I promised a thread on the future of Boards...

DeVore

... and this isnt really it.

I just didnt want to let it slide so I will explain where my thinking is.

1. A few months back the directors (Dan, John, Tom, Paul, Eamonn) met and decided that Boards needs some form of "Constitution" or at least a community framework. I got tasked with having a big hard think about that and to report back.

2. I have been having a big long hard think about it.

3. I'm starting to have chats with a few groups, specific users, admins, mods etc in order to "check my head".

4. I'm not happy with where I have gotten too but I hope to firm up my thinking within 2 weeks.

5. I will then start to discuss it much more seriously with three groups: Admins, Mods, Users, in order to take on feedback and also to get a lot of parallel thinking on it.

What is the idea of the constitution? Well, its a big big task, but effectively it will be a document of the deeper thinking about what this site is, where its going, its purpose, intent and raison d'etre. Also specifically about how we govern ourselves and how we build something which isnt reliant on a DeVore or any one given individual.

How can we mature as a community to take more control over ourselves and how we reincarnate as people arrive and leave the Boards "bus"

Also, to specifically detail some high level intentions of the site so that people have some idea where the bus is going, so they know if they want to power it or not.

How should users be represented, and to *what* are they represented? Should there be some form of Supreme court, separated from the Judicary, Legislative and Policing branches?


The direction from the board was very clear, develop a plan which allows the community to be self-perpetuating in a way that:

1. Cant be gamed so that the best interests of the community are kept at the centre of the site and not in the hands of people who want to screw stuff up.

2. Anything which could land the board of directors in jail or trouble, is to be left to them to decide. (Its all well and good that we have our own thing going on in here... but there is a big bad world out there and they dont care about our intentions here... they will go after those 5 and its our asses on the line, so... thats fair enough I think )

THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THE SPECIFICS OF THE CONSTITUTION THING... I'm no where near that point yet, but if you have feedback on the way we should go about thinking about it... then feel free. Whinging and point scoring will just get deleted, I want to have a big blue sky think about where Boards could be in say, a years time or three years time, in terms of managing itself.

DeV.

leninbenjamin

A constitution isn't a bad idea, but it might be making a mountain out of a molehill. A clear and concise mission statement might be just as effective.

Mr.Applepie

Sounds like the European Constitution.

Maybe every forum could vote on it?

FlutterinBantam

Loads of cobblers.

Boards.ie is a blackboard, whiteboard, clean wall, for people to write on and express opinions.

Of course the site owners and controllers may have a path they wish to follow to generate revenue and position themselves as an authentic voice of population Ireland,and be able to point to what amounts to ABC readership for the benefit of advertising and future partnership.

This poster cares not a whit what direction Boards.ie is going, will go, has gone.

Best of luck with your task DeV

zuroph

If it aint broke dont fix it IMO.

DeVore

Ok Fluttering... but if you look at the feedback thread that Boston started, its clear that many DO want to have a say in where it goes and how its managed.

If you arent interested, grand, but dont let your cynicism stand in the way of other people getting involved.

You basically took the time to post "I dont care enough to take the time to post". Oh and some tired barbs about commercialism.

Let me make this clear, in case you think I'm hiding something:

I want to retire one day and have that retirement funded by Boards.ie. I have always said this. But along the way, its ALSO possible that we create a unique place online the like of which no other country has and in doing so create something SO powerful that it bends the will of politicians and companies alike to interact with it along the lines IT chooses.

If I could create that, I would consider my life to be a success. To do that I need to be thinking about how this site works when I'm dead. When no one knows what Quake is. When Internet access is a "right".

You think I'm "greedy" but you have no idea of the scope of my ambition, it goes far far beyond mere money.

If it was all about the benjamins, why would I be trying to create a system which governs itself free from control by any single group or person?

So, I understand you arent interested. Thats ok, you can take your cyncism, and leave.

DeV.

DeVore

zuroph wrote: »

If it aint broke dont fix it IMO.

Thats quite definitely an option but perhaps it is broke... or perhaps its not broke now but when there are 5000 moderators... it will be broke. Or perhaps its ok now but cant grow to what we want it to become.

but certainly, your point has merit and should/will be considered.

DeV.

DeVore

leninbenjamin wrote: »

A constitution isn't a bad idea, but it might be making a mountain out of a molehill. A clear and concise mission statement might be just as effective.

It might be that its a short document, but you can still end up with a short document after a lot of hard thinking.

I think we will need a full forum to kick about the ideas, so step one (when I do get started) will be to create a specific forum open to all to kick about blue sky ideas for the future of Boards.

