The slow death of forums *see OP for Admin warning and update 28/02/18*

Ken.

Pepefrogok wrote: »

So is the "Breaking - massive explosion in Leicester" going to stay closed and any other threads about crime in the UK at the legal stage i.e as soon as arrests made also closed? I mean it's just this seems new? There are hundreds of threads discussing events in the UK well into the legal stage.

Hey Pepe, To be honest we are kinda stumped so we've asked the legal people for guidance. As soon as we get an answer we'll post it in the thread.

After their decision about the rape trial some are seeing their advice as including the whole of the U.K. involving court cases and some aren't.

Pepefrogok

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As has been quoted by police in Leicester, they don't want speculation to prejudice a future trial.

The largest UK forum digital spy are discussing it?

KERSPLAT!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As has been quoted by police in Leicester, they don't want speculation to prejudice a future trial.

But surely that is standard for every case? I'm not trying to be argumentative or pedantic, I want to understand my my own sake exactly what is or isn't allowed. It's as clear as mud at the moment!

Fr_Dougal

Deleted User wrote: »

As has been quoted by police in Leicester, they don't want speculation to prejudice a future trial.

Surely that only applies to mainland UK? It has never been applied to boards.ie before. Where does it stop? US? All of the EU?

Ken.

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Surely that only applies to mainland UK? It has never been applied to boards.ie before. Where does it stop? US? All of the EU?

That's what we are going to find out soon (by soon I mean being the weekend it could be Monday)

Pepefrogok

Very strange.

KERSPLAT!

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

But surely that is standard for every case? I'm not trying to be argumentative or pedantic, I want to understand my my own sake exactly what is or isn't allowed. It's as clear as mud at the moment!

Clear as mud is probably the best way to describe it, I fear that our freedoms to discuss such topics is being eroded each and every day.

To be honest I don't know the legal position with these types of discussions, except that they can be open to exploitation by clever lawyers trying to help the defendant get "a fair trial".

I hate to think that the managers of Boards have to look over their shoulders every time a possibly contentious subject is discussed and fear that they may take the easy way out and shut down these discussions.

Omackeral

Deleted User wrote: »

Speculating about cases like this in the local pub is one thing, speculating on an internet forum that can be accessed globally is another.

That rules out ever speaking about anything from anywhere really then doesn't it?

boombang

I think there's a very interesting few speech issue here that I'd love academics to examine. The wholesale shutdown of discussion of major events such as the Lidl riots seems very heavy handed if it's about the desire for completely fair trials. A jury can access speculation in many places, so why particularly censor discussion forums? It costs the many who don't indulge in speculation a considerable amount in terms of freedom of expression. Should the government forbid punters talking about a crime in pubs before it goes to trial due to the that one of them might be called to do jury service? I know it's not a perfect analogy as nobody can go back in time to read over what was said in the pub. However, it would seem fairer for the jury to police themselves than for everybody else to be censored.

Otherwise I think I'm off to register Contentious.ie and host it in some lax jurisdiction and we can talk about knackers all day long on it.

_Kaiser_

sdanseo wrote: »

I continue to think the one single change that would bring the millenials in en masse is a decent and engaging app. The number of times in the last few weeks with the mad weather where I've gone and grabbed my laptop instead of checking boards on my phone has taught me that.

The rest will follow but bottom line is the young ones have their head in their phones and want ease of use. And frankly if we can get the 15-25's actually discussing things rather than the 200-character smartasery that personifies twitter, then we'll be doing the world a favour!

Not just the millennials. I'd still prefer browsing on my laptop, but so much is done via phone now it's essential to have a decent app.

Best example I can use here is Reddit. Via desktop it's borderline unusable without RES and style tweaks (and even then it's still messy), but then I found the Boost app which transforms the whole thing immesurably.

With Boards we have the opposite problem. Unless you're using a laptop in "legacy" mode (and on that, the shockingly bad, half-finished "responsive" site needs to just go away) it's a very poor experience on mobile. The Touch version is reasonable, but still missing lots of the key functionality and usability.

