Why is Boards so quiet?

Beasty

You mean users like me? I may have some concerns that the site's popularity may have dropped from it's peak of a few years ago, but that's not particularly unusual in the lifespan of a business like this. It may well pick up again for all I know - likewise it may not. Equally as I've already mentioned it's current popularity is way ahead of what it was a decade ago.

The Hill Billy

Murrisk wrote: »

It's a messageboard. It gets shut down, our lives will go on. Better that than neutered discussion.

Really? The loss of boards & all its forums & communities, the personal & financial investments, people's livelihoods - all wiped away because you want us to act free & easy with the legal side of things.

But, sure your life will go on. You're all right, Jack. Eh?

Little CuChulainn

Pelvis Parsley wrote: »

What is just as ridiculous, and I've seen it so many times; one jobsworth comes along and cards a poster. Then, another mod, or above, happens along, and escalates the sanction to a ban. Possibly with another little card. So then you have one offence, and three punishments. You can see why people don't bother.

You can't do that though as far as I remember. Once a post has been sanctioned the sanction button disappears. At least it did for me.

Jurgen Klopp

Beasty wrote: »

And what about those who have invested money in the site? Equally it provides full time employment to some. Like it or not it's a business. It's certainly not in the interests of the owners or employees to allow the site to die, or get killed off via some legal claim. I am sure they would much prefer a return to growth, but ultimately they set the tone in terms of risks the site is prepared to take. The Admins and mods are tasked with ensuring the site deals with those risks as the owners and employees desire.

Some business given they are loosing users by the bucketload which keeps paying companies here like Vodafone and the fact they have never turned a profit once :pac:

Jurgen Klopp

Can boards get the site hosted somewhere like the US, UK or even Asia will that allow them to be free of getting sued or will the Dublin based HQ still catch em?

Spanish Eyes

Simple answer. Mods too quick on the "close thread" button.

Everyone loses, the perps that cause it don't care.

Awfully lazy moderation. No wonder the place has tumbleweed now. Why would you bother.

Ban the troublemakers, not the entire thread. FGS.

It's like being back at school.

Wibbs

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Really? The loss of boards & all its forums & communities, the personal & financial investments, people's livelihoods - all wiped away because you want us to act free & easy with the legal side of things.

But, sure your life will go on. You're all right, Jack. Eh?

Indeed. More than a tad self centred alright. Though this attitude is an interesting example of wider change that has happened with interweb communities in the last decade. In "ye olde days" there were fewer alternatives and people tended to be well, more community orientated, even loyal to certain forums/sites. There was more a sense of permanence to some degree. Even usernames were valued. Previously very few would use their real names in online communities(this would still be in play in Reddit/Voat and the like though). Since Facebook came along people are less concerned about that, indeed the more attention seeking - and there would be many - want to promote their interwebs persona as a brand of sorts. Anyway those olde style handles were usually more valued as their internet community persona. These days they would be seen as more throwaway by many people, particularly younger folks who have never known the pre web world. Look at how Boards nicks went after the closed account feature came in. People chopping and changing to beat the band. A few have told me they hit the kill switch because they wanted a new username.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You can't do that though as far as I remember. Once a post has been sanctioned the sanction button disappears. At least it did for me.

Kinda. If there are cards it needs an admin to change them, though a mod can up it to a ban. They're separate buttons as it were. For example I gave up on cards ages ago, but I can ban a user without them*. Bans can also be overturned by mods, threads reopened too.





*When required I post a warning, then a second warning, often a PM to hopefully chill things down(and it nearly always does), if that doesn't fly then I'll escalate to a ban.

Wibbs

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Ban the troublemakers, not the entire thread. FGS.

So. Much. This.

Zaph

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Can boards get the site hosted somewhere like the US, UK or even Asia will that allow them to be free of getting sued or will the Dublin based HQ still catch em?

Where Boards is hosted is irrelevant, it's an Irish company and is as a result subject to Irish law.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Zaph wrote:

Where Boards is hosted is irrelevant, it's an Irish company and is as a result subject to Irish law.

