Why is Boards so quiet?

Esel

Zaph wrote: »

Given that the stats you're looking for aren't kept as a matter of course, it's as easy for you to go look for them yourself as it is for Mark to do the legwork given that there's no benefit to him in actually doing so.

Imo, it would be an interesting metric from a management point of view.

Zaph

Esel wrote: »

Imo, it would be an interesting metric from a management point of view.

Yes, but when the likelihood is that the person requesting it is doing so for vexatious purposes then any benefit gained from performing the exercise is eroded.

Beasty

I think the only way to review DRP decisions is to work through each thread individually (and there are getting on for 1,800 of them)

I did some analysis of threads I had been involved in for an earlier Feedback thread - see here

hinault

Zaph wrote: »

Yes, but when the likelihood is that the person requesting it is doing so for vexatious purposes then any benefit gained from performing the exercise is eroded.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that they're being "vexatious"?

Maybe it is the person "moderating" the thread who is being "vexatious" instead?

Zaph

hinault wrote: »

How do you arrive at the conclusion that they're being "vexatious"?

Maybe it is the person "moderating" the thread who is being "vexatious" instead?

I've been around long enough to spot a set-up when I see it. I'm quite happy to be proved wrong however.

As for me moderating the thread, I'm not sure where you got that impression from. I have merely offered a suggestion and my own opinion on the query raised.

hinault

Zaph wrote: »

As for me moderating the thread, I'm not sure where you got that impression from. I have merely offered a suggestion and my own opinion on the query raised.

For clarity sake I wasn't implying or trying to refer to you.

Zaph

hinault wrote: »

For clarity sake I wasn't implying or trying to refer to you.

Thanks for the clarification, and apologies for taking you up wrong.

hinault

Zaph wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification, and apologies for taking you up wrong.

Thanks. No problem.:)

LuckyLloyd

I think it would be reasonable for the Community to be aware of what percentage of appeals are successful in the DRP. While, the tone with which they have been requested above is undoubtedly adversarial, the DRP process affects everyone on the site and it's important to know if it's a kangaroo court or not. Like it or lump it, if the percentage was particularly low (less than 5% say) it would add to a sense that moderation is out of touch with what the user base wants.

If they're not recorded, I'd suggest it's a gap in how the place is run.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Boards.ie: Mark

Morning,

There aren't any hard stats available, so it is a manual process. I can't promise you that I'll have stats to hand any time soon; maybe if I have some spare time - but in the meantime the info is there if anyone is curious.

A % at the end of all that means different things to different people, as Permabear pointed out. It might be interesting, but imo isn't a perfect indicator of how well the process works. It is the best we have at the moment though.

Thelomen Toblackai

The DRP is pointless when it's using rules like "don't be uncivil" to determine if a poster is at fault.

The majority of posters breach the charter on s regular basis. And wasting posters, mods and admins time reviewing things is pointless.

The problem lies solely in the fact that mods hand out actions in a random irrational fashion.

If one poster gets carded but the others don't then they will feel aggrieved. And all the "other posters ate not your concern, you technically were uncivil so therefore I uphold it" doesn't deal with anything.

Unless there's clear reasonable rules posters can stick within in the day to day use of boards or mods with the ability to reasonably apply the vague ones to all users and not just some you'll have what you always have.

Bad moderation with no come back for posters leading to posters becoming disinterested in continuing fighting biased moderation while those that get away with their breaches continue to post uncivil posts driving down the quality of the forum making the problem more common.

.......

This post has been deleted.

looksee

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Boards has pretty much the most open moderation system of any site I have been on. Mostly on the internet mods are pretty much invisible figures who give judgement and there is no way of disputing it.

A pm is just that, a private message, if it were proposed that messaging should be somehow public there would be an outcry about that too. What exactly do you suggest should be done about it?

LuckyLloyd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is what it is either way though, you know?

Beasty

looksee wrote: »

A pm is just that, a private message, if it were proposed that messaging should be somehow public there would be an outcry about that too. What exactly do you suggest should be done about it?

