More AH mods

Stheno

kneemos wrote: »

Stall the bus for a minute. If you are a mod why doesn't it say so under your name?

Are you on the touch site?

_Kaiser_

Nixonbot wrote: »

Seems we're wasting our time here, which of course I knew already. It's not a persecution complex, I don't feel under threat whatsoever from you, but it is telling.

We agree on one thing - we are absolutely wasting our time here.

I haven't threatened you in any way, merely called out what I consider to be a significant disconnect between your attitude to users and view of what AH is vs your role as a mod on that forum.

However seeing as you seem to have issues with being called out on your dismissive and arrogant posting style (in a feedback forum, about a forum you moderate), I'll absolutely stop "threatening" you

For the rest of the Cmod/Admin team - again I fully expect it to fall on deaf ears, but if this the level you deem acceptable for modding the busiest forum on the site, I think that process needs another review.

kneemos

Stheno wrote: »

Are you on the touch site?

Yep.

batgoat

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Persecution complex and ignoring of the actual points aside, it would seem that a lot of the users DO have concerns which is why these issues keep cropping up.

But you have only validated my opinion on your level of suitability and maturity with your reply. Pathetic indeed!

Except it seems to be a very small sum of users who find this to be a concern of significance. Some threads in after hours have a tendency to become incredibly uncomfortable these days. The reason being, certain bigotries can crop up a fair bit so I think it's overall reasonable that users are warned about not sending threads in a certain direction.

_Kaiser_

Stheno wrote: »

I don't really think where the threads are posted is a major factor, when the original cafe was open to all the same issues were there with entrenched views

Nor do I think the current cafe structure works. Some long term solution needs to be found imo

I don't think there's an issue with where threads are posted either to be honest (better AH than nowhere at all surely?), but if that's the case then the local Mods can't complain that it's not what they signed up for.

No-one is forcing them to be a Mod after all.

Skylinehead

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I haven't threatened you in any way, merely called out what I consider to be a significant disconnect between your attitude to users and view of what AH is vs your role as a mod on that forum.

*Specific users

Being a user doesn't make you a god. This isn't customer service because I'm not an employee.

_Kaiser_

Nixonbot wrote: »

*Specific users

Being a user doesn't make you a god. This isn't customer service because I'm not an employee.

.. and we're back to the "I'm a volunteer so the standards don't apply" argument.

If you're acting in a position of authority over other users, then you absolutely have a different level of accountability and responsibility to those users.. ALL users, not just the ones you agree with.

This is regardless of whether you're getting a paycheque or not.

Stheno

kneemos wrote: »

Yep.

Mod titles don't show up on touch if mods have a custom title in their profile as I do

Skylinehead

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

.. and we're back to the "I'm a volunteer so the standards don't apply" argument.

If you're acting in a position of authority over other users, then you absolutely have a different level of accountability and responsibility to those users.. ALL users, not just the ones you agree with.

This is regardless of whether you're getting a paycheque or not.

And I do. If I'm dealing with you in a mod capacity, I will listen to arguments carefully, and I do give a lot of leeway with punishments. I've taken back cards/bans if the user in question sees it my way, or if I get it wrong, which I'll happily admit does happen.

This sort of argument though, no. It's pedantic to the extreme, and arguing for the sake of it, why should I respect that?

Stheno

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I don't think there's an issue with where threads are posted either to be honest (better AH than nowhere at all surely?), but if that's the case then the local Mods can't complain that it's not what they signed up for.

No-one is forcing them to be a Mod after all.

I think you are missing the two points I'm trying to make, firstly that AH does not currently allow political threads and probably more importantly the behaviour being complained about during this thread happens whenever contentious topics arise regardless of the forum.

Sure AH could change to include current/political issues, but what do you do then? Split the mod team for those who do want to moderate those threads and those who don't?

Create a new open sub forum with a different mod team?

Neither will address the underlying behaviour of users which isolate a lot of regular users from posting.

Heavy modding/bans have not worked in the past either.