On the idea of navigation and streamlining... no harm at all to cut down or merge some of the abandoned forums or that are several layers deep, but the first step has to be addressing the "temporary" nav bar at the top of the screen. Just put it back to the way it was several years ago when forums weren't hidden away from casual viewing and people didn't just stick to their favourites list (a feature I only really started using when the "improvements" came in)

hullaballoo

Admin: In relation to the closing of threads relating to ongoing criminal proceedings, there is no absolute or black-and-white policy that allows mods to apply a formula to whether or not any given topic has to be locked. Generally, airing on the side of caution is preferable because of the risks involved. Mods have the resource of a direct line to me to raise queries in relation to when the law might have something to say about whether any given topic can continue.

Matters that are sub judice in Ireland are out-of-bounds as clearly, any discussion here could prejudice trials. Matters that are sub judice elsewhere have to be considered in terms of the likelihood or otherwise that a jury could be influenced by public discussion of the subject-matter that could prejudice the fair trial of the accused. Given the prominence of this site and the quality of discussion on it, there are times when cases from other jurisdictions could be prejudiced by discussion here. In general, it's probably fair to say that the only other relevant jurisdictions are Northern Ireland, England and Wales, and Scotland. Even then, most of the time, there's little risk of prejudicing a trial in those jurisdictions except where there's a clear and tangible connection with Ireland, such as the Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding trial in NI at the moment.

It's not relevant to boards.ie what other sites allow. If they want to risk being the "social media" site that collapses a trial, let them at it. But as far as we can, we will ensure that this site is not responsible in any way for collapsing a trial.

Just briefly, because someone asked to get a discussion on freedom of expression going - it's not really a part of considerations of the sub judice rule/prejudice to a fair trial for the following reasons: The reality is that although freedom of expression is protected by the constitution, it is subordinate to pretty much all of the other rights. It's even constrained in its applicability here by its own terms under art 40.6.1. I'd say it's not worth the paper it's written on as a right but it has been bolstered by the ECHR etc.

So, things like the right of an accused to a fair trial, the right to a good name, the common good and public order and morality are all superior rights.

Still though, we're obviously in the business of discussion on this site so we try and balance things as best we can and yes, I can see the frustration in not being able to talk about the likes of the Jackson/Olding trial but these are the legal (and practical) realities of what we're contending with.

I am sure there will be follow-up questions that I'll be happy to answer within reason and provided that they're relevant to the issue of discussion of ongoing trials.

Pepefrogok

hullaballoo wrote: »

Admin: In relation to the closing of threads relating to ongoing criminal proceedings, there is no absolute or black-and-white policy that allows mods to apply a formula to whether or not any given topic has to be locked. Generally, airing on the side of caution is preferable because of the risks involved. Mods have the resource of a direct line to me to raise queries in relation to when the law might have something to say about whether any given topic can continue.

Matters that are sub judice in Ireland are out-of-bounds as clearly, any discussion here could prejudice trials. Matters that are sub judice elsewhere have to be considered in terms of the likelihood or otherwise that a jury could be influenced by public discussion of the subject-matter that could prejudice the fair trial of the accused. Given the prominence of this site and the quality of discussion on it, there are times when cases from other jurisdictions could be prejudiced by discussion here. In general, it's probably fair to say that the only other relevant jurisdictions are Northern Ireland, England and Wales, and Scotland. Even then, most of the time, there's little risk of prejudicing a trial in those jurisdictions except where there's a clear and tangible connection with Ireland, such as the Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding trial in NI at the moment.

It's not relevant to boards.ie what other sites allow. If they want to risk being the "social media" site that collapses a trial, let them at it. But as far as we can, we will ensure that this site is not responsible in any way for collapsing a trial.

Just briefly, because someone asked to get a discussion on freedom of expression going - it's not really a part of considerations of the sub judice rule/prejudice to a fair trial for the following reasons: The reality is that although freedom of expression is protected by the constitution, it is subordinate to pretty much all of the other rights. It's even constrained in its applicability here by its own terms under art 40.6.1. I'd say it's not worth the paper it's written on as a right but it has been bolstered by the ECHR etc.