DeV.

itsallaboutheL

DeVore wrote: »

Thats quite definitely an option but perhaps it is broke... or perhaps its not broke now but when there are 5000 moderators... it will be broke. Or perhaps its ok now but cant grow to what we want it to become.

but certainly, your point has merit and should/will be considered.

DeV.

It's a lazy option imo, just because something isn't broken doesn't mean it can't be improved upon..

I think the main question here is the highlighted part of DeV's post above, exactly what do ye want it to become?

I don't believe that you are obligated to tell us what you're plans are but if you were to outline your musings it would be appreciated i'm sure.

zuroph

DeVore wrote: »

Thats quite definitely an option but perhaps it is broke... or perhaps its not broke now but when there are 5000 moderators... it will be broke. Or perhaps its ok now but cant grow to what we want it to become.

but certainly, your point has merit and should/will be considered.

DeV.

I've seen little wrong with the progress boards is making at present, and in my time from having access to teh super sekrit mod forums. there is good procedure in place, and everything seems to work, bar one or two small things that ye're aware of and are fine tuning. sure, the site has the oppurtuinty to grow and grow, but that just means adding to the admins and mods, doing more of the same. how big the place can get is a mystery, at the moment, there seems to be a forum for everything, and a system to fill the gaps.
Without being pessimistic, I'd feel putting a constition or mission plan in place today will only limit the ideas you come up with tomorrow. truth is, you don't know where to go next. I can imagine further integration into social networking etc, but until you know for sure, is there a point in hashing a plan together?
I'd prefer to see a "stay on top of things, and adapt with the net" as a general plan. Geocities finished up this week. For years everyone thought that would be the future of the net. youtube only came about in recent years. Google wave could be the next revolution. Blogging and tweeting are this years buzzwords, but they don't quite "click" with boards. Boards is what it is, and it works for that reason. People don't need to be online at the same time, they can catch up when they want, and take part. putting a dramatic plan in place could take the focus off what is a succesful operation so far.

sorry for the ramble!

My name is URL

The only thing that needs fixing is the way Helpdesk & Feedback work, imo.. though I'm sure those running the site have a 360° view, so maybe I'm wrong

The amount of topics started about modding and so on is mental, why issues with moderation cannot be dealt with by the moderators involved, in the forums they mod is beyond me.

Each category should have a forum dedicated to Feedback and Help, where the mods can deal with issues and decide amongst themselves if any particular issue warrants been escalated to the attention of Admins. That'd free up their time, and limit a good deal of the soapboxing that goes on.. and it'd be fairer to members too, mods from different forums won't be able to show favoritism to each other

I don't think there needs to be a formal constitution, no need to complicate things.. and it won't change how people use the site

Villain

I think "My Name is URL" makes good points.

IMO one real problem is people not understanding that they are responsible for what they post and I think that needs to be heart of what ever rules or systems are put in place.

People think they can hide behind a Username and let the owners of the site take the heat if a problem arises. I'm not a legal head so I don't know whats involved in making people soley reponsible for what they post or even if that already if the case.

A system where employed individuals with no connections to smods or mods can look at major issues and resolve them is a must imo

DeVore

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

It's a lazy option imo, just because something isn't broken doesn't mean it can't be improved upon..

I think the main question here is the highlighted part of DeV's post above, exactly what do ye want it to become?

I don't believe that you are obligated to tell us what you're plans are but if you were to outline your musings it would be appreciated i'm sure.

I will, I need a bit of time to really phrase the questions correctly and also to have a long hard think about things myself. The reason i raised this now is because i promised I would, but I've realised I'm slightly pre-empting myself but didnt want people to think I had ignored it.

in answer to the general points raised above:
My job in part has always been to think about the next step before we arrive at it. For example, we put in ad banners long before we needed new servers but it was actually just in time because we needed to gather money to buy new servers and in fact that money arrived just in the nick of time.
Similarly we made a deal with Daft in order to hire the team we have. If we hadnt. we'd be offline now. No doubt in my mind for one second about that. There wouldnt be a boards.ie if it werent for Ross. And now, also Conor, Dav and Darragh. But there were rocky periods and Ross was our answer. If we hadnt had him, *boom* no Boards today. (I dont claim credit for that either, much of the credit goes to Gerry).

What I'm saying is, I'm trying to think of 2 years from now. i'm trying to think of a "Boards without DeVore". Maybe we dont find any better way to do it, but we, I, should be looking.