What Zed said. Oh this is a debate that has been had since I joined late enough to the party. Boards would have to be a non Irish based company and host the site outside of Ireland and even then might not be immune. And would IIRC lose the option of being a .ie site too. As per usual, Ireland went full retard on domain names. You couldn't just register one, you had to have a company name the same as the domain name. One of the main founders of this community changed his Ltd company name for a few days to "Boards" so he could register the domain. He tells it better.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm probably wrong here(likely. T'is me), but I think DM aren't in the picture with Boards, or something like that?

But aside from that it is a good question alright ...... . It might be something as simple as Boards has historically received more ambulance chaser letters throughout its existence and continues to do so, but the Journal has so far remained out of that loop?

I have seen a few lawsuits for defamation agin Irish sites/Irish individuals on the web and there seemed to be little enough rhyme or reason to it. Some were tiny sites/blogs, others were bigger more public sites.

Murrisk

The Hill Billy wrote: »

But, sure your life will go on. You're all right, Jack. Eh?

Dramatics!

If the usership continues to fall, there won't be much of a business either.

The community side of it hardly exists now.

So yes, I am alright, Jack, whatever happens. If the feedback is taken on board, great. If not, and the usership continues to fall with all that comes with that, it won't make much difference to my life or ANY user's life. People would miss it but would quickly move on. It's not a self-centred position, it'd be the same for everyone. The only people who will have it impact their lives are people who are invested in it and on the payroll. It's been framed like the only way they'll be affected is if the site shuts down due to legal action. But usership dropping (as it's being admitted it is), that won't? Alrighty then! It seems a bit hollow to break out the violins about what will happen to investors and employees of boards when there seems to be so little concern over the falling usership. There will probably be a tipping point where the site becomes too quiet. Nobody wants to put effort in posting where there is little chance of getting a reply.

So yes, let's continue to be overly cautious in the fear of legal action being taken. It may cost the site users which will make forums quieter which will mean less people post, making the forums quieter again but that doesn't matter, right?

There are a few ways that the people whose livelihood depend on the site could have that livelihood disappear. And yes, the lives of erstwhile users will go on either way. That's a given.

Stheno

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

I actually raised this very point on a feedback thread over in the politics cafe, they wanted user feedback about what could be done to prevent what users would deem mod bias and mind you they seemed shocked users think there is a bias :rolleyes:

I said posters at this stage need to be able to question a mods decision, not just the OP in a dispute resolution.

I suggested maybe if 3 posters bar the OP raised a "hold on the mod is taking the piss with this decision" it should be up for discussion IMO

Just got a hand waving "it would be too much work, a more defined charter will suffice" essential answer.

You know this sort of response pisses me off, we have an open thread in politics cafe to discuss the future of the cafe and due to one response from me ( as a poster and not a mod it's modded by the cmods) you chose not to challenge my response but to come here and be negative.

Why not engage in the thread and make an argument for what you propose?

Little CuChulainn

The journal close comments on legal proceedings and have a policy against uncivil and defamatory posts. They just aren't good at implementation.

Jurgen Klopp

Stheno wrote: »

You know this sort of response pisses me off, we have an open thread in politics cafe to discuss the future of the cafe and due to one response from me ( as a poster and not a mod it's modded by the cmods) you chose not to challenge my response but to come here and be negative.

Why not engage in the thread and make an argument for what you propose?

Well why would I given your response was

I genuinely don't think this would work tbh, it would essentially be a mini feedback forum, and moderating it would be a nightmare for whoever would have the pleasure. We already have feedback, helpdesk is for issues with individual mods, and then drp for appealing cards/bans.

A clearer charter, and more consistent moderation, and a formalised system of sanctions would remove an awful lot of the issues that are being brought up

You are a mod of that forum so I will take your views as a mod like it or not

You solution is that we already have feedback which constantly has threads being opened about mod attitudes and bias in that forum in particular which to date has not even been close to listened to

Then you have dispute resolution which most posters view the admins as always backing up mods and has never, ever, seen anything close to resembling mod bias

And you actually think a more consistent charter is going to help, seriously? How many times have mods reworked that and other charters but still a massive chunk of users are sick of ye. Not to mention then ye update individual threads with extra rules to stifle as it is like the immigration thread

That thread rules was stretched so much that I was carded for calling Merkel and Juncker scumbags, nothing racist or threatening. It was called uncivil posting. That is an example of complete and utter childish moderation of the highest order to be honest, bad language next is off the list I take it.

