Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Feedback Request:

245

Comments

  • #32
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    The winner of best poster of the year is - Scofflaw! And the prize - the complete works of Ludwig von Mises, sponsored by Permabear! :D


    I agree with all Permabear's bullet points, but particularly with the conciser charter suggestion and the "serious and legitimate discussion" point, though I understand that the mod team what to strike a balance between accessibility and seriousness.

    I think people need to report more posts. During my tenure as mod I was very surprised at the lack of reported posts. But this is arguably a two-way process: if people feel action is being taken they'll be more inclined to report posts. I imagine a lot of the rubbish posting survives merely because it's not reported.

    I would also be in favour of the Political Theory sub-forum being moderated more strictly than the rest. The accessibility consideration doesn't really apply, and, more than any other forum, low-quality posts really disturb the discussion.


  • #33
    gaffer91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭gaffer91


    I post very rarely (altough I read regularly), so obviously its understandable if what I say carries less weight but one thing that really annoys me, and I'm sure others, are threads like these- http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055996440.

    Its complete and utter nonsense. The OP clearly detests FF, and while this is fine, its obvious from the get-go he is not open to any debate on the particular issue mentioned, or most likely any issue relating to them.

    The thread therefore only really serves as a pulpit to rant from, not an opening for an interesting and constructive debate.

    Obviously I realise that it will be difficult to establish beyond doubt whether a poster is ranting or simply feels strongly on a particular issue, and for that reason I understand if the mods find it difficult or even impossible to take action on such threads. I just thought I'd say it and see what people think.


  • #34
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    I agree with all Permabear's bullet points, but particularly with the conciser charter suggestion and the "serious and legitimate discussion" point, though I understand that the mod team what to strike a balance between accessibility and seriousness.

    He's taking that idea from something mods suggested we were thinking of doing. ;)


  • #35
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    jank wrote: »
    Moderators should moderate and NOT contribute to any up coming referendum threads e.g. last Lisbon Referendum blatant bias IMO for the yes side from moderators. The whole arguments gets slanted. Bias can only be achieved when moderators don't contribute in these discussions. It would be like Matt Copper trying to host a deate while also arguing his own personal view. It just cannot happen! Let the users argue their points within the allocated rules.

    We have DRP to avoid this necessity. We also have several mods who don't care about the EU much. And Dades, who handles Politics DRP stuff isn't political. So it's not necessary.

    We're posters here too remember, I doubt any of us would mod this forum if we couldn't still post on threads as posters you know, it's not like we're paid to do this.


  • #36
    ILikeBananas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 785 ✭✭✭ILikeBananas


    +1 for a World Politics forum.

    I always feel that although the main forum is "general politics" there's almost an unwritten rule that it's Irish Politics. I appreciate that there are a lot more people interested in national politics than in international politics and as a result if anyone starts a thread on Russia, China or South Africa for example, it often doesn't last too long on the front page.

    It'd be nice to have a forum of it's own for these threads so that they have a bit more permanency. For example, the bottom post on the front page of the main forum was made last night whereas the bottom post in the US Politics forum was made a month ago. One particular advantage of this is that it gives people who may live in these countries and who don't come on too regularly a chance to log in periodically and make a good quality contribution to a relevant thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #38
    edanto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    Permabear more or less covered the changes that I'd like to see.

    One to emphasise would be mods intervening to improve the standard of threads (like Dr G did here). Granted, there is some subjectivity in that, but what could happen would be:

    - You're in the forum reading a thread and it strikes you that this is another stupid thread recyling tired arguments that have been amply covered in another thread, or it is a thread composed mainly of directionless one liners, or the thread has been dragged well off topic.

    - Report one of the posts and say that you are actually reporting the thread for one of the above reasons

    - Mods review the thread and issue a general warning based on the charter. If it turns out that some people ignore the warning, then move into infractions etc.

    The main point being that we, as forum users, ask for the help of the mods in creating the standard of debate that we want to read and take part in.


  • #39
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #40
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I would urge caution on this because while it might seem to you obviously untrue, to others, it might seem like an issue up for debate. This type of infraction for not knowing the facts was used for the misunderstaning of the Dublin 2 convention when people were talking about no direct flights from Nigeria to Dublin. However, it also caught up people commenting on section 11b of the refugee act. It also possibly punished people for simple ignorance ratherthan bullheadedness.

    A better approach in my view would be to target trolls ie those people who, when corrected, still assert their view as fact without backup.