What's your solution here? Or do you have one?

kneemos

Stheno wrote: »

Mod titles don't show up on touch if mods have a custom title in their profile as I do

Left guessing so

_Kaiser_

Stheno wrote: »

I think you are missing the two points I'm trying to make, firstly that AH does not currently allow political threads and probably more importantly the behaviour being complained about during this thread happens whenever contentious topics arise regardless of the forum.

Sure AH could change to include current/political issues, but what do you do then? Split the mod team for those who do want to moderate those threads and those who don't?

Create a new open sub forum with a different mod team?

Neither will address the underlying behaviour of users which isolate a lot of regular users from posting.

Heavy moddibg/bans have not worked in the past either.

What's your solution here? Or do you have one?

My point is that AH - regardless of what's allowed - DOES host political, current affairs, social and cultural issues and a variety of other topics daily. Many of these "unsuitable to AH" threads are in fact the busiest.

Sometimes these are indeed moved elsewhere but more often than not they're left to run or locked (the approach again seems to vary by mod and thread). Pawwed Rig here for example seems to believe they should be moved to PC whereas you think that there's an issue with the fundamentals of that forum (which I'm inclined to agree with you on)

If the management team can't even agree on the approach, then complaining because users are posting anything and everything in AH doesn't really hold up.

My own view?

- Boards isn't what it once was and needs many of the sub-fora closed or merged (wasn't that supposed to happen? Of course the menu at the top of the Desktop site was temporary too)

- Create a Current Affairs sub-forum off AH with a link at the top, or redefine/rename PC to serve that function. Move all "non-fun" threads there, but without the heavy-handed moderation that characterised Politics in the past (can't speak as to whether that's still the case as the overuse of tags on threads make it a pain to read)

- Appoint new mods to this forum or let the AH mods (those who want to) oversee it. Run it in a slightly more structured way than AH with an aim to letting discussion happen, opinions of both/all "sides" to be heard (so long as civility is maintained) and try to avoid thread closures as only a last resort - mass bannings and clean-ups of disruptive/trolling elements should be done first.

Run it for 6 months in good faith.. see what happens. If it fails well then no-one (Mods or users) can have an issue, and review what needs to happen then.

Stheno

kneemos wrote: »

Left guessing so

To an extent. I removed my custom title so now it shows up that I am a moderator but not where still on touch.

And it's not the easiest to look up on touch

Stheno

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

My point is that AH - regardless of what's allowed - DOES host political, current affairs, social and cultural issues and a variety of other topics daily. Many of these "unsuitable to AH" threads are in fact the busiest.

Sometimes these are indeed moved elsewhere but more often than not they're left to run or locked (the approach again seems to vary by mod and thread). Pawwed Rig here for example seems to believe they should be moved to PC whereas you think that there's an issue with the fundamentals of that forum (which I'm inclined to agree with you on)

If the management team can't even agree on the approach, then complaining because users are posting anything and everything in AH doesn't really hold up.

My own view?

- Boards isn't what it once was and needs many of the sub-fora closed or merged (wasn't that supposed to happen? Of course the menu at the top of the Desktop site was temporary too)

- Create a Current Affairs sub-forum off AH with a link at the top, or redefine/rename PC to serve that function. Move all "non-fun" threads there, but without the heavy-handed moderation that characterised Politics in the past (can't speak as to whether that's still the case as the overuse of tags on threads make it a pain to read)

- Appoint new mods to this forum or let the AH mods (those who want to) oversee it. Run it in a slightly more structured way than AH with an aim to letting discussion happen, opinions of both/all "sides" to be heard (so long as civility is maintained) and try to avoid thread closures as only a last resort - mass bannings and clean-ups of disruptive/trolling elements should be done first.

Run it for 6 months in good faith.. see what happens. If it fails well then no-one (Mods or users) can have an issue, and review what needs to happen then.

So in short, essentially rebrand the PC/ create a new Current Affairs forum to accommodate all the serious AH threads, and use heavy moderation to keep threads open?

