post history look like a dick themselves, but sometimes it's absolutely fine.

intheclouds

Maireadio wrote: »

Nobody is exactly backing down here, Neyite, so kindly don't make out that I'm the only one not budging here. Cheers.

Actually I went from being in favour of full deletion to saying Id be happy enough if just a username change to something generic could be done.

I didnt see anyone say that they wanted deletion because

Waaahhh, I don't want people to see that I acted like a complete cúnt on boards three years ago

although maybe its why you yourself no longer want to be associated with your old posts but please understand that that is not the only reason people may want it done.

smash

osarusan wrote: »

It will all depend on what's brought up and how relevant it is. You mentioned 'undermining a poster's opinion' but I see nothing wrong with this if it's relevant.

And what if it's something irrelevant but there's a gang mentality on thread?

Like say in a cycling thread where all the cyclists jump on board to debate an opinion, one drags up something irrelevant from a posters past and they all jump on it to shut down debate. I've seen it happen over and over again across a range of topics.

One eyed Jack

Maireadio wrote: »

I said I wasn't going to post on this topic anymore this morning and didn't keep to that. I really wish I had kept to it now. Over and out for now until some other point of discussion comes up that might be of interest to me.

And if anyone had wanted to be a petty, obnoxious cnut, they'd have pointed that out to you. Now imagine someone doing that six months later, and that's exactly how petty it is.


I'm still the same obnoxious cnut I was six months ago though, that probably won't have changed

K-9

intheclouds wrote: »

Im not disputing any of the above.

But it also happens that when someone closes for a legitimate reason that they are not believed and despite absolutely no negative behaviour on the new account - they are infracted for re-regging.

That should not happen, simple as.

Esel

The issue, as I see it, is not that a user would want old post(s) deleted/camouflaged just in case someone here dug them up and used them in another thread.

Rather it is that they don't want the post(s) to be visible to some external person who knows their username. The problem with that is that the horse may already have bolted, and any deletion might be too late.

I think it has already been said that mods/cmods/admins are prepared to consider specific post deletion/redaction on request - like where a user realises four days later "Fcuk, I shouldn't have posted that!".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

osarusan

smash wrote: »

And what if it's something irrelevant but there's a gang mentality on thread?

Like say in a cycling thread where all the cyclists jump on board to debate an opinion, one drags up something irrelevant from a posters past and they all jump on it to shut down debate. I've seen it happen over and over again across a range of topics.

As I said, it's fine (with me) if it's relevant

If it's irrelevant then it shouldn't be happening.

kupus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not till you get on to talk to joe in my eyes. :pac:

J Mysterio

This thread is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. I swear that posts have dropped the last few weeks and with this damn thread being continuosly pushed to the top of the 'latest posts', its not helping matters.

Thing has gone totally off topic anyway with all the talk of old posts.

I get the mods are allowing it to run its course in the interests of transparency/ dialogue/ feedback but i'd close it down myself.

Wibbs

kupus wrote: »

Not till you get on to talk to joe in my eyes. :pac:

I had a rake of posts of mine concerning pre modern hominids being copypasted chopped and expletives deleted into a thesis by some US student type. I went over her head and emailed the faculty directly and it disappeared. If my inane longwinded rantings are being quoted as research you just know there are whole shivers of sharks being leapt over.

Wibbs

J Mysterio wrote: »

This thread is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. I swear that posts have dropped the last few weeks and with this damn thread being continuosly pushed to the top of the 'latest posts', its not helping matters.

I would tend to agree with J here TBH.

Eugene Norman

intheclouds wrote: »

I cant recall the account username now but I definitely know there were no bans on it. There were definitely some expired infractions. And possibly a live infraction. I cannot remember the mod who took issue with my new account. But I did pm them and then stonewalled me and then I tried to appeal to a CMod or an Admin. I was stonewalled by everyone.

The fact is, if there is an infraction on your account and you close it for any other reason - you just wont be believed. Even if you do not go near the same forum or attract any negative attention at all. I was "investigated" on the new account because I agreed with a poster in feedback who was complaining about mod actions - not because I was doing anything wrong myself.

That's appalling. How do regular mods even know the accounts that are re-regs?