So, things like the right of an accused to a fair trial, the right to a good name, the common good and public order and morality are all superior rights.

Still though, we're obviously in the business of discussion on this site so we try and balance things as best we can and yes, I can see the frustration in not being able to talk about the likes of the Jackson/Olding trial but these are the legal (and practical) realities of what we're contending with.

I am sure there will be follow-up questions that I'll be happy to answer within reason and provided that they're relevant to the issue of discussion of ongoing trials.

Just this case, weird!

KyussB

Beasty wrote: »

Posters here look at AH and one or two other forums

Obviously the Weather forum is getting a lot of attention now, and that's (in my view) largely down to one very knowledgeable and popular poster

This makes me think of a worthy point: Imagine the loss to the site, from that poster having a run-in with a mod on some other subforum, and getting fed up with the site through that, and leaving or getting banned - for example, in a situation like this:

tayto lover wrote: »

Any post with a bit of humour should not cause a ban even in serious discussions. I know some posters can take offence but a bit of a laugh can also diffuse situations
Sometimes the modding and the rules are far too serious.

Imagine the loss to the site from that one poster - and think about the potential for many other posters over the years, having been lost in a similar way - gradually sucking the life out of the site.

I'm sure most long-term posters here, can think of a number of people lost to the site, in similar circumstances, over the years.

Being able to avoid this would require a pretty big reconsideration of the modding style, of the site.

Esel

More Mod Tools, less Mod tools!

Beasty

KyussB wrote: »

This makes me think of a worthy point: Imagine the loss to the site, from that poster having a run-in with a mod on some other subforum, and getting fed up with the site through that, and leaving or getting banned - for example, in a situation like this:

Imagine the loss to the site from that one poster - and think about the potential for many other posters over the years, having been lost in a similar way - gradually sucking the life out of the site.

I'm sure most long-term posters here, can think of a number of people lost to the site, in similar circumstances, over the years.

Being able to avoid this would require a pretty big reconsideration of the modding style, of the site.

I'm sorry, but it's been said a number of times that mods have in general toned down their approach following earlier feedback. In addition there have been moves to try and standardise things a bit more where it makes sense. I appreciate there may be pockets of mods that perhaps do need to reconsider their approach a bit more, but there has been a general move in that direction. We are also engaging with mods as I've already explained in this thread

And yes, the stats back this up. There are less cards being handed out (as a proportion of posts), and fewer appeals to the DRP. In addition Admins have taken onboard comments made about the Prison forum and toned things down materially there.

Again I'm certainly not suggesting everything is rosy, but I do feel a lot of progress has been made in a number of areas. We are working on further improvements as already laid out in this thread. I do think though that some of these things will take time to implement, and we'll probably be closing this thread towards the end of this week as we need to start delivering on some of the points raised rather than continue to discuss what might be done.

When we do close it I would again intend providing a further update in perhaps another couple of months and opening the thread up again for a short period

KyussB

Fair enough - I don't post or read regularly on the site anymore, to see that change directly, but it's good it's heading in that direction.

pleas advice

hullaballoo wrote: »

Matters that are sub judice elsewhere have to be considered in terms of the likelihood or otherwise that a jury could be influenced by public discussion of the subject-matter that could prejudice the fair trial of the accused....
it's probably fair to say that the only other relevant jurisdictions are Northern Ireland, England and Wales, and Scotland. Even then, most of the time, there's little risk of prejudicing a trial in those jurisdictions except where there's a clear and tangible connection with Ireland,

would the manslaughter / arson case in Leicester following the large explosion fall under this?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057845385

Beasty

pleas advice wrote: »

would the manslaughter / arson case in Leicester following the large explosion fall under this?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057845385

The AH mods were seeking the clarity that hullaballoo provided above. I say clarity, but the problem here is we are into shades of grey here - definitely at the better end, but one of the issues wed have is it's difficult to try and get legal advice on a case by case basis and the AH mods are not lawyers (nor am I) so need to either apply a rule consistently (in this case stopping discussion when a case gets to charges being laid), or seeking clarity if this is within the bounds of exposure the site is prepared to accept

Having said that, it appears to me that the persons who have been charged have been identified (and for all I know there may be some Irish connection with the individuals involved, although the chances do seem quite low), but beyond that there does not seem anything more to add to the discussion that has already taken place in the thread.

