Boards is becoming a Ghost Town

Tilly

LexieOnRale wrote: »

We were at odds because I was called out on more than one occasion for being unfaithful in my relationship and I was told to leave our real life differences aside. I didn't know this poster in real life, thank god. She was harassing me on boards. Now, the first I heard of putting her on ignore was when your good self sent that PM, which I did afterwards, I didn't engage at all with the poster but understand she still went ahead with her accusations, and her trying to engage me. I believe it took a suicide threat or some sort of breakdown to actually have the admins take her behaviour seriously.

The only interaction I had with any mods/admins prior to your pm Gordon was a pm from an AH mod who was very nice and was just trying to find out why I had reported the posts as they were very subtle but constant and that was the morning before I got your message.

I wouldn't be having it out with her if it wasn't for boards and her erratic obsessive behaviour, I had never met her and she was never my friend. She got it into her head I was having an affair with someone she had "feelings" for on boards (not true) and had sent me a flurry of pms asking me really weird questions, and then took it off pm and onto threads.

You eventually had to handle it when it blew up even more. But completely ignored it and threathened a site ban for me when i followed the procedure that was in place.

Jesus Christ! That's harassment plain and simple! I hope there's more to this story than the above.

LoLth

One issue could be the expectation or reason behind the use of the report a post button

1. I have always seen it as "I see this post as a problem for the forum/community" whether it be a breach of charter, a shill or a link to illegal content etc. I then click report to bring it to the mod's attention and let them deal with it. (ban/delete/edit/make note). To me, the report button puts a post on the mod radar.

2. Some users would see the report button as a way to get a mod to take action on a post that they feel is wrong. click button, mod does an expected action.

3. Others prefer to use the report button as a form of censorship "I don't like what X is saying so I shall report their post to have it removed" sometimes this is followed by "one post reported may not have been enough, let me go and report any posts by this user that I can find". That's fine if the reason is to show a pattern but then again, once a post is reported then the mods should be looking for patterns and, if posts have been reported in the past then that pattern can be fairly easy to spot.

4. And then there are users that use the report button as a weapon or as a punishment for other users that they may feel have affronted them in some way. "he reported my post therefore I shall report every borderline post of theirs I can find" or "How dare he insult me personally after I only made one joke about their [insert family member here]"

of these:
1 is, to me, the proper way to use the function. After you report a post it shouldnt matter what the mods do, they have been notified. Of course, if its blatant (say illegal material) and its still there after a mod has posted in the forum and/or enough time has passed then a quick , *polite* pm to see what the story is would not be amiss. maybe the "illegal content" turned out to be ok on investigation.

2. Is understandable I suppose but I dont think its the right reasoning. the report post button should be "can I get a mod opinion of this" not "do something about this now!".

3. Unless the content is something that should be censored such as an phishing link or bannable content then I dont think this is a valid reason to use the report function. (if I recall the idea of " X reports and a post gets removed until review " was considered way back - I may have suggested it! - but was rejected as it is too open to abuse by posters imposing censorship on others).

4. An understandable, in some cases, reaction to a perceived personal attack. However context is king and the mod is there to cast an unbiased eye over the issue. I have supported a post reported in this fashion before only to eventually end up banning the reporting user as they took the support as a license to be offended by anyone and everyone - usually after deliberately putting themselves in the position where they were guaranteed to be offended. Again, imho, the wrong way to use the report function.

In all of these cases, unless its a severe indiscretion, I done see any requirement for mods to update reporters on what action, if any, was taken. If the poster feels they are beign mistreated or ignored, then , as mentioned, a polite PM to a mod of the forum of perhaps the category mod may be in order. But a polite one! not a "why have you not done X about this you lazy b%^*""£!$s!" .

NyOmnishambles

trout wrote: »

I've read every post in this thread, and followed it since the start ... but have stayed quiet thus far, as I am struggling to come up with any (for want of a better word) ... solutions.




I disagree. By dint of time invested, posts made, and opinions stated, you are very much an "influencer" on this site.