Helpdesk and feedback are the sharp ends of a problem we need to face imho. Its a good place to start as any but I want to treat the cause, not the symptoms.
Zuroph, good points, I'm very aware of the fact that we have been successful so there cant be *much* wrong with what we are going *now*. I'm curious if theres a better way for the future though. A way to extend more of a say in the site to interested parties. Perhaps not, but also, perhaps so...


DeV.

DeVore

Villain wrote: »

I think "My Name is URL" makes good points.

IMO one real problem is people not understanding that they are responsible for what they post and I think that needs to be heart of what ever rules or systems are put in place.

People think they can hide behind a Username and let the owners of the site take the heat if a problem arises. I'm not a legal head so I don't know whats involved in making people soley reponsible for what they post or even if that already if the case.

A system where employed individuals with no connections to smods or mods can look at major issues and resolve them is a must imo

I dont think "employed individuals" should be left with the sole responsibility for that task. I think it will create a feeling of "ulterior motive" or "serving two masters". The other alternative is having a system of some sort of unaligned representatives but then we get into the grey area of selection of those reps. Lets not tackle that here and now cos I'm still researching that but suffice it to say that the "Conflict resolution" area is a primary concern to me.

DeV.

themadchef

I am an average Joesephine, and i know there is nothing preventing posters like myself expressing opinions in here. Chances are for what ever reasons we won't.

Please, pretty please, bring back the thanks function so we can show our support for other posters ideas.

therecklessone

My name is URL wrote: »

The amount of topics started about modding and so on is mental, why issues with moderation cannot be dealt with by the moderators involved, in the forums they mod is beyond me.

Each category should have a forum dedicated to Feedback and Help, where the mods can deal with issues and decide amongst themselves if any particular issue warrants been escalated to the attention of Admins. That'd free up their time, and limit a good deal of the soapboxing that goes on.. and it'd be fairer to members too, mods from different forums won't be able to show favoritism to each other

As somebody who is the subject of my fair share (and then some ) of Help desk and Feedback threads, the reason why we are often unable to settle things with users is that they simply don't accept our decisions and want to appeal to a higher level of authority, and I'd hate to see that option removed from users.

Cat Feedback forums would be a good addition, with a couple of Cat Mods assigned to provide oversight.

That will only work if the user base accepts the authority vested in those Cat Mods though.

Rb

A "boards without DeVore" two years from now? Interesting...

I would say that I would hope you'd pay those involved in this "feedback" you'll be asking them for, however I think it's more than apparent that there's enough gob****es around here who'll work for free for you to milk before it should come to that.

I'm glad you're more forthcoming about where your priorities lie for the site (i.e making mula for you to retire on) and I certainly cannot blame you.

DeVore

Ok, while we are dangerously close to taking about the detail, I do like some of these ideas. I particularly like the way people are thinking about what things are "fair" and how we build an equitable community.

I really just wanted to say I havent forgotten my promise to open this topic up for discussion. Nov 17th or before, i'll open a new forum under here called Boarderati and we'll have a whole forum to chase mad ideas and kick sh*t about. Perhaps thats the best way to go about this. I need to do a lot more thinking though, for example:
We need a checks and balances mechanism to keep our User-Mod-Admin structure from veering towards excesses. Something "outside" the system the way the founder admins used to be (more or less). A group that represent a different view, one that is as much a representation of the users as it is the mods or admins or company (who need to be represented because we are in symbiosis with it, they live, we live, they die, we die and vice versa).

So, how do we go about selectin that group? Elections? I dont like elections... I don't like online votes. But is there a better way? In whom do we vest our trust (currently thats pretty much "DeVore" but that cant continue indefinitely).

I'm not looking for an answer to that question (yet) I'm trying to give you an idea of where my brain is at and why I've so much thinking to do, and reading. (Political Theory and other community structures, like Wikipedia).


DeV.

My name is URL

therecklessone wrote: »

As somebody who is the subject of my fair share (and then some ) of Help desk and Feedback threads, the reason why we are often unable to settle things with users is that they simply don't accept our decisions and want to appeal to a higher level of authority, and I'd hate to see that option removed from users.

Cat Feedback forums would be a good addition, with a couple of Cat Mods assigned to provide oversight.

That will only work if the user base accepts the authority vested in those Cat Mods though.

Yeah, I guess that some people will always feel hard done by.

It's a bit stupid though because Mods are just like Admins at the end of the day, it's rare (from what I can tell) that a mod decision is ever overturned by an Admin, so there's really no point in immediately getting them involved

If the Cat Mod can't mediate with the member that has an issue it would be elevated to admins.. It'd still be the same system essentially, but only those connected to the forum in question would have a say in the outcome, most of the time.