Pepefrogok

Beasty wrote: »

there does not seem anything more to add to the discussion that has already taken place in the thread.

Censorship.

Discodog

It's a difficult line. I can appreciate the possibility of Boards being singled out for being prejudicial. But I think it's unlikely given that a discussion here will be one of many on the internet.

The problem is, the less that people can discuss here the more they will use other media. I don't like Reddit but it's probably only a matter of time before I use it. Once people move away they may find the new media better.

The Weather forum example is an exception because no where else covered the snow event in such local detail.

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

I'm sorry, but it's been said a number of times that mods have in general toned down their approach following earlier feedback. In addition there have been moves to try and standardise things a bit more where it makes sense. I appreciate there may be pockets of mods that perhaps do need to reconsider their approach a bit more, but there has been a general move in that direction. We are also engaging with mods as I've already explained in this thread

And yes, the stats back this up. There are less cards being handed out (as a proportion of posts), and fewer appeals to the DRP. In addition Admins have taken onboard comments made about the Prison forum and toned things down materially there.

Again I'm certainly not suggesting everything is rosy, but I do feel a lot of progress has been made in a number of areas. We are working on further improvements as already laid out in this thread. I do think though that some of these things will take time to implement, and we'll probably be closing this thread towards the end of this week as we need to start delivering on some of the points raised rather than continue to discuss what might be done.

When we do close it I would again intend providing a further update in perhaps another couple of months and opening the thread up again for a short period

Out of curiosity, are Mods given any form of training or guidelines n what their role should be?

I ask, because sometimes it seems that mods aren't actually moderators here to encourage thought provoking and lively debate, they are here simply to police a forum.

and yes, I know they are all volunteers without whom the forums would go to ****, but maybe this is something that the owners need to look into?

KERSPLAT!

Beasty wrote: »

The AH mods were seeking the clarity that hullaballoo provided above. I say clarity, but the problem here is we are into shades of grey here - definitely at the better end, but one of the issues wed have is it's difficult to try and get legal advice on a case by case basis and the AH mods are not lawyers (nor am I) so need to either apply a rule consistently (in this case stopping discussion when a case gets to charges being laid), or seeking clarity if this is within the bounds of exposure the site is prepared to accept

Having said that, it appears to me that the persons who have been charged have been identified (and for all I know there may be some Irish connection with the individuals involved, although the chances do seem quite low), but beyond that there does not seem anything more to add to the discussion that has already taken place in the thread.

This is absolutely nuts, Beasty. If it's not causing issues, legal or otherwise, then open it up and let discussion flow. It'll die off naturally if there's no discussion to be had.

Omackeral

Even if there is Irish connections, so what?!! It’s another jurisdiction. Leicester has nothing to do with Ireland and their injunctions or police directions have zero implications here. It may as well be the USA or Outer Mongolia, from a legal standpoint. Somebody said earlier that someone over there could read an opionion in here because it’s accesible globally and that that could sway or influence them in a court. That could literally apply to anywhere on earth theoretically. Stupid argument.

Beasty

Aegir wrote: »

Out of curiosity, are Mods given any form of training or guidelines n what their role should be?

I ask, because sometimes it seems that mods aren't actually moderators here to encourage thought provoking and lively debate, they are here simply to police a forum.

and yes, I know they are all volunteers without whom the forums would go to ****, but maybe this is something that the owners need to look into?