Colours to the mast. I share several concerns expressed in this thread. Personally, I really dislike the new GUI ... so I use the old one, the one I like. Personally, I am uneasy about how the Gearbest issue was handled ... but I also understand that the hamsters have to be fed and bills must be paid.

I don't believe you are a pleb. I don't have it in me to put you down or discredit your posts. I don't want you to stfu or gtfo ... but I do want you to help with (again, for want of a better word) solutions.



I'm not sure if I understand the imbalance, maybe I don't want to see this as a combative or us & them conflict. The frustration is very clear, not apparent at all.



Leaving the emotions to one side, I don't imagine for one second that posters like you describe have a grudge ... clearly you are invested in the site. So am I. I'm not all that vocal about it, but that's OK ... it takes all sorts.

tl;dr ... I do empathise. I hear your concerns ... but I'm still not sure how to make things better, with respect to (a) GUI (b) Gearbest and (c) imbalance

The above is an excellent post, not that I would expect anything less from someone whom from your own admission is not always a vocal presence on the site but whom I know from previous interaction to be an extremely intelligent and decent person

If there was a bit more interaction like this from the Admins and the Office in particular then I think a lot of the pent up frustration of the users would be less evident and discussions could maybe be more productive

In fairness to the Admins there has been more of a noticeable presence in the last few days and that is to be commended but it has been absent for a long time prior to this

The Moldy Gowl

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

In fairness, the problem there is similar to the problem killing soccer. It's no longer about outclassing the other, it's about getting them sent off...

I'd wager the amount of reports in lieu of arguments on this site is eyebrow raising.

Without a doubt. Soccer forum is a huge forum for boards and it's being killed by everything being so pc.
I can call Jamie Vardy a knacker outside it but can't call him a knacker in the forum.

Same as calling any player a prick but I can call enda Kenny a prick elsewhere.

It's a race to be outraged in the forum at times with each group hovering over the report post button.

The Soccer and various club subreddits are far better becuase you can post gifs of the goals and streams for the matches which boards are scared to do which is grand but people will eventually find their way to reddit to view the goals or whatever.

Actually to be fair to Dav, I did hear he wants to or wanted to revamp the card system in SF so it's not as easy to be carded.

Renegade Mechanic

I was actually on about the sport, Mowldy

But I've seen enough complaints about the soccer forum to know where yer coming from all the same. I never bothered applying. I knew I'd be out on my arse in under a week

Pelvis Parsley

I always thought that was meant in terms of thanking the actual generated posts in the reported posts forum. If I'm incorrect, apologies.

osarusan wrote: »

Just on the Reported Post issue, I've sometimes seen mods say that they clicked on 'Thanks' on a reported post as a way to let the other mods know they'd had a look at the post.

Given that we have all seen posts long the lines of 'And that post was thanked by a mod. THANKED by a MOD!' there is surely a better way of letting the other mods know that a reported post has been viewed.

The Moldy Gowl

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

I was actually on about the sport, Mowldy

But I've seen enough complaints about the soccer forum to know where yer coming from all the same. I never bothered applying. I knew I'd be out on my arse in under a week

Was a good analogy for the Soccer forum anyway.
There has been some harsh bans handed out in that forum.

All you need to do is look at the list of banned named names for players. Chelski, manure etc etc.
It's soccer, it's all about cheap banter.

intheclouds

LoLth wrote: »

...However context is king and the mod is there to cast an unbiased eye over the issue.

An excellent post LoLth - Id just like to comment on the above statement.

I feel that the whole infraction/ban system of boards ends up putting users at a disadvantage over their history rather than the thing that is actually at issue at a particular time.

You see it all the time in Dispute Resolution, people are told something is being upheld because of their history rather than them breaking a particular rule at a particular time.

In addition to this, mods are people, (VOLUNTEERS - yes we know!), and I have seen cases where mods take a biased approach (whether it be because they dont like a users opinions or because of a users history I dont know).

So although Id like to think that reporting a post results in an unbiased eye over the issue, I feel that a posters past history (which may be completely irrelevant to the thing being reported) can be counted as not taking that reporter seriously, and indeed, I think that mods take certain lines against certain opinions.