    I agree... it also drives me mad when certain posters just ignore facts that disprove earlier comments they have made and they continue to post on a tangent to other posters. It's like they realise they aren't getting anywhere with one comment so they swiftly attempt to divert the attention.
    Or to have megamerge threads. The legal discussion forum has a new freemen of the land type thread every month and infractions/warnings were going nowhere. But a freemen megamerge thread but all those threads in a nice, easy to ignore thread.
    IGNORE!? That's by far the funniest thread in LD (not a particularly hilarious forum :D)


    What about a political conspiracy theories subforum in Politics? It could be a bit looser like the Cafe where we can all have a little gawk and giggle at the crazies. :P

    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    The winner of best poster of the year is - Scofflaw! And the prize - the complete works of Ludwig von Mises, sponsored by Permabear! :D
    Ah hang on now, I MUST be in the running somehow! :D


  • #41
    DB21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,715 ✭✭✭DB21


    A declaration of interest thread, like at C&T. Anyone who is connected to a political figure should have to declare so before posting. I've seen some inexplicable bias in my short time here.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Megamerge threads, zero tolerance on personal attacks, a sticky on common fallacies and end-of-year prizes are all excellent ideas IMHO


  • #43
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Four months ago, I was in hospital. ;)


  • #44
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    Suggestions:
    I agree with the minimum post count for STARTING a thread, not for participating tho.
    I think that would cut down on the amount of passer-by rage threads, without making it a private debating club.

    A flame thread -> whenever people divert good topics, move their posts into the one giant flame thread and let them flame to their hearts content and continue their battles - to the e-n-d (not to a different thread the subsequent week).
    This would apply heavily to the IRA ones I think, some of the public/private sector ones etc.

    For the record, I think the moderating has vastly improved recently.


  • #45
    Naz_st
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    No idea if this is feasible, but the ability as a user to "prefer" certain posters might be useful, such that in any thread as you scroll down there could be some visual representation of posts by those posters who you have "preferred" - this would allow someone to easily scan through a thread and easily find posts they know are by those posters who have made (subjectively) reasonable arguments in the past.

    A corollary of this would be useful statistical data over the longer term of those posters who are most "preferred", which could form the basis of more comprehensive changes later on (e.g. in the same way that Google's PageRank works, those posters who have been "preferred" by other posters with a high "preference" rating could have a different status or something...).


  • #46
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Naz_st wrote: »
    No idea if this is feasible, but the ability as a user to "prefer" certain posters might be useful, such that in any thread as you scroll down there could be some visual representation of posts by those posters who you have "preferred" - this would allow someone to easily scan through a thread and easily find posts they know are by those posters who have made (subjectively) reasonable arguments in the past.

    A corollary of this would be useful statistical data over the longer term of those posters who are most "preferred", which could form the basis of more comprehensive changes later on (e.g. in the same way that Google's PageRank works, those posters who have been "preferred" by other posters with a high "preference" rating could have a different status or something...).

    I don't think that's possible with VBulletin but there's no harm in bringing it up in the Site Development forum here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=228


  • #47
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Remove the thanks option from politics.

    It's pathetic and gets overused for 'popular' posters.


  • #48
    edanto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    I disagree, I think it's a good way of showing support for a post without clogging up the thread with "+1"s


  • #49
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Remove the thanks option from politics.

    It's pathetic and gets overused for 'popular' posters.

    It's abused definitely and I seriously have a problem with people thanking a post that abused someone and the original poster gets banned.

    That said, it does serve a valuable purpose and when used right it is a good way of showing support for a position in a debate.


  • #50
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    nesf wrote: »
    It's abused definitely and I seriously have a problem with people thanking a post that abused someone and the original poster gets banned.

    That said, it does serve a valuable purpose and when used right it is a good way of showing support for a position in a debate.

    Plus we all love that warm fuzzy feeling we get inside when somebody thanks our post.


  • #51
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    edanto wrote: »
    I disagree, I think it's a good way of showing support for a post without clogging up the thread with "+1"s

    It lends undue legitimacy to popular and middle-of-the-road opinions and causes people to appeal to the middle ground.

    I'm as much of a filthy thanks whore as anyone else in AH but in politics I feel it's counter-productive to good debate.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    It lends undue legitimacy to popular and middle-of-the-road opinions and causes people to appeal to the middle ground.

    I'm as much of a filthy thanks whore as anyone else in AH but in politics I feel it's counter-productive to good debate.

    I think that all depends on how much heed you pay to the Thanks function. I know I don't care less if I get a thanks for a post or not. I also don't feel a post is more relevant etc just because people have thanked it.

    Personally I do use it like +1 I agree function.