Then you mention more consistent moderation? How do you propose this in an actual genuine way that posters can properly hold mods to account or be satisfied they can actually call mods out for taking the piss

Every bloody time it's rubbish about charters

So no, I won't bother giving anymore feedback as it's plain as day ye won't take any suggestions of serious change onboard especially ones which will let biased mods be held to account

It's like years back in politics forum during the boom where it took admins months before they removed a mod who used ban and delete posts from users in any way critical of Fianna Fail, as he was a member of the party, despite users disputing it for ages

Jurgen Klopp

testaccount123 wrote: »

If Boards stop this sort of carry on they'll lose even more traffic. The only reason half of us log on is to see what comical nonsense the mod crew get up to next.

Interesting you say that T.

I was part of the Soccer Manager forum on here, like an online football manager. It wasn't even one of the worst forums here either

We got so sick of it we all use KIK now, at least 20 posters of that forum using it instead of boards now

Zaph

....... wrote: »

Distilled Media owns boards.ie doesn't it?

Distilled Media owns thejournal.ie too.

Yet the comments section on thejournal.ie are a vicious eye watering mess of slander, defamation, racism, misogyny, etc... People say what they like, about whoever they like.

So why is it ok there but not here?

I don't read The Journal and I've no idea what's posted there, so I'm afraid I can't offer any opinion on what's posted there. All I know and care about is what's permitted on this site.

Stheno

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Well why would I given your response was



You are a mod of that forum so I will take your views as a mod like it or not

You solution is that we already have feedback which constantly has threads being opened about mod attitudes and bias in that forum in particular which to date has not even been close to listened to

Then you have dispute resolution which most posters view the admins as always backing up mods and has never, ever, seen anything close to resembling mod bias

And you actually think a more consistent charter is going to help, seriously? How many times have mods reworked that and other charters but still a massive chunk of users are sick of ye. Not to mention then ye update individual threads with extra rules to stifle as it is like the immigration thread

That thread rules was stretched so much that I was carded for calling Merkel and Juncker scumbags, nothing racist or threatening. It was called uncivil posting. That is an example of complete and utter childish moderation of the highest order to be honest, bad language next is off the list I take it.

Then you mention more consistent moderation? How do you propose this in an actual genuine way that posters can properly hold mods to account or be satisfied they can actually call mods out for taking the piss

Every bloody time it's rubbish about charters

So no, I won't bother giving anymore feedback as it's plain as day ye won't take any suggestions of serious change onboard especially ones which will let biased mods be held to account

It's like years back in politics forum during the boom where it took admins months before they removed a mod who used ban and delete posts from users in any way critical of Fianna Fail, as he was a member of the party, despite users disputing it for ages

Well because when I first responded in that thread I made it clear I was just a poster in a thread being modded by the cmods, so my suggestions are the same as yours?

riffmongous

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Simple answer. Mods too quick on the "close thread" button.

Everyone loses, the perps that cause it don't care.

Awfully lazy moderation. No wonder the place has tumbleweed now. Why would you bother.

Ban the troublemakers, not the entire thread. FGS.

It's like being back at school.

Yep! Especially the craic threads, even if they were originally troll threads. Nothing worse than investing some time and effort into a thread only to see it closed.

I must say though, imo, things have gotten better than they were maybe a year, 2 years ago. It's quieter but it feels like less agendas and arguments, at the very least I am enjoying it more, but I've also decided to try stay out of any 'social crap' threads so maybe thats why

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zaph

....... wrote: »

Well you do have an idea cos I've just told you.

There's plenty of feedback here saying the stifling of discussion because of possible legal issues is a negative. It's utter nonsense IMO. When every website in the country was ablaze discussing the Graham O Dwyer case, you weren't allowed to mention here.

To say you only care and know about here is totally dismissive. It's a relevant point being raised. Elsewhere discussion is not stifled by possible legal action. Why here? Especially when one example of elsewhere is actually owned by the same company as here.

No, it's not dismissive, it's a fact. I honestly couldn't give a flying what's posted on The Journal. If you want to know why there are different editorial policies between there and Boards all I can suggest is that you contact Distilled Media and ask them. As far as Boards is concerned we've been told that ongoing court cases can't be discussed due to potential contempt of court issues, so that's the policy we adhere to here.