So all in all, unless its a bot casting the eye over, its probably never a completely unbiased eye - much as we would like to think it is.

Id like if the mod forums were public, pm's didnt exist and post reporting was visible. Anarchy? Maybe - but itd be an interesting experiment.

The Moldy Gowl

Snitches get stitches.

I'd end up having a personal vendetta against people who reported my posts though.

Maireadio

ibarelycare wrote: »

I think they are. Any time anyone questions why Dav isn't replying, he posts to defend himself

I know they say they're discussing things but I'm sure there are a lot of questions people have asked that don't need weeks of behind-the-scenes discussion before being answered. It's being dealt with very badly IMO and shows a lack of respect towards the users. A bit of transparent engagement from the management is badly needed.

And for them to respond to all the questions put forward, not pick and choose the ones they want to answer.

Maireadio

Gordon wrote: »

OK so you are saying that if boards continues doing the things you perceive to be wrong - it should shut down. That's not what you said previously which was - boards should shut down now.

Gordon wrote: »

He initially said that boards should shut down now. The racehorse analogy stated this, but now his position is one that you mention.

Jaysus. Pedanterama.

J Mysterio

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I believe it took a suicide threat or some sort of breakdown to actually have the admins take her behaviour seriously.

Wooah. That signals time to take a step back.

J Mysterio

The Moldy Gowl wrote: »

Was a good analogy for the Soccer forum anyway.
There has been some harsh bans handed out in that forum.

All you need to do is look at the list of banned named names for players. Chelski, manure etc etc.
It's soccer, it's all about cheap banter.

I got a ban for calling United 'Manure' alright, which is fairly ridiculous. Thats just standard football banter. From my perspective, fans enjoy a bit of slagging and that. That stuff should be relaxed.

I also got a ban for calling Mike Ashley a prick. Even Mike Ashley knows he's a prick.

Now, I have had those bans in mind so have been very careful in the soccer forum since then so you could say that moderation 'works' there but I say it makes it less craic and is a bit stuffy and over zealous.

Michael D Not Higgins

The Moldy Gowl wrote: »

Snitches get stitches.

I'd end up having a personal vendetta against people who reported my posts though.

I think this is why the reported posts are limited to mods only and there's a rule that it is not posted publicly. The reported posts would dry up overnight if people could see who was reporting what.

osarusan

Pelvis Parsley wrote: »

I always thought that was meant in terms of thanking the actual generated posts in the reported posts forum. If I'm incorrect, apologies.

Yeah somebody else said that earlier, so it might well be my mistake.

Wait....that means, the posts being thanked by a mod was not a notification for other mods? The post was actually thanked by a mod? THANKED by a MOD??

:pac::pac:

K-9

NyOmnishambles wrote: »

The above is an excellent post, not that I would expect anything less from someone whom from your own admission is not always a vocal presence on the site but whom I know from previous interaction to be an extremely intelligent and decent person

If there was a bit more interaction like this from the Admins and the Office in particular then I think a lot of the pent up frustration of the users would be less evident and discussions could maybe be more productive

In fairness to the Admins there has been more of a noticeable presence in the last few days and that is to be commended but it has been absent for a long time prior to this

And yet the feedback thread there last week was about as positive as you'll get.

Lovely Bloke

J Mysterio wrote: »

I got a ban for calling United 'Manure' alright, which is fairly ridiculous. Thats just standard football banter. From my perspective, fans enjoy a bit of slagging and that. That stuff should be relaxed.

how does the soccer forum benefit by allowing children to use childish terms when talking about a club they don't support?

I bet you never used the term Lollerpool, did you?

You see, some people love to dish out the "banter" but can't take it when someone dares to slag off the English club they support. This leads to silly situations where you get "well he started it" playground bolloxology, and the forum is eventually closed.

So, it's better to just tell everyone to use the actual correct terms when talking about clubs, players, managers and other hangers-on. It just makes sense.

There are plenty of soccer forums on the internet where such terms are welcome, you should try them.

intheclouds

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I think this is why the reported posts are limited to mods only and there's a rule that it is not posted publicly. The reported posts would dry up overnight if people could see who was reporting what.

