Site is a graveyard - How can boards save itself? [Threadbanned users in 1st post]

well mods not caring is probably half the issue here - there’s lots of posters with mod after their name but most don’t appear to be active modding

The changeover a few years back was a complete and utter disaster.

It took several days (if not weeks) of site outage when it was planned to be completed initially over a weekend. Then it took several more weeks (if not months) before it became clear what the new experience would be like.

The complete disappearance of critical functions, specifically around modding (cards display system for example) showed that the scope and agreement with vanilla for the changeover was mismanaged and not even understood appropriately before any contract was even signed.

Some other things that were lost directly in the changeover that impacted the users experience which again influences visitors to the site was the loss of the 'Most thanked' posts tab. That was something that used to bring me to the site every day and often I would spend significant time on the threads linked from that tab. Poof, gone, in the changeover, never seen again.

And because of the changeover many long term contributors (many of who modded as well) stepped away from the site and have never returned. Aside from their mod duties, many of these contributed on a lot of conversations. One in particular also ran 'Best……..' competitions which were highly popular and again gave people a positive experience when coming to the site.

Aside from this, unless you were on the site, you had no clue (and still don't) as to what is happening on it. I know Boards doesn't have a budget for advertising or anything like that but I'm sure the likes of 2fm/todayfm would run a no cost piece once a week where they'd talk about some key conversations that were happening on the site as a form of advertisement. Those stations would happily use such an update for 5 minutes to provide content for their shows. Also, I'm nearly ten years a member now and can set up my account to send me emails every time someone quotes me or whatever. And yet, I've never received an email from the site telling me about popular threads or topics which again could drive traffic back to the site. Has there been a single planned initiative to bring traffic to the site?

And added to all this, and as I've said before on threads like this, the modding experience since the changeover is just shocking. For all involved. There is zero accountability for the most senior mod now in their style or implementation of modding and that has been a very large reason why I've posted maybe 4-5 times total in the last 6 months or so. I respect the effort they have put in to the site for so long, but because of the absence of other strong personalities around with or involved with the site, it has gotten out of control and overall paints a negative image of how the place works right now. I'd say I was banned from a total of 1-2 threads in my time on here (7-8 years) up until the changeover. Since then, it's probably 4-6 threads, all by this same person and when I've asked for CMod review etc, I've had zero response or engagement. It's a problem.

This also caught my eye just now.

A site administrator, several years in to the new site, does not understand the moderation system and process. No disrespect to the posters involved here, at all. But for such a situation to exist at this point is a massive red flag with respect to structures/process/communication at the mod/admin level. I don't think any site could expect to thrive in such an environment. Unless it was deliberately courting crazy conspiracy type posting, which Boards obviously isn't doing.

And this is probably a quote from the last one of these threads last year or whenever but I still stand by it; 'Good Moderation won't bring people to the site, but bad moderation will make them leave'.

Careful now!

I'm not blaming you. I'm saying this situation should not exist where people do not know the structures in which they operate. I mean, someone isn't going to get a handle on this knowledge overnight, but that is not the case here.

It is 100% the fault of those managing the site that this situation exists. And I don't neccessarily mean that it is Mike who is at fault for this either.

At risk of repeating, I'd appreciate if someone will explain the meaning of the mod warnings given in two of the current more controversial threads on the site: how does one post on these threads if you can't report experiences or stories and so on?? It's a licence to threadban posters on a whim, as far as I can see and should not be tolerated?

Mod warnings:

23/02/24 - Drop the anecdotes, they are getting out of hand in this thread. Unverifiable and agenda driven stories, typically designed to rile people up or get a reaction. They will result in threadbans if they continue. Previous threads were closed because they got so bad.

and

Mod warning posted 06/03/23

Personal so called anecdotes are what caused the original Ukrainian refugee thread to be closed

Any more can expect threadbans

This isn't about how you personally carry out your role BBOC. I think it's a bigger, site wide issue.

However, I will say that you yourself have said that rather then give a mod a warning, they are given a nudge or some advice on how to be better, and honestly, how nice for them!