DeVore

Rb wrote: »

A "boards without DeVore" two years from now? Interesting...

I would say that I would hope you'd pay those involved in this "feedback" you'll be asking them for, however I think it's more than apparent that there's enough gob****es around here who'll work for free for you to milk before it should come to that.

I'm glad you're more forthcoming about where your priorities lie for the site (i.e making mula for you to retire on) and I certainly cannot blame you.

I dont need you. I dont need that sort of bile either. I dont know why you come here, just to spit invective at us, but I'm not going to allow it any further.

I've permanently banned Rb from feedback. I know where he stands, I dont need to be told it a million times.

DeV.

therecklessone

DeVore wrote: »

So, how do we go about selectin that group? Elections? I dont like elections... I don't like online votes. But is there a better way? In whom do we vest our trust (currently thats pretty much "DeVore" but that cant continue indefinitely).

What about selection by lottery?

Random selection of any user who meets certain criteria (post count, posts per day, posts in last year, whatever you choose), ask each individual will they participate and move down your list if the first drawn say no.

Villain

Umm selection on that one will be tough, elections have one major advantage its something I have posted a few times in Politics, "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve" George Bernard Shaw. So people can't complain because they elected the people.

However that has flaws too and to be honest I'm not sure a site like Boards would work in a democracy type system. I think a mixture of selection along with elections might work i.e. The Admins propose 5 users, the Mods propose 5 and the Users propose 5.

Systems where each type of member is represented will always get more support so if the General users, Admins and Mods each choose a voice the sysem might have some chance. You will never keep everyone happy its trying to find a happy medium and I wish you luck with that

zuroph

surely the mods would jsut choose when they need new mods, and the admins could choose when they need new admins?

Earthhorse

Thanks for starting this thread, Dev, even if it isn't the one you'd talked about starting; I think continual communication is a huge part of making any large organisation work so it's good to see it in action.

You've said this isn't the thread for specifics so I won't go into any here (you may have seen them in Boston's thread) but broadly speaking I think creating a system that is transparent is really important - this is the information age so give us information on how decisions were reached and why. There's a difficult balancing act to be had there with sensitive information and privacy issues.

What I think you need to consider in constructing something that permanently works is:

1. Protections from the governing body (or bodies) getting taken over by vested interests.
2. Acceptance that that may happen and a method of correcting it.

I don't know how you build that into a system (I suspect if anybody did we'd have far better organisations in the world today).

I'm glad to see conflict resolution is high on your list of priorities; I think this is an area that will be of growing importance as boards grows bigger and bigger and merges more and more with people's "real" lives.

Earthhorse

Sorry, one point I forgot; I don't know how you select the representatives (i.e. the best way to). I think the current method of using existing trusted users is beginning to fray (only slightly though) as more and more forums come under control of a slowly expanding group of users. One thing I would say is that rotation of reps is very important as people become jaded and myopic the longer they have been dealing with the same things over and over and over again.

5starpool

Elections of that sort would be pretty pointless imo, as a pain in the ass poster from AH (not saying that AH posters are pains in the ass, just that there are some who are like every forum) would get more votes than a really good long term poster from some of the less busy forums. It would not be a level playing field at all imo. I personally think user appointed reps deciding on helpdesk issues is a pretty unworkable idea.

Hank Scorpio

5starpool wrote: »

Elections of that sort would be pretty pointless imo, as a pain in the ass poster from AH (not saying that AH posters are pains in the ass, just that there are some who are like every forum) would get more votes than a really good long term poster from some of the less busy forums. It would not be a level playing field at all imo. I personally think user appointed reps deciding on helpdesk issues is a pretty unworkable idea.

totally agree with this post, as normal

Gonzales

A constitution sounds good. Could we get it in plain english when it comes around.

good luck with it.

Bubs101

I don't think there's any need for any changes let alone something drastic like a constitution. Boards is a community that has one overlord figure in yourself and then a recognized structure of power that ends with the mods who have administrative powers in their own fora. There's nothing wrong with it. There's a learning curve to using boards, same as any forum and once you get used to how it's run it's great.

I really think your overcomplicating things with a constitution and talking about who represents the posters. Each poster is well capable of representing and defending themselves (I'm presuming your talking within the website and not from external actors). People express opinions on here every minute so they are more than capable of expressing an opinion of a percieved wrongdoing to them in the same format they're used to. Any constitution that's brought in will just be left unread by the clear majority of posters and will probably end up being used against them when a Mod who has read it is defending themselves.

