Can we talk about AH?

.......

Deleted User wrote: »

Would it be unfair of me to suggest that perhaps those with an issue regarding over moderation have found themselves at the receiving end of many a card and/or ban?

I think its possible to have an opinion either way.

Threads grind to a halt over heavy handed moderation and that is regardless of whether or not you personally have been given a card.

For me its less the heavy handed approach that is the issue and more the inconsistency, clear favouritism, and the attitude given when people raise a genuine issue.

Baggly

Threads may not grind to a halt with no moderation, but they sure do reach a point where they are useless quicker and quickly die of natural causes; thereby stunting discussion.

Necro

Candie wrote: »

The re-reg's are a pain. I understand that putting a limit of 100 posts before you can start a thread or post in AH might put off new users, but I'm not sure there are many genuine new users any more so it might be worth it to keep the ones there are.

It's a hostile place these days, unfriendly, angry and openly bigoted. That's not really something anyone can be proud of or want to continue.

I couldn't agree more with this. The amount of absolute nonsensical trash posted by one post wonders on AH is ridiculous at the moment. It must be a nightmare to try and clean up each day.

Entry to AH like the Soccer Forum (and works well in keeping out the re-reg morons) should be considered imo.

Are re-reg's not against the rules anymore?

I thought we were always fairly strict on site banning re-regs?

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

Are re-reg's not against the rules anymore?

I thought we were always fairly strict on site banning re-regs?

They get banned but they come back almost immediately, and it regularly takes hours for a mod to ban them again, so they are essentially free to keep on coming back as long as they can be bothered to.



If there was even a nominal sign-up fee for boards it'd stop 99% of the 'trolling' and re-reging. Only the most obsessive would keep paying just to be thrown out an hour later.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

They get banned but they come back almost immediately, and it regularly takes hours for a mod to ban them again, so they are essentially free to keep on coming back as long as they can be bothered to.



If there was even a nominal sign-up fee for boards it'd stop 99% of the 'trolling' and re-reging. Only the most obsessive would keep paying just to be thrown out an hour later.

Or make it free with PayPal/credit card info. If you get banned you get charged €10 processing fee

tritium

Tbh AH has always had a nasty element, actually two nasty elements, split across the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. They’ve been there for so long, and have gotten so good at weaseling out of the mess they create that I honestly wonder if mods to some extent haven’t given up.

For a long time the indulgence shown to one or two posters in AH had me convinced that the mods were extreme left wingers. Then I realized they just knew how to play the game - destroy threads, piss off the other posters, wash rinse repeat, while staying just the right side of the rules or their interpretation. A few are still prolific posters in spite of being utterly poisonous. When you look at it with that lens it’s clear that actually it’s just two extreme camps of posters who play the system. Generally they’re very happy to join in criticizing mods for not banning posters not in their ideological camp while spewing equally or more objectionable bile themselves in blissful ignorance. They’d really benefit from looking in a mirror and giving the mods a break.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

....... wrote: »

I think its possible to have an opinion either way.

Threads grind to a halt over heavy handed moderation and that is regardless of whether or not you personally have been given a card.

For me its less the heavy handed approach that is the issue and more the inconsistency, clear favouritism, and the attitude given when people raise a genuine issue.

If the heavy-handed moderation involves moving threads to other sub-fora, this is certainly generally true. But it’s not been my experience that on-thread warnings, thread bans and infractions do much to the flow of a thread. I’m usually delighted to see reprimands because usually the reprimandees are being complete doses or, at best, irritants. And I’ve been that dose! :pac:

Favouritism IS possible for sure because, as I’ve said, mods are human. But honestly, I think some people lean on that a bit too much to excuse their infraction-gaining behaviour or whatever.

batgoat

Candie wrote: »

The re-reg's are a pain. I understand that putting a limit of 100 posts before you can start a thread or post in AH might put off new users, but I'm not sure there are many genuine new users any more so it might be worth it to keep the ones there are.

It's a hostile place these days, unfriendly, angry and openly bigoted. That's not really something anyone can be proud of or want to continue.

Even some discretionary decision between mods and admins to introduce the minimum post count mightn't be a bad idea. Eg there's a thread in after hours at the moment where a person has reregged to post the same ****e over twenty times. I feel like a pain in the arse repeatedly reporting them. But temporary limits when there's an uptick in such users would alleviate the issue.

Introduce Two-Factor Authentication using mobile as a requirement for new accounts and an option for existing accounts. No notice given.

Solved.

OldMrBrennan83

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Introduce Two-Factor Authentication using mobile as a requirement for new accounts and an option for existing accounts. No notice given.

Solved.

You're giving up your mobile number then.

OldMrBrennan83

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

You're giving up your mobile number then.

I've given it up to multiple services. Google, Discord, DigitalOcean, Namecheap etc.

Don't know why anyone would care to be honest if it's just linked to an anonymous forum account.

OldMrBrennan83

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've given it up to multiple services. Google, Discord, DigitalOcean, Namecheap etc.

Don't know why anyone would care to be honest if it's just linked to an anonymous forum account.

I pick and choose, and I'd rather Google, Microsoft, etc have it than Boards.

OldMrBrennan83

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

I pick and choose, and I'd rather Google, Microsoft, etc have it than Boards.

I'd assume an established company like boards would take any gdpr rules they'd have to follow seriously if they took that step. It's unlikely they'd ever bother implementing it so it's a moot suggestion.

Out of various authentication methods that would mostly guarantee no re-regs, I'd choose it.

