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

Pepefrogok

baylah17 wrote: »

One only has to look at how this current thread is degrading into the usual name calling and circle jerking to see why contentious political threads should not be in AH
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057854798
This is not me reporting anyone or anything , I'm just trying to show an example of what must be a moderating nightmare.

But that's just your bias and wanting a conversation that goes against your opinions shut down, you want to see a thread that is as you describe? Trump thread in the politics forum! I wouldn't call for it to be closed down though, only one side seems to do that!

_Kaiser_

jmayo has hit it on the head there IMO - I've posted myself in the past about the issues with the main politics forum, and the subsequent resentment from some of the regulars/mods when the Cafe started to draw traffic away from what was perceived as "their domain"

Yes, some of trolling in the Cafe (and some of the moderation) ultimately got out of hand, but the response was a ridiculous "nuke it from orbit" reaction rather than just addressing the real troublemakers involved.

And thus, like happened with Feedback, we have threads in AH

WinnyThePoo

Pepefrogok wrote: »

But that's just your bias and wanting a conversation that goes against your opinions shut down, you want to see a thread that is as you describe? Trump thread in the politics forum! I wouldn't call for it to be closed down though, only one side seems to do that!

Look at this lads username. He's clearly here to troll just like he was under his previous identity.

This is what pisses people off. Not the reregs, the low level trolls like this. These guys are solely here to get members carded and create long term trouble for the mods.

jmayo

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Look at this lads username. He's clearly here to troll just like he was under his previous identity.

This is what pisses people off. Not the reregs, the low level trolls like this. These guys are solely here to get members carded and create long term trouble for the mods.

This is what always gets me.
Someone is accused of having a new identity and trolling.

I wish someone would outright say who they think their previous identity was.

Maybe it is me, but I don't think this guy/gal is a troll.

They continously post on certain topics, don't just start a contentious thread and then disappear, don't just lob a hand grenade in and then leg it to the hills and don't outright goad others.

They appear to have strong opinions on certain matters, a lot of which I would share.
Now you might not agree with them, but does that make them a troll ?

I can think of a couple of long term posters who engaged in continous sniping and were seen as trolls.

If anyone said they were trolling, they immediately reported the post and then the claimant was slapped with an infraction.
For some odd reason these posters were tolerated.
Granted they usually shared the same opinions as the moderators so maybe that had something to do with it.

One of these disappeared a number of months back and some have accused new reregs of being them.

Fighting Tao

With so many new threads appearing over the last while from the likes of PUA guy, wouldn’t a minimum post count before posting in certain forums? This would ensure that they have a good posting history before starting a thread.

KERSPLAT!

Fighting Tao wrote: »

With so many new threads appearing over the last while from the likes of PUA guy, wouldn’t a minimum post count before posting in certain forums? This would ensure that they have a good posting history before starting a thread.

Boards is losing posters, putting further barriers in place won't help. I don't think Scanlas is a big issue anyway. Usually gets nuked in minutes and his threads can be funny for as long as they last

McMurphy

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Look at this lads username.

I don't get it? Am I missing something obvious?

He's clearly here to troll just like he was under his previous identity.

This might be a bit of a case of the kettle calling the teapot blackass, something that I find fairly sad tbh, people who drop into a thread, speculate whom someone's old account might be , then lurk in the background, adding shag all else to the debate, except the occasional "thank" to people they may consider to be on the same "side" as him or herself.

Then low and behold.... they pop up again in a different thread, within a different forum doing the very same thing.

You've been at this petty behaviour yourself a good few times recently actually

And I'd consider that to be a bit of "low level trolling/goading and baiting" myself.

Either debate a poster on his or her merits, and what he or her posts rather than speculate who their old accounts may or may not have been.

It's childish, it's petty, and it definitely adds nothing of note to any debate at hand.

WinnyThePoo

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I don't get it? Am I missing something obvious?