I'd also be dissapointed about taking Boards in a more mature direction. Just because you're growing up Dev doesn't mean everyone else on the forum is;). Good natured immature trolling comments can often be highlights of the day and plenty of posts of the day are just first page trolling attempts on after hours threads ripping the piss out of the first poster

Being honest, if I log onto boards one day and a pop up comes up informing me of a new constitution and urging me to read it I'm xing it and heading right to the soccer forum to look at the latest pointless argument between Boggles and Mr. Alan or the LOI fans vs. the EPL ones

Karl Hungus

DeVore wrote: »

How should users be represented, and to *what* are they represented? Should there be some form of Supreme court, separated from the Judicary, Legislative and Policing branches?

Seriously?

And a 'constitution'?

...

Seriously?

Am I the only one here thinking that boards.ie is in danger of becoming a parody of itself? It's a message board, and there are other message boards on the internet far, far more vast and popular than boards, yet none of them even seem to flirt with this 'nation state' ambitions.

I really do hope you're joking about this supreme court nonsense DeV, and my sleep starved mind is just making me look a fool for not copping on to it. But it's a freakin' message board, it's a platform for discussion, and if people abuse that platform then it should be as simple as chucking those people out on their ear. Considering that most complaints about mods on the helpdesk consist of a user getting an infraction, or ban, and getting in a fuss for being told off, I can't imagine the chaos if every one of these muppets got 'representation'. It's bad enough people abusing the good faith of admins on the prison forum, getting unbanned and then continuing to spam/troll/be abusive.

I think you could pay no greater insult to your moderators, to the people who are putting their time and effort for nothing more than the love of the site, than to appoint some kind of representative to scrutinize mod actions on behalf of users. I've no faith that such a system wouldn't be abused by every banned muppet with a chip on their shoulder and an unwillingness to abide by the site rules or learn from their mistakes.

Please tell me this is some sort of joke, lest boards becomes the joke. I don't even know if I want to be a part of a message board that has delusions of grandeur. And I don't mean that as an insult DeV, boards has been a part of my life for a good 8 years now, and they have been an extremely good 8 years because I met so many friends over the website, had many great times and there's no doubt that my perspective on life wouldn't be the same without boards. It's an absolutely amazing message board, you have a truly great creation here and you forget that. But all this talk about the direction of the site, it is feeling less and less like a community. Boards.ie the community is a fantastic thing, but boards.ie the bureaucratic nation state entity? I doubt that will be something I want to be a part of.

Here's hoping the joke's on me. Constitution? Cool story, bro! :pac:

CHD

I blame Obama for everyone thinking things should change.

Leave the place as it is. It is perfect.

Ludo

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Seriously?

And a 'constitution'?

...

Seriously?

Am I the only one here thinking that boards.ie is in danger of becoming a parody of itself? It's a message board, and there are other message boards on the internet far, far more vast and popular than boards, yet none of them even seem to flirt with this 'nation state' ambitions.

SNIP REST

+1

Thought I was the only one thinking all this but I guess not.

FlutterinBantam

DeVore wrote: »

Ok Fluttering... but if you look at the feedback thread that Boston started, its clear that many DO want to have a say in where it goes and how its managed.

If you arent interested, grand, but dont let your cynicism stand in the way of other people getting involved.

You basically took the time to post "I dont care enough to take the time to post". Oh and some tired barbs about commercialism.

Let me make this clear, in case you think I'm hiding something:

I want to retire one day and have that retirement funded by Boards.ie. I have always said this. But along the way, its ALSO possible that we create a unique place online the like of which no other country has and in doing so create something SO powerful that it bends the will of politicians and companies alike to interact with it along the lines IT chooses.

If I could create that, I would consider my life to be a success. To do that I need to be thinking about how this site works when I'm dead. When no one knows what Quake is. When Internet access is a "right".

You think I'm "greedy" but you have no idea of the scope of my ambition, it goes far far beyond mere money.

If it was all about the benjamins, why would I be trying to create a system which governs itself free from control by any single group or person?

So, I understand you arent interested. Thats ok, you can take your cyncism, and leave.

DeV.

I think Dev ,you have misinterpreted my post entirely.

The point I was trying to make is that in my opinion,the direction that Boards.ie needs to take is of little consequence to 90% of the posters here.

I may be cynical in a lot of my posts but not in that one.
I am a subscriber and have over 6000 posts so if I was that "anti" I would hardly be still around.