The average poster does not get the same consideration.

They get posts deleted, on thread warnings, threadbans, etc and are told if they have a problem with any of that go to Help Desk or Dispute Resolution where they are shunted from billy to jack, and there is so rarely an outcome in their favour that most posters won't even bother trying to engage with it.

You say its not all one big boys' club with everyone protecting their own and ignoring the average poster, but honestly, from this side it sounds exactly like one.

Mad how a “certain type” of poster thinks that the mods are acting on every reported post and shutting down threads as a result.

A mod cannot act on any post that doesn’t break the rules. There’s nothing in the rules about someone feeling “offended”. However, if someone is uncivil, attacking the poster, ignoring mod instruction etc. that’s an actionable offence.

The mods can disagree with a reported post and take no action if they feel it doesn’t contravene the rules but if a post is reported for something that doesn’t break the rules the mods won’t be able to do anything about it.

If you want a thread kept open, don’t want to be threadbanned or sitebanned then just don’t break the rules. It’s quite simple, really, but for some reason a certain “cohort” just can’t seem to get their heads around it.

The problem with that is "engage with the mod" is synonymous with admit you were in the wrong (even if you weren't) and grovel for their forgiveness.

Anything less than complete submission is "refusing to engage".

Posters can sometimes feel like a warning is a personal affront and that the mod has it out for them and honestly, that is not the case. It's just an advisory to modify their posting style so it doesn't break any rules.

Except when it is the case?

As has been said already, and even admitted by some former mods on thread, mods can be dicks too, and have actioned or banned posters just because they didn't like them.

Until these issues are recognised as an abuse of privilege, and somehow addressed, the complaints about moderation will continue, and I can't see how things will ever change.

If only but worth to keep trying but will mods see it as annoying pestering

I like the idea of threadbans expiring after a month

If things are a lot quieter than back in the peak perhaps the modding shareload could be shared across all new posts rather than mods attached to particular topics.

I do think the reductive nature of reddit will eventually kill that site, but there's still a need for discussion forums like boards, and as another poster to this mentioned there may be a renewal for younger generations to simply have a place to discuss information relevant to Ireland and the EU without the profit driven click monsters like FB, twatter and now the publically traded Reddit. They thrive on argument and confrontation, whereas I find many useful bits of information here often by simply looking back through old threads.

It may surprise you that I haven't had that many run-ins with mods.

But in my limited experience, some moderators you can come to - if not an agreement - than at least a middle ground.

Others are just dicks. 🤷

Of course, others have shared their experiences with me. My experience is not unique.

Thats the reason why

There is no such thing as "The Average Poster". But I would venture a guess that a big majority never have any interaction with the Mods. I very much doubt that you or any other non Mod poster knows all the stuff you claim to know about site wide moderation.

If anything is to be considered I hope it is the role of formal dispute resolution. Because that procedure is simply a farce, I wonder if mods realise just how much contempt there is for it.

No one branded YOU as far right. I did refer to the far right trope that you brought up.

Boards is pretty good for dealing with extreme hate speech at present. Posts reported are dealt with generally within minutes or hours, maybe a day or two in rare cases. It's hard to see that hate speech legislation will present any serious challenge to Boards, so I've no idea why you think it's worth while bringing up here.

There is one kind hate speech that Boards seems happy to permit - the use of retard or retarded as a derogatory insult. Boards doesn't allow equivalent casual derogatory terms for gay people or black people or Jewish people, but does allow the term that relates to people with intellectual disabilities, who don't deserve the same level of protection, apparently.

One issue that I've run into a few times, relates to the climate created by the fear of libel. You see so many active discussions shut down because of it, often ones that are currently highly prominent in daily life. The Donaldson thread being the most recent example. I appreciate the difficult situation the law has created for the site, but if folks can't talk about relevant and "hot" topics here, then they're just going to leave. Rightly or wrongly, people want to be free to engage in conversation. It's particularly frustrating when there is public reporting from various news sources, yet one can't reference it on boards.