Just to add, any PM relevant to an Appeal can be posted by the user within the DRP thread - that is the only exception where specific permission of the sender is not required to publish PMs

hullaballoo

I think the DRP is heavily weighted in favour of the appellant by objective standards but then I would say that I suppose.

Beasty

hullaballoo wrote: »

I think the DRP is heavily weighted in favour of the appellant by objective standards but then I would say that I suppose.

That thread I linked to earlier had a much more extensive discussion of the process, and there are many factors to consider. Many cards and bans get overturned before ever reaching the DRP stage, and often those that do start a thread have made no attempt to get that sanction overturned by discussing it directly with the mod.

Add to that the mods are generally applying rules that have been discussed within various local feedback threads with forum regulars, you can expect a large proportion of sanctions to be upheld, or indeed an agreement to be reached "behind the scenes" (and outside the gaze of publicity the DRP can attract)

Thelomen Toblackai

looksee wrote: »

Boards has pretty much the most open moderation system of any site I have been on. Mostly on the internet mods are pretty much invisible figures who give judgement and there is no way of disputing it.

A pm is just that, a private message, if it were proposed that messaging should be somehow public there would be an outcry about that too. What exactly do you suggest should be done about it?

What sites are you comparing it to out of interest ?

While it's open most other sites don't have an army of mods and micro manage posters and posts anywhere near the extent that boards does.

Most other sites moderation would be more comparable to admins here. A few people who deal with the more extreme cases and end of the line as far as moderation goes. So there's no need for a process to question why people have been warned or banned for doing very little.

Captain Obvious

Beasty wrote: »

That thread I linked to earlier had a much more extensive discussion of the process, and there are many factors to consider. Many cards and bans get overturned before ever reaching the DRP stage, and often those that do start a thread have made no attempt to get that sanction overturned by discussing it directly with the mod.

Add to that the mods are generally applying rules that have been discussed within various local feedback threads with forum regulars, you can expect a large proportion of sanctions to be upheld, or indeed an agreement to be reached "behind the scenes" (and outside the gaze of publicity the DRP can attract)

I think the problem arises when mods apply different standards to different posters and then rely on the rules to justify their action. Sure the action may have been strictly justified by the rules but if the general application of the rule is lax or erratic then the sanction is not justified. The DRP does not seem to take that into account. You can argue the issue in the Helpdesk or Feedback but you are still stuck with a sanction, even if the feedback is taken on board.

Beasty

OK, let's try and put some perspective on this. By doing various searches I estimate the number of posts on the site since 1 January is something like 1.4m. Now it's not easy to collate ban details but we do have a list of all infractions issued by mods within the mods forum. Over that same period something like 1,800 cards were issued and getting on for 200 of them were overturned. So you are talking about a "carding" rate of just over 0.1% (or one in every thousand posts). Just to add over the same period there were over 11,000 posts reported, although many of them would not have been for "actionable" reasons

Figures for the same period in 2016 are very similar, although in 2015 there were more posts, but the "carding" rate was nearly 0.15% perhaps reflecting the way the Mods, Cmods and Admins have taken onboard feedback and perhaps relied more on less formal warnings either in-thread or via PM.

Beasty

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I think the problem arises when mods apply different standards to different posters and then rely on the rules to justify their action. Sure the action may have been strictly justified by the rules but if the general application of the rule is lax or erratic then the sanction is not justified. The DRP does not seem to take that into account. You can argue the issue in the Helpdesk or Feedback but you are still stuck with a sanction, even if the feedback is taken on board.

