(Site is a graveyard - How can boards save itself?) Any update?

I asked that question a while back and the response is in post #6066 in this thread for what it's worth.

From that thread the suggestion that stood out for me to counter mod bias and the perception thereof was that mods would have a separate profile for modding and a seperate one for contributing like everyone else.

We'd only every see the mod profile when modding is required.

From that it seems the only action is moderation of the moderation. Can't say I've noticed any changes. I've no way of seeing an increase of site bans, and I just avoid the forums with the most problems. You reap what you sow.

That's what already happens.

I like the suggestion because it allowed volunteer moderators two hats so they can participate like anyone else without being accused of a mod bias.

I'd imagine it would defang a lot of thread drama. It was a suggestion from another forum that reportedly worked well.

The problem, is that if a moderator shows a leaning in a particular direction on whatever topic they post their opinion on that is within their responsibility of moderation.. That is used as a stick when they then act as a moderator to some of those of a differing "opinion". Whether real or perceived, the user then is the victim of moderator bias first and not a victim of their posting style.

You could argue the reasons all day. End result people are driven out of threads, forums and boards.

I did a survey for work a few weeks ago, one of those 'employee wellbeing' things.

One of the early items for me to strongly/moderately agree/disagree with was 'I believe changes will take place as a result of the data collected in this survey', to which I selected 'Strongly disagree'.

It is no different here. The same problems have existed in CA since its inception, and existed in AH before that. We've had the same discussions and feedback threads again and again, and nothing has changed. More recently, with the site overhaul, we've seen good posters drifting away, and the problems becoming more condensed.

Whether through a lack of knowledge on how to remedy things, or a lack of effort, or just a lack of interest/care, it'll continue to slowly circle the drain.

In other words, "We're still looking into it".

The new accounts on CA that sonehow seem to be intimately familiar with long running threads?

And in some cases in their first few posts are tagging longstanding users?

And even openly admitting to being a rereg of a just banned account?

Credit where credit due to the admins and CA mods for their trojan work blitzing those trolls whether it was on the Russia, Tubridy or US politics threads. Must be a PITA for them but they stay on top of it.

On the subject of reregs, I understand the valid reasons for closing accounts, maybe because personal info was overshared previously, or access has been lost to the account.

However, I think posters who rereg and return to posting on long running threads, threads they were very active on under their 'old guise', that should be viewed with suspicion, and comes across to me as a bit dishonest.
I have seen users do it, not necessarily to avoid sanction, but their previous account on the thread was caught out in a porkie, or absurd argument.

Not sure what the solution is there… perhaps a duty there to notify mods… but I do think it should be approached differently to a re-reg done for sincere reasons.

And if posters on the thread call attention to this, it should not necessarily be viewed as back seat moderation, because the re-reg was done not to avoid moderation, but for underhand debating purposes.

Argue the reason? If you want to address user numbers then the reasons are important. Alot of users or their accounts at least are driven away because they dont want to be moderated in the first place.

Take during the abortion referendum. The number of users wailing about being picked on and being silenced because they were anti abortion. Yet afterwards we found out from one of the mods/cmods that in fact they (mods as a whole) had made a decision not to hold users of that persuasion to the usual posting standards as they would have banned so many that there wouldn't have been any/very few dissenting voices left.

Its all the same thing, consistency the lack of.

I guess my post went over your head

Another thing that might promote conversation is not closing 'IMHO' threads in CA / IMHO on the basis that they're not 'current affairs'

I'm not sure which part of my post was difficult for you. Because it has clearly gone over your head, or else you are just ignoring the parts you don't want to hear.

As I already pointed, alot of the moderator "bias" is in fact just moderation.

Too many posters believe their "opinion" should be listened to without question and if it's not they play the victim.

If people respond to them, they are being ganged up on. Play the victim

If sanctions aren't 50/50 it's mod bias. Play the victim

Even in the instance I provided where the moderators bent over backwards so as not to moderate them, they were still the victim of moderator bias. To them it's not their posting style, not their inability to debate on facts, etc etc. the only way they are sanctioned is because the mods are out to get/silence them.

They want boards to be like twitter or Reddit, where they can have a bubble and when it doesn't work out like that, guess what? Play the victim

Theres a litany of basic functionality broken.

There's a certain irony in complaining about not being listened to while complaining about people complaining about their opinion not being listened to.

If you believe there is no issue with moderation I'll agree to disagree. There are also a litany of technical issues.

Same here I can often need many attempts to post something. Eventually I just give up.

Maybe send a weekly email to registered uses on hot topic threads. This is something that Mumsnet does and it does attract traffic. I don’t know of the sign up conditions permits this!!!

The reality is the site has one employee and a bunch of volunteers. I would imagine it's run on a shoe string budget at this point, so expecting anything other than what we currently get to experience is probably not realistic. A few bug fixes, but that's about it. At the end of the day, the owner could wake up with a hangover one morning (I've no idea if they drink!) and say to themselves "Meh, I'm done." and the site would be over.

The moderation complaints will always happen because some people think they are always right and their opinion should be allowed, unfettered and if that's not the case then it's clearly because of moderator bias.

IMHO, boards is full of useful information, fun threads and frustrating ones in equal measure, but it's completely down to people who volunteer their free time that the thing exists. Like it or lump it. I've had about 14 mod warnings in a little over a year, so I'm as bad as anyone else:-)

The bug fix thread is still ongoing for anyone not aware of it.

This thread is now just repeating the previous ones. The same people with the same moderation complaints. 90% or more of posters never have any interaction with Mods. There are dozens of forums, with copious threads, ticking along merrily with good discussions, queries & advice, information and craic. 46 threads have multiple posts in the last 30 minutes. It's hardly stagnant. People shouldn't judge the entire site on just the forums they generally use.

It's not perfect but it's still an excellent free resource.