This might be a bit of a case of the kettle calling the teapot blackass, something that I find fairly sad tbh, people who drop into a thread, speculate whom someone's old account might be , then lurk in the background, adding shag all else to the debate, except the occasional "thank" to people they may consider to be on the same "side" as him or herself.

Then low and behold.... they pop up again in a different thread, within a different forum doing the very same thing.

You've been at this petty behaviour yourself a good few times recently actually

And I'd consider that to be a bit of "low level trolling/goading and baiting" myself.

Either debate a poster on his or her merits, and what he or her posts rather than speculate who their old accounts may or may not have been.

It's childish, it's pretty, and it definitely adds nothing of note to any debate at hand.

You certainly are Johnny. Very simply put Pepe the Frog was a character from a comic strip co -opted and used as a meme by white nationalists. The author of the character killed the character off recently.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/08/pepe-the-frog-creator-kills-off-internet-meme-co-opted-by-white-supremacists

Worried about thanks. You really shouldn't be . You should be concentrating on the post content Johnny. You can't control thanks, its really something you should not worry about. Its out of your control. Don't let it get to you.

Hey I'm not perfect and deserved to be called out. I was spring chicken here once, but being involved in such forums as politics cafe and soccer , they certainly open your eyes to way people try and communicate to each other. For instance the politics cafe was a disaster. Consisting of certain posters who's sole purpose on the forum was to try and insult the 'other side' . Hid behind non extent humour .That was a while ago and you probably missed all that. There where some very bitter guys on that forum. Thankfully the mods eventually perma-banned a few them. The dispute resolution thread was a laugh to read so I suppose all well that ends well.

And anyway it wasn't me who first related you to a previous poster. It was another inquisitive poster.

Kuva

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

At the moment it's not a case of relaxed moderation but instead, in my opinion, easy moderation. Thread moves, thread locks, personal abuse, actioned and done pretty quickly. Any difficult moderating seems to be just left. The Buncrana thread is one of the worst I've seen on boards in 8 years here. And no, I didn't report the posts, mods were well aware of it. I can't see the reports forum but I can only imagine the amount generated from it.

Relaxed doesn't mean down the tools and let anything fly. Moderating doesn't mean smashing everything in sight. There is a balance.

Good post.

We've been told I think 3 times in the last few months that we got what we wanted and we're still not happy....we wouldn't be here if we got what we wanted.

TerryDublin

Signed up as I wanted to post in the 8th Amendment thread but I am quite apprehensive about doing so now now as it seems only one view is welcome there with those holding fort. So many of the users I have agreed with on the thread have got yellow and red cards. Why do some moderators always go with the majority? I dont feel thats right. Majority is not always right.

Boom_Bap

TerryDublin wrote: »

Signed up as I wanted to post in the 8th Amendment thread but I am quite apprehensive about doing so now now as it seems only one view is welcome there with those holding fort. So many of the users I have agreed with on the thread have got yellow and red cards. Why do some moderators always go with the majority? I dont feel thats right. Majority is not always right.

I can safely say that the current crop of AH mods do not do this. It's probably the most mixed in terms of view and stances, but they step away from moderating a thread that they are involved in and allow others to step in.

Post away is what I say.

TerryDublin

Thank you for your reply and I respect your view but I know what am seeing. Earlier I seen one user call those with pro life opinions sociopaths. Please don't think I am saying this of all the after hours moderators but there one or two who are pushing out users just after prochoice users argue with them. When they remove them they quote their post and so everyone can see the reason is not for breaking charter rules. I will think about what you said anyway and maybe post tomorrow.

baylah17

Pepefrogok wrote: »

baylah17 wrote: »

One only has to look at how this current thread is degrading into the usual name calling and circle jerking to see why contentious political threads should not be in AH
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057854798
This is not me reporting anyone or anything , I'm just trying to show an example of what must be a moderating nightmare.

But that's just your bias and wanting a conversation that goes against your opinions shut down, you want to see a thread that is as you describe? Trump thread in the politics forum! I wouldn't call for it to be closed down though, only one side seems to do that!