You think? It wouldnt matter to me in the slightest, in fact Id be glad of it in some cases so the person would know that they were bang out of order if they saw that multiple users had reported them.

Edited to add - it might feed trolls though.

J Mysterio

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

how does the soccer forum benefit by allowing children to use childish terms when talking about a club they don't support?

I bet you never used the term Lollerpool, did you?

You see, some people love to dish out the "banter" but can't take it when someone dares to slag off the English club they support. This leads to silly situations where you get "well he started it" playground bolloxology, and the forum is eventually closed.

So, it's better to just tell everyone to use the actual correct terms when talking about clubs, players, managers and other hangers-on. It just makes sense.

There are plenty of soccer forums on the internet where such terms are welcome, you should try them.

Thank you for your input.

Michael D Not Higgins

intheclouds wrote: »

You think? It wouldnt matter to me in the slightest, in fact Id be glad of it in some cases so the person would know that they were bang out of order if they saw that multiple users had reported them.

In some cases, yes a post might get a half dozen reports. However in others, where posters have had words with each other before, it looks like a sly dig and can aggravate the situation. Another example is where a poster doesn't want to confront an aggressive poster but rightly reports their post. This becomes visible to the aggressive poster to retaliate against the reporter.

LoLth

intheclouds wrote: »

I feel that the whole infraction/ban system of boards ends up putting users at a disadvantage over their history rather than the thing that is actually at issue at a particular time.

You see it all the time in Dispute Resolution, people are told something is being upheld because of their history rather than them breaking a particular rule at a particular time.

On user history. Yes history comes into any decision. it has to. But it does work both ways. I have, more than once, reduced/lifted a ban based on a borderline actionable offense being out of character for a user - only after discussion with the user in question though. Actions have consequences and you own your actions on this site. mistakes happen but it would be silly to ignore consistent (mis)behaviour imho.

Also, users that treat others with respect and , from their history on the forum, have shown that they are capable of rational and calm discussion will be spoken to as individuals capable of such.

Users who have a history of going off on one, or reacting to contrary opinion with insults, need a different approach. In the past I have tried to present a set of action + consequence settings, whether they be "you did X now you get Y" or "you did X, you can now either do Y or you can expect....." as I do not believe that that type/calssification/style of poster will be open to modification of their behaviour. Sometimes I am pleasantly proven incorrect.

One situation where history has been incredibly important has been with time sinks. Posters that skate right up to the line of actionable offense (sometimes in an effort to goad another user into crossing said line) generating a load of reported posts that mods go take a look at. This happens repeatedly and , while no rule is actually broken, the mods find themselves spending a lot of time dealing with the fires that they start. In these cases, once a pattern of behaviour is established it is absolutely in the interest of the forum to have that user removed or put on notice. If mods are firefighting then they dont have time to help the posters that actually need help nor do the posters get to enjoy discussion on the topic they are there to discuss without interruption or yet another tit-for-tat between users derailing threads.

tl;dr sometimes history has to be used to decide when to tell a poster to go be a dick somewhere else.

In addition to this, mods are people, (VOLUNTEERS - yes we know!), and I have seen cases where mods take a biased approach (whether it be because they dont like a users opinions or because of a users history I dont know).

yes, the volunteers line is one that gets trotted out a lot but only because it seems to be something that some posters forget a lot. (some posters seem to weigh how important they are by how much mod time they can have dedicated to their issue) Mods are selected based on recommendation and their history on the forums. I would prefer to point out that the mods are there to make the forums better for the posters, not just for moderation. Do you think a mod *wants* to red card someone knowing can result in a lot of discussion after the fact both with the user and with other mods a cmod and possible an admin, or two. They dont do it lightly and if they do, then they get dealt with.

I agree with you. I have seen moderators abuse their position. All I can say is that, when we see it or when we have a pattern to stand over we try to have a chat with the mod and see if they can change their ways. maybe step back for a bit and re-evaluate whether their being a mod of a particular topic is whats best for them (as a boards.ie user) or the forum as a whole. Its a stressful role. Its an unpaid role so they dont even have that to justify why they do it (yep, the volunteer chestnut again but its relevant). Sometimes that goes well and sometimes that does not. People interacting with people always has the potential for "oh ****" moments. Its also why we have cmods and admins. If you see a mod being a dick, please, let someone know , preferably the cmod of the category you see the bahaviour in. It might not be actioned there and then but it is never ignored and will count for something if the day comes when a chat is required.