There are initial guidelines, but TBH most of their "training" is on the job. To help though we have a general mods forum where anyone can ask questions, and there is a section covering off newbie-type questions. We also have mod forums dedicated to specific forums (eg Soccer) or Categories (eg Sport) where mods can ask questions of fellow forum/category mods and pass on/discuss their own experiences

As we've mentioned already though, one of the outcomes of this thread is we (well Mark actually) are working on a new "Mod Handbook"

Beasty

Pleased to see we have so many smart lawyers around here to put me in my place. Alas my own legal training pre-dates the internet, so I'm unable to comment further on "Leicester" or, indeed, Timbuktu

Pepefrogok

Beasty wrote: »

Pleased to see we have so many smart lawyers around here to put me in my place. Alas my own legal training pre-dates the internet, so I'm unable to comment further on "Leicester" or, indeed, Timbuktu

Don't think you need a law degree for this one in fairness!

Omackeral

No need to like that Beasty. Simply saying that if a matter in the US, say a school shooting or whatever, is open for discussion while a court case is impending/ongoing then what would be the difference if it happened to be in the UK as far as discussion goes?

pilly

Beasty wrote: »

Pleased to see we have so many smart lawyers around here to put me in my place. Alas my own legal training pre-dates the internet, so I'm unable to comment further on "Leicester" or, indeed, Timbuktu

Smart arse answer uncalled for.

Beasty

pilly wrote: »

Smart arse answer uncalled for.

You're absolutely right there

But when you put as much time and effort as I have into a thread like this, dealing with numerous points, the follow-up, and resultant discussion on Feedback, ensuring carefully crafted responses which are met with retorts like "censorship" and "that's nuts" unfortunately there is a temptation to reply in kind, and I succumbed to that temptation

Kuva

Just clicked into that unwanted sexual experience thread there, on DESKTOP, haven't had a read of it in over a week annnnnnnnnd it opens on the last page.

Touch has done this since launch and despite being reported a heap of times, still does it, making it fecking useless, rare it does it on Desktop, 99.9% of the time a reader won't bother trying to find where they really left off.

That responsive thing must be 8/9 years on the go at this stage...what do these people do all day? They can't even be bothered to get basic site functions working right?

Does m.boards do this aswell?

The Rape of Lucretia

m.boards works a treat. The only way to mobile board.

Kimbot

Beasty wrote: »

The AH mods were seeking the clarity that hullaballoo provided above. I say clarity, but the problem here is we are into shades of grey here - definitely at the better end, but one of the issues wed have is it's difficult to try and get legal advice on a case by case basis and the AH mods are not lawyers (nor am I) so need to either apply a rule consistently (in this case stopping discussion when a case gets to charges being laid), or seeking clarity if this is within the bounds of exposure the site is prepared to accept

Having said that, it appears to me that the persons who have been charged have been identified (and for all I know there may be some Irish connection with the individuals involved, although the chances do seem quite low), but beyond that there does not seem anything more to add to the discussion that has already taken place in the thread.

Beasty apologies to you on this one as you got a bit blindsided by this one.

But to answer a few of the posters asking the thread was closed due to a couple of issues that I can see straight away, however I do think the thread can be reopened and has been reopened now. It just got overlooked over that past few days, we all have lives outside of boards aswell. But a suggestion to the posters that complained about it on this thread, why not send a pm to the forum mods to discuss why a thread has been closed etc? We are open to discussion in fairness.

hullaballoo

Ok, just to clarify. In my view, the thread about the Leicester case didn't need to be locked due to the sub judice rule. But I don't for a second blame the mods for thinking it should have been.

I have been telling people for years at this stage that the risk of prejudicing a trial is not limited to just Irish trials to instill exactly the kind of vigilance that lead to that thread being locked. I couldn't blame someone who hasn't studied the intricate detail of my habitually lengthy posts on the topic for taking away the view that all threads about ongoing cases are to be locked.

Then throw into the mix the high profile of the Jackson/Olding case - a Northern Irish trial that is forbidden to discuss here. It's easy to see how that could be translated into "all UK cases now come under the rule", again, unless every single mod is reading and fully comprehending my posts on the topic. That's exceptionally unlikely, in case I have not yet gotten that across. There are going to be times when threads are locked due to misapplication of a rule set in this way.