I fully understand the point, but if a sanction is applied and upheld it is deemed "warranted". It's a bit like speeding though - my view is if you get caught you take your points and fine, but don't complain about all those who get away with it

As you do highlight there is a process to complain via the Help Desk. We're really not wanting to have posters trawling through historic posts and reporting them just to show either inconsistency (particularly as approaches to certain issues may evolve over time) or get others into trouble. If stuff is reported "real time" it will generally be treated consistently with similar actions (within individual forums anyway, as different rules or approaches may be adopted in different forums dependent on how those forums evolve, with Soccer being a prime example). If there are significant differences in approach within a forum by different mods, then it's certainly something that will be taken on board as it's in everyone's interests to understand where they stand on such matters of "discipline"

blackwhite

Beasty wrote: »

I fully understand the point, but if a sanction is applied and upheld it is deemed "warranted". It's a bit like speeding though - my view is if you get caught you take your points and fine, but don't complain about all those who get away with it

As you do highlight there is a process to complain via the Help Desk. We're really not wanting to have posters trawling through historic posts and reporting them just to show either inconsistency (particularly as approaches to certain issues may evolve over time) or get others into trouble. If stuff is reported "real time" it will generally be treated consistently with similar actions (within individual forums anyway, as different rules or approaches may be adopted in different forums dependent on how those forums evolve, with Soccer being a prime example). If there are significant differences in approach within a forum by different mods, then it's certainly something that will be taken on board as it's in everyone's interests to understand where they stand on such matters of "discipline"

There's a big reason there's so many complaints about mod bias.
If someone gets an infraction or ban for something that's normally let slide in the same forum, then it's only natural they'll think it's unfair. A refusal to consider what's "normal" behaviour in a given forum is a major flaw in the appeals process.

It doesn't help either that there's some posters who seem to constantly get given massive amounts of leeway in what's deemed allowable, whilst others have mods all over them for the slightest toe over the line. Again - the mod and cmod teams can use the letter of the law to uphold decisions against the former, ignoring the fact that they'll take a very different interpretation of what's allowable when it comes to other posters.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Boards.ie: Mark

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Please report instances like this. Edits can be seen and corrected if necessary (not back to the original if there was something wrong with it, but to reflect the point more accurately). Also it gives CMods and Admins a record of events.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Boards.ie: Mark

You can report any post by clicking the little Warning symbol under the user details on a post (so under your own name in cases like this). Mods and Admins will see these reports so there's a track record of things like this and it allows action to be taken if needed.

DRP is for resolving disputes related to infractions and bans; you can also go to Help Desk regarding moderator actions (the editing of posts, for example).

Jurgen Klopp

Just on the people should be made stick with one account.

Pure ridiculous. Ive been here years and anytime I've started a new account it's always due to privacy where maybe a little bit of info slipped out and I thought hang on shouldn't have said it as X, Y and Z posts could be linked together.

Then a lot of the time I get bored with usernames and like to switch it up

Tbh why in this day and age should I pay €5 for a name change, when every other place out there lets you do it or has no problem with opening fresh accounts

I'd say it would only actually backfire tbh and probably cost even more users tbh. Given the competition don't have such ridiculous rules

Grasping at straws IMO

The_Valeyard

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

You can report any post by clicking the little Warning symbol under the user details on a post (so under your own name in cases like this). Mods and Admins will see these reports so there's a track record of things like this and it allows action to be taken if needed.

DRP is for resolving disputes related to infractions and bans; you can also go to Help Desk regarding moderator actions (the editing of posts, for example).

Unfortunately Mark, the perception by some on this site (from those ive been chatting with in pubs, etc) Is that certain mods tend to circle the wagon when challenged or someone makes a complaint or disagrees with them. It might be useful to take another look at the DRP, either streamlining it, or rejigging it.

The_Valeyard

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Just on the people should be made stick with one account.

Pure ridiculous. Ive been here years and anytime I've started a new account it's always due to privacy where maybe a little bit of info slipped out and I thought hang on shouldn't have said it as X, Y and Z posts could be linked together.

Then a lot of the time I get bored with usernames and like to switch it up

Tbh why in this day and age should I pay €5 for a name change especially if we would be forced to stick with one account

I'd say it would only actually backfire tbh and probably cost even more users tbh. Given the competition don't have such ridiculous rules

Grasping at straws IMO

Some people have changed accounts when bullied or stalked or too much personal information has been given away over a number of years. Makes sense to close one account and start another one.