    I wouldn't miss it if it was gone tbh, but I don't think that there is much of an appetite to get rid of it. Probably more pressing things to sort out first.
    jank wrote: »
    Moderators should moderate and NOT contribute to any up coming referendum threads e.g. last Lisbon Referendum blatant bias IMO for the yes side from moderators. The whole arguments gets slanted. Bias can only be achieved when moderators don't contribute in these discussions. It would be like Matt Copper trying to host a deate while also arguing his own personal view. It just cannot happen! Let the users argue their points within the allocated rules.

    This i disagree with, for the same reasons as nesf pointed out.
    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

    I think people need to report more posts. During my tenure as mod I was very surprised at the lack of reported posts. But this is arguably a two-way process: if people feel action is being taken they'll be more inclined to report posts. I imagine a lot of the rubbish posting survives merely because it's not reported.

    I would also be in favour of the Political Theory sub-forum being moderated more strictly than the rest. The accessibility consideration doesn't really apply, and, more than any other forum, low-quality posts really disturb the discussion.

    Both of these points get a thumbs up from me.

    I think people should remember that we are all actually on the same side here. As Mods we want to preside over a great forum, and as posters people want to post in a great forum. Without the Mods looking after things properly the place would be a mess, without the input of the posters, the place would be a wasteland. It has to be a team effort as such, it's good to see so many people giving a crap tbh :)

    Things I disagree with.....

    Minimum post counts
    The free for all thread - though this would be fun
    The Politics Cafe becoming a dumping ground
    Too many sub forums - though I do like the Global Politics idea


  • #53
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    I'm as much of a filthy thanks whore as anyone else in AH but in politics I feel it's counter-productive to good debate.

    See number of thanks doesn't mean anything to me on this forum, who is doing the thanks is what I'll pay attention to. Some people's thanks are more equal than others and all that...


  • #54
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,342 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    I dont mean to sound like a grammar nazi but I think there should also be an effort made to improve the formatting of posts (is there such thing as a format nazi or am I the first?).

    I mean it really annoys me when I have to read posts

    which dont go to the end of the line and/or are over-spaced.

    Also the over-use of punctuation.....

    Making spelling or grammatical errors is one thing but

    why do some posters intentionally format posts badly??:confused:

    The forum is for debating, debating requires well thought

    out posts, not what looks like a series of bullet points....:mad:


  • #55
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    I dont mean to sound like a grammar nazi but I think there should also be an effort made to improve the formatting of posts (is there such thing as a format nazi or am I the first?).

    I mean it really annoys me when I have to read posts

    which dont go to the end of the line and/or are over-spaced.

    Also the over-use of punctuation.....

    Making spelling or grammatical errors is one thing but

    why do some posters intentionally format posts badly??:confused:

    The forum is for debating, debating requires well thought

    out posts, not what looks like a series of bullet points....:mad:

    That'd be low on our priority list for changes in the forum but point taken. :p


  • #56
    Zander Scarce Klutz
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Zander Scarce Klutz


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    I dont mean to sound like a grammar nazi but I think there should also be an effort made to improve the formatting of posts (is there such thing as a format nazi or am I the first?).

    I mean it really annoys me when I have to read posts

    which dont go to the end of the line and/or are over-spaced.

    Also the over-use of punctuation.....

    Making spelling or grammatical errors is one thing but

    why do some posters intentionally format posts badly??:confused:

    The forum is for debating, debating requires well thought

    out posts, not what looks like a series of bullet points....:mad:

    but posts really look
    wonderfully poetic
    when written so, no?
    :D


  • #57
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    I dont mean to sound like a grammar nazi but I think there should also be an effort made to improve the formatting of posts (is there such thing as a format nazi or am I the first?).

    I mean it really annoys me when I have to read posts

    which dont go to the end of the line and/or are over-spaced.

    Also the over-use of punctuation.....

    Making spelling or grammatical errors is one thing but

    why do some posters intentionally format posts badly??:confused:

    The forum is for debating, debating requires well thought

    out posts, not what looks like a series of bullet points....:mad:

    I must say I agree with this. I could read posts making poor points all day but a poorly formatted post makes me die a little inside. A long post without the space between paragraphs can be a tough task to tackle. As for the poetic looking posts, people should at least make them rhyme.

    Btw an ellipsis is meant to have three full stops... :P


  • #58
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    If we're going down the grammar nazi route seeing as we often have threads about economics, a basic test on competency in maths would cut out a lot of pointless stuff! 1+1=2, not 10 Billion. :D

    I'd agree that posters should report more, I find they do act if its a reasonable report. Probably should be more locked threads but that's probably because most people lose the will to live on threads going round in circles, leaving a few to keep hold of their bone and nobody probably reports anything.