Jeez
Every thing has to be a personal attack with you dosent it.

baylah17

Pepefrogok wrote: »

baylah17 wrote: »

One only has to look at how this current thread is degrading into the usual name calling and circle jerking to see why contentious political threads should not be in AH
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057854798
This is not me reporting anyone or anything , I'm just trying to show an example of what must be a moderating nightmare.

But that's just your bias and wanting a conversation that goes against your opinions shut down, you want to see a thread that is as you describe? Trump thread in the politics forum! I wouldn't call for it to be closed down though, only one side seems to do that!

Jeez
Every thing has to be a personal attack with you dosent it.

Dyr

Kivaro wrote: »

They are created in AH because of the laughing stock that the Politics Cafe became after the creation of the private club they formed over there.

kin A buddy

You want to sort this rotate the mods in places like AH and politics regularly so no one mod gets to make a hames of it for too long or turn it into their own little treehouse club.

Also stop mods building forum empires, limit the amount of forums like a AH and politics that a mod can overlord simultaneously.

Skylinehead

Bambi wrote: »

kin A buddy

You want to sort this rotate the mods in places like AH and politics regularly so no one mod gets to make a hames of it for too long or turn it into their own little treehouse club.

Also stop mods building forum empires, limit the amount of forums like a AH and politics that a mod can overlord simultaneously.

Yeah, I'm not modding a politics forum, thanks.

baylah17

Skylinehead wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not modding a politics forum, thanks.

You D man:D
but seriously, why should you have to?

Dyr

Skylinehead wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not modding a politics forum, thanks.

no, no no you don't get rotated into the politics from AH you just get rotated out of AH.

Gatling

Politics don't belong in AH full stop ,
Threads only attract the worst of characters who are hell bent making sure discussions are shutdown to suit agendas ,for me it's the same posters on the same threads ,
It's got to the point of your either pro putin or anti American anything else in the threads I'm involved in is twisted and spun so far off topic you literally get days of posts with nothing to do with the actual subject ,
Non stop nonsense and conspiracy theories ,

It's past a joke at this stage ,

And I've also seen how a few people can shut down discussion when they were allowed in the PC forum when I was told my posts generated the majority of reported posts in the entire pc forum ,and yes I'm no angel

gandalf

gandalf wrote: »

Restarting this again because to be frank the standard of moderation of political divisive threads in after hours is none existent. At this stage it is obvious that all political threads need to be diverted to politics and be dealt with there under its tougher standards of posting rules.

Absolutely not. The Politics forum, last time I looked a few years ago, was nothing but an incredibly overcensored circle jerk for a coterie of economically rightwing and politically anglocentric sorts who killed all debate that didn't share their worldview. It was an echo chamber, with a very, very strong Fine Gael flavour. Your proposal is just another attempt to control what views should and should not be expressed - which is the very reason why the Politics forum has effectively died. Proposing a return to the very moderation that has effectively killed the Politics forum in the first place is, needless to say, not the solution.

gandalf wrote: »

At the moment the craven limp wristed moderation is destroying any sort of discussion on this site.... and the fact the current mods, admins and management are allowing it to occur is a betrayal of all those who volunteered for those roles in the past.

The so-called "craven, limp-wristed moderation" is a million times better than a group of ideological soulmates who take themselves far, far too seriously running a forum into the ground by censoring posters with alternative views. No matter what you do with the Politics forum, people will avoid it for as long as they see the moderators are actively involved in punishing posters who don't share their views and, worse, who have the temerity to disagree with them in public. Grudges powered that whole forum.

jmayo wrote: »

Then suddenly you were finding that the line toted by moderators was that particular discussions and opinions weren't deemed worthy of the main politics thread.
It appeared that one had to either discuss political theories or to a level worthy of a university masters to be left in the Politics forum.
Lesson one in how to shutdown disliked opinions.