I pres u me this would be an open forum?

_Kaiser_

Nixonbot wrote: »

And I do. If I'm dealing with you in a mod capacity, I will listen to arguments carefully, and I do give a lot of leeway with punishments. I've taken back cards/bans if the user in question sees it my way, or if I get it wrong, which I'll happily admit does happen.

This sort of argument though, no. It's pedantic to the extreme, and arguing for the sake of it, why should I respect that?

Thank you - genuinely. That is the most constructive and positive post from you on this thread, and I appreciate that.

I'm glad to read that you do actually take a more balanced approach to the role than your earlier posts would have indicated, but I would still say that as a Mod, you need to be conscious that your posts are read differently than an average user (especially by newer users), and that should influence how you say something, not just what you're saying.

On the issue of name changes.. as we've seen in even the posts above, the variety of formats the site is hosted on mean that information is not always presented equally. Again in-line with my points above, I think it important in a oversight role that consistency and accountability is key. Random name changes confuse that objective and should be avoided. People need to know who they're dealing with, especially where anonymous usernames are in use - I take Pawwed Rig's point that it SHOULDN'T matter what Mod posts, but why introduce unnecessary confusion?

Maybe Mods should indeed have a separate Mod account - certainly in my office I have my own domain user account, and a seperate domain admin account for the network. This helps from an audit/accountability perspective and maybe something worth trialling.

On the larger issues.. those have been discussed at length in the other feedback threads over the last year or two by not just myself but many others. I read much of them and there were some very worthwhile and constructive suggestions made as to how to improve things and the general flow of the site. It would be worth digging those out and looking at them again, because I think the one thing we all want is to make the place better.

kneemos

Don't see any major hassle with the current mix of threads in AH. The odd thread gets closed,but nothing like the level of moderation input of years ago.

Probably reflects the change in clientele.

_Kaiser_

Stheno wrote: »

So in short, essentially rebrand the PC/ create a new Current Affairs forum to accommodate all the serious AH threads, and use heavy moderation to keep threads open?

I pres u me this would be an open forum?

Why wouldn't it be? I suppose you could set time/post criteria to determine access and limit one-post trolling, but I wouldn't go any further than that.. certainly not needing to request access from someone.

Heavy moderation isn't needed, but balanced moderation is - too often are threads on interesting topics closed because a certain group of posters (and it's usually the same ones) do their utmost to get the thing shut down and others sanctioned - often successfully. I'm sure the Mods know who these are and the pattern better than most.

Sanction the troublemakers, delete their posts, but allow the discussion to continue. Moderate rather than close.

Captain Obvious

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be? I suppose you could set time/post criteria to determine access and limit one-post trolling, but I wouldn't go any further than that.. certainly not needing to request access from someone.

Would you carry over AH and PC bans?

TheValeyard

kneemos wrote: »

Don't see any major hassle with the current mix of threads in AH. The odd thread gets closed,but nothing like the level of moderation input of years ago.

Probably reflects the change in clientele.

I dont mind the mix at all. I've never felt AH has never been just been hearted. It's been a mixture of everything.

Clientele has also definitely changed. Lot of 'issues' solved in recent times has some people gone from the left to centre and younger users may have different outlooks to older users here. Maybe some of the long time users just dont like change of it? No idea.

If people are looking to remove news stories, trending issues, referendums from AH, Will it not become like the nocturnial forum or similar?

Stheno

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be? I suppose you could set time/post criteria to determine access and limit one-post trolling, but I wouldn't go any further than that.. certainly not needing to request access from someone.

Heavy moderation isn't needed, but balanced moderation is - too often are threads on interesting topics closed because a certain group of posters (and it's usually the same ones) do their utmost to get the thing shut down and others sanctioned - often successfully. I'm sure the Mods know who these are and the pattern better than most.

Sanction the troublemakers, delete their posts, but allow the discussion to continue. Moderate rather than close.

