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

No - the moderator in question tends to disallow some posts and issue warning on the basis that they are 'anecdotal'. But the judgement of what is or isn't 'anecdotal' seems to be purely up to them. It's a ridiculous thing to try and define but there you go?

Do you think my previous example of anecdotal should be allowed and does it add anything to a discussion thread?

It must be an Easter miracle.

I actually heartily agree with Furze99 here.

Why are you reluctant to speak for yourself?

You're clearly not happy doing a voluntary job, why continue?

As far as I can see, the problems are multifold and complex. Others are keen to stress there are no problems other than problem posters. They stress the simplicity of the process and the rules.
I think my exchange with Shamobuc sums it all up.
I'm addressing a cultural issue within the forum's management, calling for acknowledgment of universal fallibility. Everybody is human. ShamoBuc focuses on the mechanisms/rules in place for dealing with reports, which doesn't directly address the concern of moderator accountability and the perception of bias that I'm highlighting (especially that both poster and mod are capable of bias/bad behavior/being dicks).
In essence, I sought acknowledgment of a principle (that moderators can also behave poorly and should be held accountable), while ShamoBuc is focused on explaining the process, perhaps missing the point about the need for self-reflection and openness to criticism within the moderator team. This indicates a misunderstanding primarily on the part of ShamoBuc regarding the nature of complaints. It's not a one way system.
Moderators are volunteers and their time is important. Tasked with maintaining order, enforcing rules, and fostering a positive community atmosphere, takes significant effort and time. Given that this role is unpaid, mods have limited time and resources to dedicate to each concern. There's hesitancy to be pulled into anything outside of black and white rules.
There are also mods in here that have said they learned something. They show open-mindedness and understanding. I don't think you'll find them in the dispute section. This kind of interaction fosters a positive community atmosphere. The other does not. It pitches posters as dicks, farcical, and wasting time.

I'd propose a system. A post is flagged, whether by a mod or another poster. A mod must come to a judgement but not on his own. His decision whether warning, suspension, or just leave it, must be presented to another mod and another poster to adjudicate on its fairness. This process would involve both independent mods/posters perspectives.
Implementing a system where both moderators and regular posters are involved in adjudicating decisions about flagged content could significantly enhance fairness and transparency.

By involving another moderator and a regular poster in the decision-making process, it ensures multiple perspectives are considered. This reduces the likelihood of bias or unilateral decisions.

Establishing a transparent process, where decisions are reviewed by both a peer (another moderator) and a community member (a poster), can build trust. It demonstrates that the forum values fairness and is willing to subject its own decisions to scrutiny.

Including regular posters in the adjudication process gives the community a voice in its governance, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility among members.

This system can also support moderators by providing a framework for feedback and discussion on their decisions, potentially offering new insights or considerations.

Bring back down votes.

I think this is the problem, it's incestuist, mods selecting similar mods over the years, it ends up with inbreds and this is where we are at in 2024.

_______________________________________________

Mod Note: Keep it civil please

Yep. I know I'm repeating myself to an extent - but there's loads of sub-forums in here where moderation has always been light touch, discussions are and were always civil - and yet the traffic in all of those sub-forums has died a death as well. Moderation can't be the root cause in those cases - which make up the majority of subs on the site - to explain why traffic and posting has gradually declined over the years site wide.

You'd be forgiven for thinking reading through this thread that you have to consistently walk on eggshells to post on boards. I've been here since 2008 and I have never received a warning, a card, a ban: nothing. And I don't think I'm unusual - most posters never come to mod attention.

The only time that I can recall when I felt like questioning a mod decision was on a regional sub-forum, years ago, when I started a thread and it was locked by the relevant mod because they felt there was already another thread that was similar etc, etc. I PM'd the mod, explained my reasoning for opening the thread that I did and how it was a thread worthy subject in its own right. The mod said fair enough and re-opened it. So mods can change their minds.

Obviously, a proportion of people are going to fall foul of mods etc and, rightly or wrongly, will feel aggrevievd, stifled etc - but that's not the experience of the vast majority of users. Most posters don't have any interaction with mods.

Rewind the clock back to 2008/09/10 when the site was hopping. There were even more mods than now. There was even more warnings than now. There were even more bannings than now. More threads being locked than now - but yet the site was still booming.

The site is in decline because time has moved on. Fifteen years ago the age profile of the site was people in their twenties and thirties. Now people in their twenties wouldn't bother using a message board like this and a lot of the other boardsies have moved on in their lives.

Message boards across the internet are dying out because people increasingly don't use them anymore. Boards is a message board - its fate is no different than any other message board on planet earth. Boards is slowly dying because ALL message boards are slowly dying. Moderation, whether the lack of or the perceived over zealous application of, is not going to change this fundamental fact.

The move to the Vanilla setup is seen as such a negative but, without it, the site would have shutdown.

And while it may not be a “like for like” switch it’s still better than nothing.

The OP must be having a great laugh at what they stirred up. No further contribution from them after post #1. Perhaps the all powerful Mods have disappeared them?? They started this thread in After Hours, worried about the future of Boards. But judging by their previous efforts, I don't think they have a genuine interest in that subject.

Realistically wont happen. Thats how all social media companies make money. Click bait in order to cause controversy and people raging at each other is a huge business model and most of them dont know what else to do.

It'd look like Twitter lite.