So the Politics Cafe was used to take all the stuff not worthy enough anymore.
The Politics forum became a bit of a ghost town where those with lofty opinions, especially of themselves, could hold sway.
.... Then over time the Cafe became a hotbed of discussion on contentious topics like EU, Brexit, Trump, Refugees, Immigration.
Now some posters did step over the mark, but what ruined it was the moderation.

You had heavy posting by moderators in threads, always taking one particular side of the argument on most of the above issues. Then there was the demanding links and references to every single statement by the other side.

And then suddenly posters on the opposing side to the very vocal moderators would get chastised, infracted and banned.
The ultimate came one evening when one moderator banned in quick succession about 5/6 posters that were of the opposing opinion to them.
It was so laughable and so blatant that the moderator was quickly removed.

Now people may call me one sided, but it was freaking noticable to anyone with half a brain that some posters, who posted some very questionable stuff, got away with it purely because the moderators held a similar opinion on the matter at hand.

Then there was a revamp and clampdown of the Cafe so as to "weed out" certain posters and according to mods perform a clean up.

The result was that a huge chunk of posters vanished and it is now a ghost town with tumbleweed.

And then the threads started appearing in After Hours, the last refuge so to speak.

If they are stopped in After Hours and the Cafe is left as is then boards are going to lose a big chunk of traffic.



Remove the sign up from the Cafe and that might happen.

Couldn't agree more with this analysis.

Skylinehead

Bambi wrote: »

no, no no you don't get rotated into the politics from AH you just get rotated out of AH.

Wouldn't mind a holiday actually!

gandalf

With any emotive political topics the posters have to be willing to discuss their point of view. What is obvious in a lot of the politics threads in AH is this is not happening. Ones about particular subjects have contributors (and I use that word loosely) who are only interested in deflecting and derailing the topic being discussed. Alternative views are welcome and when I modded politics the mantra was if you could back up your opinion logically you were given a platform to express your views. Now I stopped modding there back in 2008 so I can't comment on moderation since then apart from being an occasional poster on there. I've had run one with mods there and yes I agree if you have too many mods from the same background group think can happen.

I'd like to hear how you would solve the situation you see now where a small number of posters are derailing threads and creating a lot of noise?

I certainly don't think a forum in Social and Fun should have six politics threads on its first page and a couple of news stories as well.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

The Politics forum, last time I looked a few years ago, was nothing but an incredibly overcensored circle jerk.../...The so-called "craven, limp-wristed moderation" is a million times better than a group of ideological soulmates who take themselves far, far too seriously running a forum into the ground by censoring posters with alternative views.

TBH I have to say and speaking as a not particularly "political animal", at least along any defined lines, that was long my impression of the main Politics forum. Any medium length foray into it did at times and more than should be in play, feel like a user base of self satisfied, oft to the point of smug posters broadly agreeing they were "right" and where any alternatives were summarily mocked, or ignored, or at times banned. Now the Politics Cafe could be a right sh1t show on so many levels and I don't envy either the mods or posters on that forum, but surely there's a balance to be struck. New mods maybe? Those who apply the "don't be a dick" rule while exercising the DGAF rule on the politics themselves?

Politics is a bear pit at the best of times. It makes Soccerball fan types look measured. But I say better to have a bear pit(to some degree) than an echo chamber of smug.

And I'm saying all this as someone who a chap like Fuaranach would find little enough common ground between us. Not such a stretch and IMHO it's not a "political side" problem.

Cookie_Monster

Gatling wrote: »

Politics don't belong in AH full stop ,

95% of threads in AH could easily be shunted to other forums, I don't get the obsession with having to shift politics threads but at the same time leaving a lot of the others instead of tossing them to sports or religion or TV or what have you...

_Kaiser_

jmayo wrote: »

The ultimate came one evening when one moderator banned in quick succession about 5/6 posters that were of the opposing opinion to them.
It was so laughable and so blatant that the moderator was quickly removed.

I think I remember who you're referring to there and if I'm right the same Mod was somehow deemed worthy of overseeing threads discussing his employer as well - despite the fact that said employer has pretty strict terms about social media usage and how staff represent themselves (said Mod stopped replying to a PM discussion when I pointed this out...)