    There are plenty of NI threads that probably could be put in a sticky thread, its just same points and posters over and over. Might be the odd thread worth keeping out.

    Posters have to try and not rise to the bait with personal attacks, would cut out 50% of the crap straight away. Can be hard not to at times but it is the best policy.

    Cutting down on OP's that are more rants or soap boxing would also cut out a hell of a lot of noise. If after 10/20 posts a thread isn't going anywhere, and it's usually pretty obvious, warn the OP and if not heeded, lock it. Posters will get the hint eventually. Well barring the few who'll cry "free speech" but they tend to be empty vessels anyway.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #59
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback. Here are a few of my thoughts. Most have probably been said by others on this thread already.

    The first rule of any boards.ie forum is that personal attacks are not tolerated. This should be the cornerstone that standards in Politics and sub forums are built on.

    The charter needs to be refreshed and condensed to ensure that the essence of a place on boards.ie where "serious and legitimate discussion" is maintained encouraged and fostered. It needs to make clear what is acceptable and what isn’t.

    For it to be a "serious and legitimate discussion" forum standards do need to be adhered to and enforced. New contributors are guided by moderators towards the kind of contribution that is expected on the forum. In the case of persistent trolls, thread spoilers, those posting rants or those who think it is their private comedy stage that they be removed from the forum.

    The moderation team needs to operate in a co-ordinated manner. Even recently it is extremely obvious that they have a wide varied interpretation of the rules as set out in the Charter.

    Ensure that if moderation decisions are made that they be done in a very visible fashion stating what was wrong with the post being addressed. (To be fair some are very good at doing this already).

    Sub Forums need to be relevant and those that are not working should be shut down. If for example the US Politics forums is too quiet then I would wholeheartedly support it be transmuted into a World Politics forum. The Irish Election forum needs to be shut down, along with the Political Debate forum as they are not relevant any longer.

    Lazy debating where labels are thrown around without any substance backing them up at all is discouraged and those who use such devices on a regular basis be infracted and or banned.

    I have said this on the thread in the feedback forum but I will say it here again. Politics should not be limited in any way for access to contribute. I believe if the charter is enforced then the forum will improve no end. Users can play a part in this as well by reporting posts which I believe a lot have shied away from because things have been on slide here in recent times.

    If I think of anything else I will add them later.


  • #60
    edanto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    gandalf wrote: »
    If for example the US Politics forums is too quiet then I would wholeheartedly support it be transmuted into a World Politics forum.
    Yeah at this stage the idea of US politics being the most important in the world is fairly out of date. Though the way they may be trying to destroy the euro at the moment is a thread I might start in that forum!
    gandalf wrote: »
    The Irish Election forum needs to be shut down, along with the Political Debate forum as they are not relevant any longer.

    Would it be possible to find people that wish to start and adjudicate debates in that forum?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    bijapos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭bijapos


    Cork boy 55 wrote: »
    The main forum is a bit chaotic it has all sorts of stuff in it
    and some the subforums are unnesscary


    Something like

    Irish national politics
    Irish local politics
    Irish political parties
    Irish ecomony
    Global ecomony
    Northern Ireland
    Forign affairs(europe Uk and USA subforums)
    Politics cafe/humour
    Policital reform, debate and theory.
    Current affairs/breakingnews.
    Election forum for ongoing elections.

    I think there are too many sub forums mentioned there, I would be wary of creating too many of them.

    One of the things I like about the politics forum on boards.ie as opposed to politics.ie is the chance to get a quick overview of the past couple of days debates by simply looking at the first two pages of thread titles.

    I think we might, as gandalf said above, be at the stage to shut down the elections and political debate forum and move a world politics forum up there. Put the US forum in there with the view to opening a temporary forum for a few months next year as the election nears.

    The same could be done for temporary major political events such as a referendum or before the Local and European elections in 2014.

    So as forums maybe this?

    -Politics
    -Irish Economy
    -European Union
    -World Politics
    -Political Cafe
    -Political Theory
    -A.N. Other (ie short term ones for referendums, US pres. elections etc etc




    Furthermore I agree that there ahould be minimum nr of posts for starting a thread, 15 sould be OK imo but anyone should be allowed to register and to contribute straight away.

    Rants should be dealt with quickly as should personal attacks but like voting in the elections its up to us, the posters to police it and report it ourselves.



    Either way, thanks nesf for the opportunity to make our opinions felt.


Advertisement