I have no problem in the site owners or people like yourself doing well out of Boards.ie fair play to you and long may you gain from it.Well deserved in my opinion,well run and well moderated.The Corporate direction of Boards.ie is your business and you have every right to maximise it's impact.

I know and understand that people can become very protective about a "baby" they have been heavily involved with since gestation, but telling a customer and user that if you don't lit you can leave is in my humble opinion not the way to react to point raised.

Again best of luck with any direction you feel boards should take

DeVore

Ok, sorry that I was short with you then.

People are over thinking what I'm getting at and presuming I'm doing something I may well not do at all. Considering I havent decided anything myself, certainly there is no "plan" yet. There may not be at all. But it bears thinking about.

DeV.

FlutterinBantam

Appreciate that,for the record I have no axe to grind with boards.ie.

None whatsoever.

Just be careful that boards.ie doesn't lose it's unique identity and become something that maybe that is too far removed from it's core activity,and hence tend to alienate the rump of people who at the end of the day are needed to keep the show on the road, your average jaundiced, cynical, acerbic and misinformed poster.

seamus

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

It's a lazy option imo, just because something isn't broken doesn't mean it can't be improved upon..

I think the core of any kind of constitution or mission statement is simply putting the existing situation down on paper and then looking at it to see what needs fixing.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Am I the only one here thinking that boards.ie is in danger of becoming a parody of itself? It's a message board, and there are other message boards on the internet far, far more vast and popular than boards, yet none of them even seem to flirt with this 'nation state' ambitions.

I've yet to encounter a forum-site that's structured in the way that boards is. Boards.ie seems to be the only messageboard with a "conscience" for want of a better word. People who are banned get a chance to actually appeal their case. Any other site I've seen simply says, "GTFO" and gives no avenue to appeal.
Or other sites simply structure themselves differently. Gaia Online is the largest in the world. It has nearly 2 billion posts, about manga and anime of all things. Yet they have only 119 moderators. Boards.ie would turn to mush with only 119 moderators, which tells me that the two sites have to be structured entirely differently.

This freedom ironically actually creates the situation where people complain about over-moderation on boards, because they have the freedom to do so. Few other sites allow the community to decide it's own direction, in fact few other sites have such a concept of community, instead the visitors are simply contributors and if someone gets bored or banned, the attitude is that there are plenty of other people to fill their place, so why cry about it.

Hungover ramblings...
Yes the "nation state" seems to be overthinking it a bit. But in an Irish context, boards is occupying something of a void which exists in other countries but for someone reason isn't seem on the same scale elsewhere.
SomethingAwful isn't a household name in the states. "Boards" is fast becoming a word in Irish society which means, "I read it on the internet". I hear people who don't even have an account on the site, talk about the site, or talk about something they saw on the site.

tbh

personally, I think you are over-complicating things, like Karl said.

My interpretation is that you are trying to attract a lot more users to the site, to grow traffic and therefore revenue. In order to do that, you're trying to set down guidelines to make boards accountable to the very people that don't get boards.

Feedback and helpdesk are always filled with the 1% of posters that don't get boards, it's as simple as that. No matter what measures you put in place, there are always going to be people who've been reprimanded at one stage and take it personally.

What you're trying to do, imo, is please all the people, all the time. All you are going to do, imo, is alienate the people who already "get" boards.

The people who don't respect the current setup aren't going to respect a new setup.

the people who do respect the current setup are going to be "punished" for the actions of the muppets, and the problem is that this is the group of users that contribute 99% of the value of boards.

If you force moderators to justify every action they take against someone who's out to spoil boards, then they'll just quit. You'll be left with the spoilers.

DeVore

tbh.... thats one of the very things I want to avoid. We'll discuss this further in the future, but no, I dont want to have moderators having to bend over for the muppets. Thats not what I'm aiming for at all and not what I'm talking about here.

I'm talking about how we replace moderators, admins and how we can look ahead and see what problems we will face or which will stop us reaching our desired goal (as set out).

DeV.

tbh

ok, well -what is the problem you're trying to fix? Is a problem right now, or something you see arising in the future?

DeVore

Well I have to really think about it heheheh... I did mention that at the start!

But its something in the future, the site is running ok at the moment. How will it fare at 3 times the size? Where will the stresses be and how do we see them before they blow us up.

DeV.

tbh

DeVore wrote: »

Well I have to really think about it heheheh... I did mention that at the start!

But its something in the future, the site is running ok at the moment. How will it fare at 3 times the size? Where will the stresses be and how do we see them before they blow us up.