That to me goes beyond one single Mod, but how Mods are selected and vetted and is arguably a far more serious issue. If you don't get that right from the start, it poisons any subsequent efforts to create a welcoming and constructive environment.. a perfect example being TerryDublin's (above) reluctance to join in on a topic he/she feels passionate about (and signed up to do so) because the Moderation is so wildly different from page to page, thread to thread.

That said, Boom_Bap's comment on Mods not moderating threads they're actively involved in is one I advocated for previously so I'm glad to see it here.. although I'd go one further and suggest the modding should be left to the next level up so as not to cause situations where Mod B feels obliged to back-up Mod A.. or where the perception of such causes further in-thread/forum issues.

Beasty

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

That said, Boom_Bap's comment on Mods not moderating threads they're actively involved in is one I advocated for previously so I'm glad to see it here.. although I'd go one further and suggest the modding should be left to the next level up so as not to cause situations where Mod B feels obliged to back-up Mod A.. or where the perception of such causes further in-thread/forum issues.

It's been encouraged across the site for some time that mods should try and avoid modding threads they are actively contributing to. Sometimes though there may not be another mod around, and it does depend on the forum and nature of topics.

However in most forums mods have a lot of interest in the underlying topics - that's one of the reasons they are likely to have been chosen. Getting someone from the "next level" to do the modding probably passes75% of modding onto CMods (and/or Admins). It's simply not practicable.

robarmstrong

TerryDublin wrote: »

Thank you for your reply and I respect your view but I know what am seeing. Earlier I seen one user call those with pro life opinions sociopaths. Please don't think I am saying this of all the after hours moderators but there one or two who are pushing out users just after prochoice users argue with them. When they remove them they quote their post and so everyone can see the reason is not for breaking charter rules. I will think about what you said anyway and maybe post tomorrow.

Post away Terry, that particular thread is in some dire need of pro-lifers who can actually hold a reasonable and intelligent discussion. Instead it's been trolled and flamed constantly, I don't agree that people with pro-life opinions are sociopaths whatsoever (I'm pro-life but I'm voting to repeal for my own reasons listed in the thread) and not a single soul from the folk voting to save the 8th (bar one person in particular) actually contributed anything other than drivel, it was mainly trolling, soapboxing, flaming and just plain stupidity.

I don't think it's a case of unfair moderation, sure I was banned for calling someone a prick after they completely disregarded how I lost some of my children just so they could push their own agenda so the mods aren't just banning pro-lifers from the thread. I can't reply to whatever you post in that particular thread but I can and will view it as I'd like to see what you've got to say.

robarmstrong

Beasty wrote: »

It's been encouraged across the site for some time that mods should try and avoid modding threads they are actively contributing to. Sometimes though there may not be another mod around, and it does depend on the forum and nature of topics.

However in most forums mods have a lot of interest in the underlying topics - that's one of the reasons they are likely to have been chosen. Getting someone from the "next level" to do the modding probably passes75% of modding onto CMods (and/or Admins). It's simply not practicable.

As much as it's encouraged though it is difficult for some mods to remain impartial.

It can't be faulted I mean it's human nature but still, it's okay to do a lot of talking if you're willing to do a lot of listening, there are some mods that actively contribute to threads and are fantastic at moderating them and to be brutally honest others should look to them and follow suit.

pleas advice

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Boards is losing posters, putting further barriers in place won't help. I don't think Scanlas is a big issue anyway. Usually gets nuked in minutes and his threads can be funny for as long as they last

Is 'chore sex guy' the same lad? what was he banned for originally does anyone know?

.......

This post has been deleted.

jmayo

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely not. The Politics forum, last time I looked a few years ago, was nothing but an incredibly overcensored circle jerk for a coterie of economically rightwing and politically anglocentric sorts who killed all debate that didn't share their worldview. It was an echo chamber, with a very, very strong Fine Gael flavour. Your proposal is just another attempt to control what views should and should not be expressed - which is the very reason why the Politics forum has effectively died. Proposing a return to the very moderation that has effectively killed the Politics forum in the first place is, needless to say, not the solution.