Omackeral wrote: »

Even if there is Irish connections, so what?!! It’s another jurisdiction. Leicester has nothing to do with Ireland and their injunctions or police directions have zero implications here. It may as well be the USA or Outer Mongolia, from a legal standpoint. Somebody said earlier that someone over there could read an opionion in here because it’s accesible globally and that that could sway or influence them in a court. That could literally apply to anywhere on earth theoretically. Stupid argument.

I can appreciate where you're coming from on this but there are clearly circumstances where having a discussion about a foreign case on a very prominent Irish website such as this could jeopardise the trial. Northern Ireland is a different jurisdiction and I don't think anyone would have a difficulty accepting that the Jackson/Olding trial could be jeopardised by discussion here.

KERSPLAT!

jonnycivic wrote: »

Beasty apologies to you on this one as you got a bit blindsided by this one.

But to answer a few of the posters asking the thread was closed due to a couple of issues that I can see straight away, however I do think the thread can be reopened and has been reopened now. It just got overlooked over that past few days, we all have lives outside of boards aswell. But a suggestion to the posters that complained about it on this thread, why not send a pm to the forum mods to discuss why a thread has been closed etc? We are open to discussion in fairness.

We were told why it was closed, it's before the courts. Posters came here for clarification.

Experience_day

Beasty wrote: »

I'm sorry, but it's been said a number of times that mods have in general toned down their approach following earlier feedback. In addition there have been moves to try and standardise things a bit more where it makes sense. I appreciate there may be pockets of mods that perhaps do need to reconsider their approach a bit more, but there has been a general move in that direction. We are also engaging with mods as I've already explained in this thread

Beasty wrote: »

Pleased to see we have so many smart lawyers around here to put me in my place. Alas my own legal training pre-dates the internet, so I'm unable to comment further on "Leicester" or, indeed, Timbuktu

Lul

Kimbot

Experience_day wrote: »

Lul

MOD That's hardly a great contribution to the thread, do not post in this thread again.

Omackeral

hullaballoo wrote: »

I can appreciate where you're coming from on this but there are clearly circumstances where having a discussion about a foreign case on a very prominent Irish website such as this could jeopardise the trial. Northern Ireland is a different jurisdiction and I don't think anyone would have a difficulty accepting that the Jackson/Olding trial could be jeopardised by discussion here.

I agree with that on the Jackson and Olding case. 100%. However they represent Ireland on an all-island basis and are subject to the rulings of the IRFU, which represents both the Republic and Northern Ireland. So a conflict of interest or prejudice is definitely possible. A police chief in Leicester shouldn't really have any say on what's discussed over here though. Anyway, glad it's been cleared up and explained, fair play.

KyussB

Beasty wrote: »

You're absolutely right there

But when you put as much time and effort as I have into a thread like this, dealing with numerous points, the follow-up, and resultant discussion on Feedback, ensuring carefully crafted responses which are met with retorts like "censorship" and "that's nuts" unfortunately there is a temptation to reply in kind, and I succumbed to that temptation

That's a very good and valid point - and it's also the type of dynamic (similar types of unconstructive reply, to carefully crafted responses/arguments - happens in a lot of discussions, especially contentious political/economic ones) that has led a lot of posters into DRP, and having a frustrating time with the site, as 'reply in kind' (while perfectly understandable response, sometimes) often gets the mod treatment.

I realize this echo's my previous couple of posts, and I appreciate there are efforts being made to improve all this and take everything onboard - just a good opportunity to note the similarity between the two situations, as it helps admins empathise and step into the shoes of posters, who can end up on the receiving end of mod/admin actions, through the same dynamic you experienced there.

blackwhite

Beasty wrote: »

.......but beyond that there does not seem anything more to add to the discussion that has already taken place in the thread.

Beasty - nothing against you personally. But given the feedback on this and other threads over quite a long period - if mods and admins cannot see why users take offence to the conclusion you’ve drawn above being used as justification for closing a thread then you are just proving all the complaints about feedback being a waste of time.

Some of the comments on this, and other, feedback threads may be less than constructive - but when there’s a pattern over a long time of feedback being ignored (the above being a prime example of a perennial repeat complaint, which obviously still hasn’t registered) then it’s no wonder users get frustrated.