OldMrBrennan83

I'd just take the re-regs. Takes about ten seconds to spot one and can just move on to another thread.

Fighting Tao

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

I pick and choose, and I'd rather Google, Microsoft, etc have it than Boards.

It’s possible to get Microsoft to do the MFA for you. The company I work for has MIcrosoft MFA for working from home access.

OldMrBrennan83

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

I'd just take the re-regs. Takes about ten seconds to spot one and can just move on to another thread.

I've been on this site since 2005 and some people in politics think I'm a Russian troll, or a re-reg, simply because I go against the grain in one of the threads.

Minimum post count for starting threads in AH seems logical. Moderator review also seems like it could work well. Mods thinking they're playing whack-a-mole with re-regs isn't ideal.


This is what a ban-happy mod looks like. I had it reversed immediately, but stricter rules would be better than subjective mods. My infraction record largely comes from my stance in Politics. I don't go over the line that often to warrant a five-day ban for posting two helpful and extremely relevant links.

OldMrBrennan83

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've been on this site since 2005 and some people in politics think I'm a Russian troll, or a re-reg, simply because I go against the grain in one of the threads.

Minimum post count for starting threads in AH seems logical. Moderator review also seems like it could work well. Mods thinking they're playing whack-a-mole with re-regs isn't ideal.


This is what a ban-happy mod looks like. I had it reversed immediately, but stricter rules would be better than subjective mods. My infraction record largely comes from my stance in Politics. I don't go over the line that often to warrant a five-day ban for posting two helpful and extremely relevant links.

Politics barely counts as a forum though. It's an absolute joke that it's been allowed to go on as it has. And it ties into this thread because we're expected to use it as an alternative to AH. It's a personal whim of a forum.

OldMrBrennan83

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Politics barely counts as a forum though. It's an absolute joke that it's been allowed to go on as it has. And it ties into this thread because we're expected to use it as an alternative to AH. It's a personal whim of a forum.

Politics has its place. But the mods, and the usual posters, truly think the place is crawling with Russian bots. Same for a lot of people in AH.

I think what people don't realise is that a lot of these re-regs aren't troll accounts. They're regular users who know their opinion on a certain topic would tarnish their reputation on the site, or get them banned.


Anyways, I'm off on a tangent now.

Zorya

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Politics barely counts as a forum though. It's an absolute joke that it's been allowed to go on as it has. And it ties into this thread because we're expected to use it as an alternative to AH. It's a personal whim of a forum.

The only times I've been told off are the one time I posted in politics and the one time I posted in religion. In a previous life. But you know the old adage about not discussing religion or politics at the dinner table. Shoulda listened to me granny.


Anyway as a result I couldn't be arsed with either of those forums. Not that I am inclined to harbour grievance or anything....

Beasty

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

Mod Note: This thread is in relation to After Hours. If you would like to discuss the Politics forum, and more particularly the moderation of the forum, please start a thread in Help Desk. As always, it's worth reminding people to use the report post where you feel posts should be sanctioned, appeal in the Dispute Resolution Forum (after trying to discuss things with the Moderators) where you feel that your ban (and not the lack of action elsewhere) wasn't warranted, and highlight concerns to the Moderating team or the CMods.

Any more discussion of the Politics Forum will be summarily deleted!

Beasty

To the poster who proposed a minimum postcount for starting threads in AH, please note you have to have a minimum postcount of 100 and have been registered for a minimum of 3 months to post in Feedback

Now if only we had a way of enforcing that automatically, but alas we don't;)

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

....... wrote: »

Threads grind to a halt over heavy handed moderation and that is regardless of whether or not you personally have been given a card.

Threads grinding to a halt is one issue. Another, though, is that the front page is consistently cluttered up with the same tired, stale "Where are you right now," "Trivial things that annoy you," "What are you eating?" type threads that, over time, drain the freshness and life out of the forum.

I think any thread should be given a maximum duration of three months. At that point, lock it and let people move on.

Franz Von Peppercorn

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

I pick and choose, and I'd rather Google, Microsoft, etc have it than Boards.

Google are the reason we have GDPR.

OldMrBrennan83

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Google are the reason we have GDPR.

They're not really though.

Franz Von Peppercorn

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

They're not really though.

It’s already started. And since GDPR is prosecuted per country and not the EU, this is just the beginning.

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/gdpr-fine-google

Baggly

Lawson Tinkling Fishhook wrote:

I think any thread should be given a maximum duration of three months. At that point, lock it and let people move on.

What would stop a similar thread being created again? A ban on the topic? That would be silly.

Those threads are popular as evidenced by the numbers of contributors and the longevity of each.

Why would you stop people posting in threads they like, as long as they follow forum rules?

Zorya

Just scroll, folks.

Scroll past the comments you don't like to read. Scroll past the titles on the front page that bore or offend you. Scroll past the posters that drive you mad.

Be like this old guy.

Gimme A Pound

kneemos wrote: »

Rest my case.

Truth hurts eh.

osarusan

Beasty wrote: »

I have not experienced the office interfering with or indeed providing direction to how forums should be run

That's interesting.

Boards is a business after all, and I'd imagine that the office has an interest in knowing whether the site in general or any particular forum is in a condition that will be either beneficial or detrimental to the site in terms of attracting new users, attracting advertising, attracting partners.

Does the office not have any position on the kind of topics discussed on the most popular forum on the site, and the quality of that discussion - beyond what is mentioned in the charter?

If the office staff pop their heads in AH every now then, are they generally happy about it, unhappy about it, or it just isn't a case of being happy or unhappy about it, they are just neutral on the whole thing?