I suppose I would be a Fine Gael supporter, never a member mind, and would have gotten in trouble for having a go at fianna fail supporters who post meltdown seemed to forget their posting history lauding the likes of bertie.

But the thing that got me about the Politics forum was how EU sycophantic it became.
Anyone that dared speak out about EU was admonished and belittled.
Now granted some posters just trotted out the line about how much we may have lost by giving away our fishing rights, but even if you stated you did not want a federalist EU controlled by Germany and France you were treated as a moron who didn't know what was good for you.

Then also there developed an almost smarmy attitude where threads were moved to Politics Cafe under the moniker about it not being worthy of discussion in the main Politics forum.

Deleted User wrote: »

The so-called "craven, limp-wristed moderation" is a million times better than a group of ideological soulmates who take themselves far, far too seriously running a forum into the ground by censoring posters with alternative views. No matter what you do with the Politics forum, people will avoid it for as long as they see the moderators are actively involved in punishing posters who don't share their views and, worse, who have the temerity to disagree with them in public. Grudges powered that whole forum.

This was the definitely Politics Cafe.
I, as you would well know, have strong views on a certain topic which probably makes me diametrically opposed to the opinion of all of the mods of the Politics Cafe past and present.
In some threads you had multiple mods offering their opinions.
One moment they were posting and the next moderating the actual thread.
Mods were even disparaging labeling other posters one moment and moderating the next.
How does that look on a thread when a moderator is engaged in such tactics.

Deleted User wrote: »

Couldn't agree more with this analysis.

This is the thing, we probably don't agree on most political subjects, but we can agree that political discussions can be curtailed by moderators who have vested interests and it ends up subverting discussion and driving away posters.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I think I remember who you're referring to there and if I'm right the same Mod was somehow deemed worthy of overseeing threads discussing his employer as well - despite the fact that said employer has pretty strict terms about social media usage and how staff represent themselves (said Mod stopped replying to a PM discussion when I pointed this out...)
...

Yes and the same mod showed their true colours when calling into question the character of a fellow employee who had taken on their employer.

Chips Lovell

Deleted User wrote: »

The Politics forum, last time I looked a few years ago.....

You were posting in there yesterday.

Deleted User wrote: »

...which is the very reason why the Politics forum has effectively died. Proposing a return to the very moderation that has effectively killed the Politics forum in the first place is, needless to say, not the solution.

Don't know where you're getting this from. Post count has been growing for the past few years at least. Was up 50% last year.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's the biggest single killer of a discussion I have come across. An established poster who acts like a troll, throwing incorrect statements, or even vile comments, into threads, refuses to engage when called out on them, and is rarely if ever admonished. Even when a Mod occasionally tells them to not post in the thread again (without a card) they have ignored the instruction and all that happens is the posts are removed when reported (without card or further sanction ). Some discussions recently gave been interesting and enjoyable but these people leave 'honest' contributors frustrated to the point that they let rip about it and end up carded or thread banned themselves.

Beasty

Zoey Famous Aftershave wrote: »

Even when a Mod occasionally tells them to not post in the thread again (without a card) they have ignored the instruction and all that happens is the posts are removed when reported (without card or further sanction )

How would you know what sanction has, or has not, been applied to a removed post?

KERSPLAT!

Beasty wrote: »

How would you know what sanction has, or has not, been applied to a removed post?

Yep. For the most part if you breach a thread ban you will be carded or banned from the forum itself. Neither would be visible if posts were removed.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Beasty wrote: »

How would you know what sanction has, or has not, been applied to a removed post?

Yes, true enough. But usually there'd be a Mod note. And they certainly weren't forum banned. But I take your point - it's just that it's very frustrating.

gandalf

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Yep. For the most part if you breach a thread ban you will be carded or banned from the forum itself. Neither would be visible if posts were removed.