How with the exception of thread closures would that differ from the old cafe?

And how do you balance no heavy moderation but support mass banning?

Stheno

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Would you carry over AH and PC bans?

I would say no tbh. Start afresh

kneemos

Should be encouraging more threads to AH in fairness the way it's gone.

OldMrBrennan83

Nixonbot wrote: »

If that's your problem, I don't care.

You're symptomatic of AH actually. Far too serious.

The moderation made that bed.

Omackeral

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Maybe Mods should indeed have a separate Mod account - certainly in my office I have my own domain user account, and a seperate domain admin account for the network. This helps from an audit/accountability perspective and maybe something worth trialling.

They post in bold when issuing warnings or infractions. That's my understanding of it. No need for anymore than that.

looksee

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be? I suppose you could set time/post criteria to determine access and limit one-post trolling, but I wouldn't go any further than that.. certainly not needing to request access from someone.

Heavy moderation isn't needed, but balanced moderation is - too often are threads on interesting topics closed because a certain group of posters (and it's usually the same ones) do their utmost to get the thing shut down and others sanctioned - often successfully. I'm sure the Mods know who these are and the pattern better than most.

Sanction the troublemakers, delete their posts, but allow the discussion to continue. Moderate rather than close.

Who decides what is balanced? It seems to mean 'anyone who agrees with me', which is not a good starting point for making fair and non-contentious decisions.

And who decides who are the troublemakers?

When the total reasoning of a poster is 'anyone who disagrees with me is a libtard/lefty' and they say it post after post with no attempt to explain or justify or develop their argument, is that troublemaking? To some people it is irritating low(ish)-level trolling and to others any attempt to control it is 'silencing the right' (or reverse those descriptions). Whichever approach the mods take there are going to be people claiming persecution.

The term 'soapboxing' doesn't seem to feature in AH's rules, maybe it should be introduced - if someone persistently shouts an opinion without engaging with others' attempts to discuss, debate or dispute a fact then they can be called out/ reported for soapboxing and required to either explain, defend or show evidence, or shut up.

retro:electro

I think you’re only making trouble for yourself once you start to take the site too seriously. It should be viewed as an extension of everyday conversation, mod warnings in replacement for a kick in the balls for overstepping the mark and acting the arsehole.
People are always quick to say how there’s no craic to be had on the site anymore, I think there’s plenty of craic still to be had. As long as you’re not a massive cnut I think you’ll get along grand.
In relation to AH specifically, it’s not a place that would be easy to mod I’d say. There’s such a vast mixture of topics, opinions, posters, and tone coupled with a lot of people wanting the site to host whatever shlte they feel entitled to post. It’s never going to be all things to all people. What it lacks for some will be too much for another.
Have a few mod warnings myself from down through the years but sure it’s not real life so who actually gives a shlte.

Baggly

Well said!

Gimme A Pound

Meh, anyone who uses the site a lot will have taken it very seriously at some stage. E.g. some topics cause emotions to run high, like abortion and the child drag thread. I usually stay out of them but was sick in bed the last few days and made the mistake of getting more involved. It does get frustrating.

I see some poor fella who never causes trouble got forum banned for using the word "pavee" in one light-hearted post recently, yet the non stop acting the dick (repeatedly calling posters harpies) by a brand new reg, and trolling by him and others (including one recently registered account whose posts are mostly just deranged ramblings) on the thread about the French author is being left to fester. Why the inconsistency? And I know there is bait taking but the trolling and insults are worse, and starting the whole thing.

I'd normally defend the mods but the above is a blatant example of the inconsistency being referred to. The charter is supposed to be complied with, two of the tenets being "Don't be a dick" and "Don't troll".

There are a couple of those threads with blatant hostility towards women of late. Thought Boards had moved past that sh1t. There's enough horrendous online misogyny.

Look at the nonsensical personal comments on this thread, about "her chin" :rolleyes: - it's like a parody along the lines of the "2/10, would not bang her" guy: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057945290