So although Id like to think that reporting a post results in an unbiased eye over the issue, I feel that a posters past history (which may be completely irrelevant to the thing being reported) can be counted as not taking that reporter seriously, and indeed, I think that mods take certain lines against certain opinions.

So all in all, unless its a bot casting the eye over, its probably never a completely unbiased eye - much as we would like to think it is.

I think I once argued for a bot to auto ban based on the number of warnings received. I was, rightly in hindsight, ignored on that one because the human mod will always be better than an automated one. Even if there is the risk of bias. So how about , instead of "unbiased" we agree on the term "potentially unbiased and more than likely more insightful" (giving reference to the mods ability to see posting history and to be aware of behavior outside of a single forum or category).

As for user history, well its all we really have to go on for context. If a user has 10 bans from different forums for personal abuse of another poster and in forum 11 they start calling another user names, what action do you think should be taken? From their history , have they shown that they are inclined to change their behavior if they receive a warning or a short ban? (yes, this is one example but for every example someone can show me of history being used to incorrectly apply a decision I can guarantee I can find another where history was ignored and the user ended up getting a ban elsewhere and ultimately getting a site ban)

Id like if the mod forums were public, pm's didnt exist and post reporting was visible. Anarchy? Maybe - but itd be an interesting experiment.

it would be interesting and in an idyllic world it would work , wonderfully. we also wouldn't need swear filters and there'd be no racism / sexism / bullying / sly digs / overt insults / outright lies / allusion of impropriety etc etc .

I think, as things stand, you would find the system being "gamed" by those who would see a mention in the mod forum as some sort of badge of honour of proof that they are indeed "sticking it" to "the man" - the man seemingly being any form of organised rule governing the conduct of individuals in a semi-public setting. I always wonder do these users give the same amount of crap to cinema ushers for telling them where to sit or to theater patrons for asking them to keep it down during the performance or do they rev their engines / beep horn / shout abuse at Gardai on traffic duty. (extreme examples I know but you have to wonder how much of boards.ie behaviour carries over to real life and vice versa)

Dont get me wrong. the vast vast majority of users on boards are decent and respectful of one another and create fantastic content for everyone to enjoy. These users have probably never had cause to interact with a mod/cmod or admin. Personally, its these users that I have time for and its these users I want to be there to help and who's opinions and considerations I weigh more heavily. In my mind, these users are the only reason why anyone would take the abuse and unfathomably disproportionate attention a position of authority on boards brings

NyOmnishambles

K-9 wrote: »

And yet the feedback thread there last week was about as positive as you'll get.

I have no idea how this relates to my post whatsoever

I wasn't speaking about any particular feedback threads but on general Admin/Office interaction/feedback to users where users raise issues concerns about the site

It has been an issue on Boards for years and if a bit more effort was put in to dealing with site feedback then a huge amount of user based annoyance would be dealt with straight away, that this seems to be currently happening with the Admins is a good thing

intheclouds

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

In some cases, yes a post might get a half dozen reports. However in others, where posters have had words with each other before, it looks like a sly dig and can aggravate the situation. Another example is where a poster doesn't want to confront an aggressive poster but rightly reports their post. This becomes visible to the aggressive poster to retaliate against the reporter.

I dont really know what you mean by retaliate here but I do see your other point.

Its probably already used as a sly dig sometimes except currently its even more sly as the other poster is unaware!

gandalf

J Mysterio wrote: »

Thank you for your input.

He's right though. As a former mod of that forum its amazing the amount of grief that so called banter can create. Where do you draw the line?

This comes as someone who has been infracted as a user as well for crossing the line.

BMMachine

a lot of admins and stuff posting now, looking for solutions.

how would they break up the moderating culture on this site and stop it being the number 1 thing people know this site for? I addressed it earlier and gave solutions, what would theirs be?