You see I think this is part of the frustration for users of the forums. Threads disappearing and no visability of why and whether people have been infracted for crossing the line. Given its a delicate issue with a number of posters maybe a thread called AH moderators log could be setup here or in feedback and these kind of hidden actions can be listed in it by mods as they take action. It then gives a reference for those mods to give to people when they ask why X thread was deleted etc. It certainly would help with the transparency issues that seem to be cropping up.

Boom_Bap

gandalf wrote: »

You see I think this is part of the frustration for users of the forums. Threads disappearing and no visability of why and whether people have been infracted for crossing the line. Given its a delicate issue with a number of posters maybe a thread called AH moderators log could be setup here or in feedback and these kind of hidden actions can be listed in it by mods as they take action. It then gives a reference for those mods to give to people when they ask why X thread was deleted etc. It certainly would help with the transparency issues that seem to be cropping up.

A better option would be just to ask a mod of the forum if something happened if it hasn't been explicitly said on thread.
If a mod is to document everything they do, from my perspective it shows that there is no trust in the mods and will be another reason to add to the list of 'why not to be a mod'.

robarmstrong

Boom_Bap wrote: »

A better option would be just to ask a mod of the forum if something happened if it hasn't been explicitly said on thread.
If a mod is to document everything they do, from my perspective it shows that there is no trust in the mods and will be another reason to add to the list of 'why not to be a mod'.

But if they document their actions it makes it better for a user perspective, the mods have a list of actions to reference rather than going seeping through threads to see what warnings/cards they handed out and where.

I don't think it shows there's no trust in the mods, I think it just shows that people want a log to be kept of people's wrongdoing, which is a fair point.

Skylinehead

robarmstrong wrote: »

But if they document their actions it makes it better for a user perspective, the mods have a list of actions to reference rather than going seeping through threads to see what warnings/cards they handed out and where.

I don't think it shows there's no trust in the mods, I think it just shows that people want a log to be kept of people's wrongdoing, which is a fair point.

You're assuming that people should be entitled to look at other users records...I'm not sure I agree. It could be open to abuse. We do have an automated log of actions for mod use, but it's internal use only.

KERSPLAT!

gandalf wrote: »

You see I think this is part of the frustration for users of the forums. Threads disappearing and no visability of why and whether people have been infracted for crossing the line. Given its a delicate issue with a number of posters maybe a thread called AH moderators log could be setup here or in feedback and these kind of hidden actions can be listed in it by mods as they take action. It then gives a reference for those mods to give to people when they ask why X thread was deleted etc. It certainly would help with the transparency issues that seem to be cropping up.

I know you were a mod before but I have no idea what you modded or if it was a busy forum. If it was busy you'll understand there's enough to be at without adding more.

Currently AH mods get a huge amount of reports of which all need to be reviewed, generally meaning a whole thread or a section needs to be reviewed for context. History of posters reviewed. If a post requires action they then need to advise the poster why and add post references for bans because Mod tools are crap and don't record posts for bans only the ban itself.

The guide, in AH anyway, is supposed to be any post that receives a card or ban would be left so posters know where the line is. This isn't always possible as some posts are way over the top and others need to be removed for legal reasons.

I enjoyed my time for the most part as a mod of AH, and then cmod, but jaysus towards the end it was an absolute nightmare. Why anyone would want the gig now I don't know. It used to be fun, that has been sucked out of it. Adding more work for a mod will kill it off even more, IMO.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Boom_Bap

robarmstrong wrote: »

But if they document their actions it makes it better for a user perspective, the mods have a list of actions to reference rather than going seeping through threads to see what warnings/cards they handed out and where.

I don't think it shows there's no trust in the mods, I think it just shows that people want a log to be kept of people's wrongdoing, which is a fair point.

I don't think that is a fair point, this is a discussion site, not a site to look for people's wrong doings. Anything a user posts should on a topic should be what is discussed, not their history of misdemeanors.