Lovely Bloke

Eugene Norman wrote: »

That's appalling. How do regular mods even know the accounts that are re-regs?

When I was a mod there was a thread in the mod forum where a mod could ask about a suspected re-reg, and the admins would check it out.

There's also the modutils that has a rudimentary feature called Muppetcheck, which compares the IP Address of a certain post/poster and shows other users who've also posted from the same IP Address.

Esel

Eugene Norman wrote: »

That's appalling. How do regular mods even know the accounts that are re-regs?

They are have tools.

Wibbs

What BC said. I would only add that mods can't see the IP addresses themselves, only (I presume) Admins can. Though when I started modding in 06 I think, you could, but that changed very soon after. Boards is very proactive as far as internal protection of members privacy.

Reading back through the thread I dunno what the solution is TBH, or if there even is one. My personal thoughts would be along the lines of:

Drop the new site layout entirely. Unless it replicates the current and older user experience of Boards it will kill numbers even more. Cut losses there.

The search needs fixing. It's shíte and has been for years. If it's too much overhead in time and money, fair enough, set up a google search for members.

Amalgamate more forums. Close ones that have run their course(the sex & sexuality forum I help mod for one. That's been pining for the fjords for years now and if ye can't sell sex….). Create an Archive area and throw them in there.

Remove mods/cmods/admins who aren't active, unless they have specifically requested a break which is fine.

Amalgamate the DRP and Helpdesk into one forum. Archive and bury the Feedforward stuff in Feedback.

Get rid of the yellow/red infractions cards middle management nonsense. This is not, nor should be a corporate environment or the civil service and it's all a bit David Brent. It should be a respite from that guff.

Unless there are legal issues or it's descended into nastiness, leave threads run. Let threads go "off topic" more, it's called conversation folks. No need to go Sheldon Cooper about it.

Leave zombie threads alone. So what if they're reopened? Shutting them down and suggesting the poster opens a new thread is stupid, because they almost never do, especially newbies. No wonder as their first experiences of Boards is some muppet admonishing them after they found the subject on Google. Well done you've stopped conversation and pissed off a potential member and that crap builds up until the place is regarded as Mods.ie.

Oh and mea culpa, I've done all of the above, I have been that muppet, but I now see how swivel eyed retarded I was. That culture needs to change.

Eugene Norman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yeah but this is an actual book, not some crappy news website few people outside of Ireland have heard of.

Wow. An actual buk. It sounds academic so I am guessing 5 people bought it. The writer, and his/her family.

And, this is a forum few people have heard of outside Ireland. It's still big in Ireland though.

andekwarhola

Maireadio wrote: »

And again, there's that responsiblity thing. Use boards in work? Then if you are worried, don't call your workmate thick cúnts! And if you are worried about your posting history, don't use boards in work. Or close your account. And going back a few pages in the thread, don't reveal enough about yourself on boards to allow yourself to be identified IRL! People are making out like this is heard to do. It's not. It is really easy to be vague enough about yourself so that people have no idea who you are. I realise that if you make a suspect post and were being investigated, you could be found, but thats's not what I'm talking about here. Users shouldn't give enough to reveal themselves and if they do reveal themselves, then they have to take on the responsibility of either standing by or explaining aspects of their posting history if asked about it. If people feel like they don't come across well in their posting history, well, who's fault is that? And if they close their account and start afresh, well, what does it matter if the posts of their old board handle are up there?

From the people who want their posting history deleted all I hear is "Waaahhh, I don't want people to see that I acted like a complete cúnt on boards three years ago".

Your tone stinks a bit, to be fair.

Not sure how I personally feel about nuking old accounts although I can see how people can change over the years and deeply regret what they've written, especially young people, in the face of a changing life and Internet.

I like Smash's idea of scrambling a user name - if it's technically feasible - and think it's a good compromise between saving content and giving people a opt out.

And in the context of this discussion, we can clearly see that if a changing userbase want something in large enough numbers and are essentially being told to suck it down (or given a solemn lecture about their own content as 'social history' - presumably by people who emerged from the womb in sensible middle age) they'll just jump ship to one of the many services that will provide what they want.