K-9

NyOmnishambles wrote: »

I have no idea how this relates to my post whatsoever

I wasn't speaking about any particular feedback threads but on general Admin/Office interaction/feedback to users where users raise issues concerns about the site

It has been an issue on Boards for years and if a bit more effort was put in to dealing with site feedback then a huge amount of user based annoyance would be dealt with straight away, that this seems to be currently happening with the Admins is a good thing

Oops, quoted the wrong post by mistake, sorry.

Twas about the soccer forum feedback thread last week being very positive.

Michael D Not Higgins

intheclouds wrote: »

I dont really know what you mean by retaliate here but I do see your other point.

Its probably already used as a sly dig sometimes except currently its even more sly as the other poster is unaware!

Retaliate as in the aggressive poster can then point their tirade at the poster who reported them. I have seen posts reported as sly digs, if they're against the rules they get actioned, if they're not, they're not. I can't see a situation where a sly dig is visible to the poster as being a productive one.

K-9

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This is a bad way to deal with problems. You can't just put posters on ignore, and that's the end of it - it's extremely easy for posters to hook you into replying, just by completely straw-manning/misrepresenting what you say (or if harassing, saying something disreputable), in a way that will fool/convince other posters - thus mandating a reply from you so other posters aren't misled.

So, when you take a "both of you cut it out, you're both to blame..." approach to this, that just means that the troll can eventually pull the victim into receiving mod action, if they are persistent enough.

That's also the same dynamic, that can lead to minority viewpoints being excluded from the forum - by posters responding vehemently enough to that minority viewpoint, in large enough numbers, and dragging the discussion standards down so low that the minority side eventually gets marked as the 'common denominator' (mods own words) i.e. 'troublemaker', and excluded.

Mods aren't really here to judge who's right or wrong in a debate though, that isn't our role unless it's a serious example.

LoLth

J Mysterio wrote: »

Thank you for your input.

if everyone viewed it as a sport that people followed to enjoy the skill of the players and the style of the teams and the tactics of the managers then fine. banter away. jibe and nudge to your heart's content.

thing is, its not. for some reason (I honestly dont understand, sorry!) people take soccer seriously. very seriously. In fact, I bet someone , right now, is angry that I called it soccer.

I know people that, when they talk about a football match they describe their favoured teams actions as "we did this" and "we did that". I can never tell if the fan actually thinks on some level that they were actually on the pitch or otherwise involved in the actual game beyond spectating.

Anyway, some fans will use terms that they *know* will be taken as an insult in a seemingly innocent way as part of a deliberate attempt to get fans of another team to react in a way that will get them banned or otherwise sanctioned by the mods. Worse, posters who are not fans at all will do it just to see how much of a reaction they can provoke. The choices become: run around like a blue-arsed fly trying to keep the forum on track , say "feck it" and let the place descend into all out fan-war where decent posters will refuse to post because any opinion they give will be drowned out by a tidal wave of abuse or choose the lesser of two evils and lose the banter in favour of protecting discussion.

I remember the discussion on which option to take and I remember the arguments for each option. all had merit except the firefighting which would have required more mods than posters to keep it going and would have been a nightmare with consistency in moderation.

K-9

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

how does the soccer forum benefit by allowing children to use childish terms when talking about a club they don't support?

I bet you never used the term Lollerpool, did you?

You see, some people love to dish out the "banter" but can't take it when someone dares to slag off the English club they support. This leads to silly situations where you get "well he started it" playground bolloxology, and the forum is eventually closed.

So, it's better to just tell everyone to use the actual correct terms when talking about clubs, players, managers and other hangers-on. It just makes sense.

There are plenty of soccer forums on the internet where such terms are welcome, you should try them.

Yep, it's to cut out the less mature name calling. And let's be honest, the soccer forum isn't really a mature forum but a rule like that cuts out a free for all and tit for tat posting (there's enough of that already). Not a fan of the zero tolerance approach but in something like this it works.

Really if somebody prefers reddit that's fine, no big deal. Shame we can't post PL gifs though, but there isn't much we can do about it so I don't go on about it.