Steve

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Other sites are being run by journalists that (I assume) have had training on the legal boundaries, boards is run by layman volunteers and so we take as gospel what head office says is and is not allowed to be discussed.

It's really that simple.

Spanish Eyes

Many fora I visit have laid back moderation. They rely on the community to "report" to them and then they decide what to do about it.

I think if Boards had a charter such as..... we reserve the right to delete comments when reported to us" or something like that, things might flow a bit better.

I do not understand how other fora operate successfully without real time moderation, but they do. They rely on their community to alert them and so far so good, well with those other fora I visit anyway. Always amazed at that when compared with here TBH.

Same libel laws and so on apply BTW.

Just an observation. No one can expect a moderator to be awake on a thread 24/7.

How do other places survive.

Anyway.

Steve

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Many fora I visit have laid back moderation. They rely on the community to "report" to them and then they decide what to do about it.

I think if Boards had a charter such as..... we reserve the right to delete comments when reported to us" or something like that, things might flow a bit better.

I do not understand how other fora operate successfully without real time moderation, but they do. They rely on their community to alert them and so far so good, well with those other fora I visit anyway. Always amazed at that when compared with here TBH.

Same libel laws and so on apply BTW.

Just an observation. No one can expect a moderator to be awake on a thread 24/7.

How do other places survive.

Anyway.

To put that into context, the likes of FB and Youtube have relied on the 'report it and we'll think about it' approach for years. They are now getting dragged through the courts and being told to be more proactive.

I'm posting that as my own opinion btw, it in no way represents any boards policy.

Spanish Eyes

Steve wrote: »

To put that into context, the likes of FB and Youtube have relied on the 'report it and we'll think about it' approach for years. They are now getting dragged through the courts and being told to be more proactive.

I'm posting that as my own opinion btw, it in no way represents any boards policy.

Fair enough, but I was not referring to FB or Youtube at all. Just other general fora out there similar to this one. Some are YUUUUUGE, some are not, but they all seem to operate on the "report" system. And it works ok afais.

But I am not saying it's perfect either. Just saying.

I don't really know what the solution is, apart from banning messers instead of closing the entire thread that many have contributed to within the charters/rules.

That is awful.

Zaph

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Many fora I visit have laid back moderation. They rely on the community to "report" to them and then they decide what to do about it.

I think if Boards had a charter such as..... we reserve the right to delete comments when reported to us" or something like that, things might flow a bit better.

Boards also relies on posts to be reported, just like those sites. I'd guess in excess of three quarters of all mod actions taken on the site are as a result of posted being reported by the community. And the Boards Terms of Use already contains similar wording to what you suggest:

Whilst we do not monitor Material posted by users, we reserve the right to take down Material that comes to our attention via a complaint or otherwise.

It may well be that some of those other sites are operating from countries that don't have such backwards laws covering what's published on the internet and are therefore free to be a bit more liberal with what they allow. Unfortunately Ireland is way behind in that regard, and when we do get the government looking at updating the laws we end up with the sort of nonsense that we got from Sean Sherlock a few years back where one aspect of internet copyright law was dealt with and all the rest that needs reviewing was completely ignored.

me_right_one

At this stage, boards is like a beheading video. Its horrifying, you know its wrong, but you just cant help looking. And you always come away feeling grateful that all the idiots and psychopaths are confined to the internet, and not your real life.

blackwhite

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm probably wrong here(likely. T'is me), but I think DM aren't in the picture with Boards, or something like that?

Boards, the journal and daft are all still under the same ownership structure.

They changed the legal structure so that they are no longer part of DM - but the ultimate ownership is unchanged, and they all fall under the same control.

It gives the office staff a handy "Oh we're not part of DM anymore" to try and pretend there's no connection at all (despite the link to the "unconnected" site that gets 1/4 of the menu bar :rolleyes: - and the links across the bottom of the page)

.......

This post has been deleted.

Little CuChulainn

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Journal has the same policy in relation to ongoing cases. They shut down comments on all cases once someone has been charged. They also remove potentially defamatory statements. They often close discussion completely on articles related to DoB.