DeV.

true, sorry

I'll try to summarise what's important to me.

Say five or ten years ago, when net access was way more restricted, boards was like college. It was a collection of people who were collected because they shared at least some common interest.

They knew about, and had access to the net.
They were aware about online communities when most people in society would have considered places like boards "for nerds".
They had an interest in seeing the the community develop.

As the community was smaller, the personal stake that everybody felt they held was probably greater. The impact of both positive and negative contributions was greater as well. If you posted positively, you'd get a good name very quickly, and vice-versa. This contributed to a positive signal to noise ratio, for the most part.

Ok, so now, boards is a lot more like school. There are a lot more people here who don't have any "connection" with boards, as anything other than an information resource. They don't really care if boards succeeds or fails. They haven't made the effort to get here, they just, for example, heard about a particular thread on the TV or radio and googled it.

Now, that's all cool, but it means that there are, and will be a higher concentration of muppets who don't get boards, and never will.

If you want to widen the scope and reach of boards, you have to attract more users - make it easier to sign up. If you do that, you're going to attract more muppets.

Therefore, as far as I can see, you have to make a choice as to what boards should be. Should it go for quality, or quantity? Can you have both, or will you have to compromise on one. And which one?

....which I guess was the point of your OP...I've become aware I'm not really helping here

big b

DeVore wrote: »

I want to retire one day and have that retirement funded by Boards.ie. I have always said this. But along the way, its ALSO possible that we create a unique place online the like of which no other country has and in doing so create something SO powerful that it bends the will of politicians and companies alike to interact with it along the lines IT chooses.

DeV.

The part I've bolded really caught my eye.

In the days before the internet, a guy in the place where I worked (offshore oil rig) used to produce a "gossip sheet" called The Ramblings. Basically a wry view of the funny goings on of the week. Twas very well done, and before long even the temp staff, who wouldn't know most of the people mentioned, would eagerly await the next irreverent missive. It soon found it's way to management of course, and in fairness they viewed it in the spirit it was intended,even though the jokes were often at their expense.
And there the problem started. Once it was recognised that management were reading The Ramblings, the content was very much tailored to that end. Before you know it, there's guys losing promotions & stuff because of some loaded comments, personal issues were washed in public, vendettas started.

Soon, there's guys knocking their bosses door & distancing themselves from The Ramblings. It had become something different from it's origins & a lot of people wanted to say "it's not reflecting my feelings".
It had become a victim of it's own success, and ultimately died.

What's that got to do with boards? Maybe not much, but I see paralells.
What started as a fun way to comment on daily life grew into something that wanted to influence daily life.
One man slightly miffed by a posting became a flood of men distancing themselves from the Ramblings - the "workers musings" was claiming a position of "workers spokesman" which many felt it was not entitled to,or created for, and did not represent them.

I would be very concerned for Boards if it got above it's station -influencing politicians!!!- what % of boardsies must agree with an idea before it's put forward? What if 49% disagree strongly enough to leave?

You've got an enormously successful brand here. I think you should milk it's marketing value for all it's worth. Done well, that would pay for some nice slippers & a pipe for Dev:pac:. I don't think you should go down the road of alienating too many posters in an attempt to make boards more than what it is - a successful & busy internet message board.

tbh

big b wrote: »

You've got an enormously successful brand here. I think you should milk it's marketing value for all it's worth. Done well, that would pay for some nice slippers & a pipe for Dev:pac:. I don't think you should go down the road of alienating too many posters in an attempt to make boards more than what it is - a successful & busy internet message board.

exactly what I wanted to say!

FlutterinBantam

tbh wrote: »

true, sorry


Ok, so now, boards is a lot more like school. There are a lot more people here who don't have any "connection" with boards, as anything other than an information resource. They don't really care if boards succeeds or fails. They haven't made the effort to get here, they just, for example, heard about a particular thread on the TV or radio and googled it.

Now, that's all cool, but it means that there are, and will be a higher concentration of muppets who don't get boards, and never will.

If you want to widen the scope and reach of boards, you have to attract more users - make it easier to sign up. If you do that, you're going to attract more muppets.

Therefore, as far as I can see, you have to make a choice as to what boards should be. Should it go for quality, or quantity? Can you have both, or will you have to compromise on one. And which one?