The amount of times that a thread has derailed due to someone bringing up something someone said and got reprimanded for on another forum is way too high.....not even as part of the actual discussion. There is a thread at the moment where a user is being talked about based on their history and the initials of their username now.....the topic is being ignored.

The mods/cmods/admins should be the only ones looking at people's wrong doings and history if there is action to be taken against them.

Anything that wants querying should be asked of the mods who I'm sure would be happy to help give as much information as allowed.

robarmstrong

Skylinehead wrote: »

You're assuming that people should be entitled to look at other users records...I'm not sure I agree. It could be open to abuse. We do have an automated log of actions for mod use, but it's internal use only.

How could it be open to abuse? Honestly, how do you think it could be open to abuse? Let's say user A calls user B a wanker because user B has been trolling. User A gets a warning but doesn't see any action taken towards user B. Which leads to animosity and a feeling that mods aren't taking actions.

There is no clear way to please everyone, but there are definitely improvements to be made.

gandalf

In my time on boards I modded Politics, Humanities, Soccer, Photography, Airsoft and was CMod of Society (obviously not all at the same time). I modded Politics during 911 and Soccer during the Saipan incident so yes I moderated high volumes. To be fair posting a single line in a thread does not add that much to the work load and it would address a lot of the transparency issues that exist ATM and are the source of bad feelings. It's just a suggestion and believe me I know the pain of moderation on this site. I wouldn't go back to it even if they were matching what I get paid by my current employer.

robarmstrong

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I don't think that is a fair point, this is a discussion site, not a site to look for people's wrong doings. Anything a user posts should on a topic should be what is discussed, not their history of misdemeanors.

The amount of times that a thread has derailed due to someone bringing up something someone said and got reprimanded for on another forum is way too high.....not even as part of the actual discussion. There is a thread at the moment where a user is being talked about based on their history and the initials of their username now.....the topic is being ignored.

The mods/cmods/admins should be the only ones looking at people's wrong doings and history if there is action to be taken against them.

Anything that wants querying should be asked of the mods who I'm sure would be happy to help give as much information as allowed.

I'm not saying the functionality of the site would change, I'm not saying it'll go from a discussion site to a "who did what and what happened over it" gossip site but there is what seems to be a lack of action by mods dealing with certain posters, it's been mentioned numerous times in this thread and all we get back is basically just because we didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Clearly nothing did happen if one particular user keeps soapboxing across numerous threads?

Boom_Bap

robarmstrong wrote: »

I'm not saying the functionality of the site would change, I'm not saying it'll go from a discussion site to a "who did what and what happened over it" gossip site but there is what seems to be a lack of action by mods dealing with certain posters, it's been mentioned numerous times in this thread and all we get back is basically just because we didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Clearly nothing did happen if one particular user keeps soapboxing across numerous threads?

If not done already, I'd suggest reporting one of the posts to alert the mods to it.
I'm fairly active and I even have no clue who you are talking about

.......

This post has been deleted.

robarmstrong

Boom_Bap wrote: »

If not done already, I'd suggest reporting one of the posts to alert the mods to it.
I'm fairly active and I even have no clue who you are talking about

That's the problem, the posts have been reported, and all it ends in is a mod note telling them to stop soapboxing, they stop for a few pages then they go back at it again, so either there's a failure of communication somewhere or there's no repercussions. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see how often someone is punished for their carry on, but I want to know that they are being punished for it, otherwise we're back to the animosity between posters during a pretty good discussion!

I also hope that's sarcasm:D

Skylinehead

robarmstrong wrote: »

How could it be open to abuse? Honestly, how do you think it could be open to abuse? Let's say user A calls user B a wanker because user B has been trolling. User A gets a warning but doesn't see any action taken towards user B. Which leads to animosity and a feeling that mods aren't taking actions.

There is no clear way to please everyone, but there are definitely improvements to be made.

I just think that people will use the opportunity to bring up other peoples infractions as a tool in arguments, however irrelevant. Maybe I'm just being cynical.

As an aside, infractions are visible in users profiles. Bans aren't.