Cookie_Monster

Kuva wrote: »

That responsive thing must be 8/9 years on the go at this stage...what do these people do all day? They can't even be bothered to get basic site functions working right?

I'd love the answer to that too, the responsive testing forum is abandoned, nothing has happened at all in months, if not years at this stage. It really is baffling that staff can be so completely tied up with something/anything that zero progress has been made in so long

Oct 2015 was launch of responsive site :eek: and the site dev forum has hardly been touch at all in 2017
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1710

Boards.ie: Mark

For what it's worth, that particular forum was used by users in testing the Responsive Site rather than by the development team. You'll occasionally see them post threads there or in the Test forum. But there's also testing done on local machines too.

The Responsive Site is being overhauled, so any change will come as a sweeping redesign (but still likely in stages) based on feedback received rather than tweaks. There is always development work going on as well as fixes that are needed.

If you run into technical issues, please highlight them in the Site Development forum. Some are more urgent than others so there is prioritising that has to be done too.

_Kaiser_

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

For what it's worth, that particular forum was used by users in testing the Responsive Site rather than by the development team. You'll occasionally see them post threads there or in the Test forum. But there's also testing done on local machines too.

The Responsive Site is being overhauled, so any change will come as a sweeping redesign (but still likely in stages) based on feedback received rather than tweaks. There is always development work going on as well as fixes that are needed.

If you run into technical issues, please highlight them in the Site Development forum. Some are more urgent than others so there is prioritising that has to be done too.

I'd say abandon it completely Mark to be very honest. Stop wasting the time trying to fix what is fundamentally broken (based on most of the feedback at the time and any I've seen since)

Fix the "legacy" Desktop site (specifically the top-level menu) and put the effort into improving the touch site or a decent app.

I would be interested in the question above though.. it seems like there's a list a mile long of things to get done, but yet nothing ever seems to progress. Is this down to staffing, or a lack of clear prioritisation and overall direction?

10000maniacs

Beasty wrote: »

but beyond that there does not seem anything more to add to the discussion that has already taken place in the thread.

This is more of the attitude that is going to kill boards.ie. Too many mods closing threads because the subject is boring them or they don't agree with the points being made.
Mods need to realize that if they intervene in a thread too much, it eventually becomes their soapbox because they hold the power to switch off opinion.
And this in fact happens quite a lot. It turned the Politics Café forum into an echo chamber and mod soapbox.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Boards.ie: Mark

Without trying to get into pointscoring, all versions of the site migrated to HTTPS, we've prototyped implementing Google Search, subscriptions were automatically added once again after Paypal made a change that broke everything, issues surrounding anonymous posting from IPv6 addresses fixed, 404 errors reduced significantly (I won't say "completely" because it's inevitable that either someone will pop up to say it's happening to them or I'll jinx it ), and a range of other fixes big and small, on top of the development work on responsive and mobile sites.

You're right in saying that a lot of the work isn't visible to a lot of users - some of the things addressed would be obvious if they weren't looked at, while others would only be to those impacted - but it is happening.

the_pen_turner

can we have some kind of ruling to ban changing the name of threads for no reason. its getting out of hand. 30 day ban

Ken.

the_pen_turner wrote: »

can we have some kind of ruling to ban changing the name of threads for no reason. its getting out of hand. 30 day ban

No. You'll pry my thread changing abilities from my cold dead hands.

Now to change the name of every thread started in AH by you.:D

Kuva

the_pen_turner wrote: »

can we have some kind of ruling to ban changing the name of threads for no reason. its getting out of hand. 30 day ban

Ha? The OP or Mods is doing it? Why?

Ken.

Kuva wrote: »

Ha? The OP or Mods is doing it? Why?

For fun. Also Boom retired from AH today and may have caused some divilment. Every name change is done in fun with no malice intended and if you are subbed to a thread it doesn't alter it.

the_pen_turner

Conspectus wrote: »

For fun. Also Boom retired from AH today and may have caused some divilment. Every name change is done in fun with no malice intended and if you are subbed to a thread it doesn't alter it.

i know its only a bit of fun but its bloody annoying sometimes