....which I guess was the point of your OP...I've become aware I'm not really helping here

Teebs I normally agree with your views, but must dissent here.
Posters are the life blood of any forum and the fact that there are many posters here who are not interested in Boards.ie going forward doesn't make them muppets.Now I get your drift but I have seen fora die slowly when the coils of management and "direction" and in some cases lack of direction,squeezed the lifeblood out of the spontaneity and general discourse going on .

big b wrote: »

The part I've bolded really caught my eye.

In the days before the internet, a guy in the place where I worked (offshore oil rig) used to produce a "gossip sheet" called The Ramblings. Basically a wry view of the funny goings on of the week. Twas very well done, and before long even the temp staff, who wouldn't know most of the people mentioned, would eagerly await the next irreverent missive. It soon found it's way to management of course, and in fairness they viewed it in the spirit it was intended,even though the jokes were often at their expense.
And there the problem started. Once it was recognised that management were reading The Ramblings, the content was very much tailored to that end. Before you know it, there's guys losing promotions & stuff because of some loaded comments, personal issues were washed in public, vendettas started.

Soon, there's guys knocking their bosses door & distancing themselves from The Ramblings. It had become something different from it's origins & a lot of people wanted to say "it's not reflecting my feelings".
It had become a victim of it's own success, and ultimately died.

What's that got to do with boards? Maybe not much, but I see paralells.
What started as a fun way to comment on daily life grew into something that wanted to influence daily life.
One man slightly miffed by a posting became a flood of men distancing themselves from the Ramblings - the "workers musings" was claiming a position of "workers spokesman" which many felt it was not entitled to,or created for, and did not represent them.

I would be very concerned for Boards if it got above it's station -influencing politicians!!!- what % of boardsies must agree with an idea before it's put forward? What if 49% disagree strongly enough to leave?

You've got an enormously successful brand here. I think you should milk it's marketing value for all it's worth. Done well, that would pay for some nice slippers & a pipe for Dev:pac:. I don't think you should go down the road of alienating too many posters in an attempt to make boards more than what it is - a successful & busy internet message board.

A truly excellent observation if I may say so.

tbh

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Teebs I normally agree with your views, but must dissent here.
Posters are the life blood of any forum and the fact that there are many posters here who are not interested in Boards.ie going forward doesn't make them muppets.Now I get your drift but I have seen fora die slowly when the coils of management and "direction" and in some cases lack of direction,squeezed the lifeblood out of the spontaneity and general discourse going on .

yeah - you're right. What I meant really was, if you allow boards to grow as it is, you get maybe 1 muppet for 20 decent users (apathetic or not). If you try to force it, you risk getting more. Once that starts to happen, the decent posters drift off and the muppet/user ratio starts to tilt, possibly for good.

seamus

big b wrote: »

I would be very concerned for Boards if it got above it's station -influencing politicians!!!- what % of boardsies must agree with an idea before it's put forward? What if 49% disagree strongly enough to leave?

I'll declare at the start that I've talked with Tom plenty of times on various "future of boards" topics, so I somewhat have the inside track here.

The intention is not that boards.ie "the company" wishes to influence politicians by representing its members and applying pressure, but that boards.ie itself is seen as an essential means of communicating with the public, and by virtue of its very nature, the public are then directly given the power to influence those politicians. There are a large number topics that I can recall on Politics where I thought, "If only the politicians were reading this thread, they'd know exactly what the best course of action is".

This is not something that boards will need to chase. It simply needs to be prepared for it. The "Talk To" set of forums and the commercial interaction side which seems to get some people's backs up, isn't something which boards.ie chased. Nobody went out there cold-calling companies and asking them if they wanted a forum. The companies themselves were queuing up asking, "How can we talk to your community" and until Dav and Darragh were hired, boards just didn't have the resources to handle these requests properly.

It's only a matter of time before a politician or a political party comes to boards asking, "How can I talk to your community?", and boards.ie needs to be ready to catch them, pin them down and sit them in front of the community.

DeV is not talking here about leading the community into any grandiose ideas, or telling people that, "We are going to go in this direction and to hell with you!", but rather simply making sure that the site is adequately ready for the new dimensions which it will organically develop itself.

Nevyn

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Just be careful that boards.ie doesn't lose it's unique identity and become something that maybe that is too far removed from it's core activity,and hence tend to alienate the rump of people who at the end of the day are needed to keep the show on the road

+1 cos I can't thank it.

pickarooney

For what it's worth, I think boards.ie is a rare example of that mmost elusive of structures - a benevolent dictatorship. From the bottom up, I feel boards has thrived for so long due to the common-sense approach to pretty much everything.

Rather than setting things in stone, the introduction of a ruling introduces X interpretations of that rule and at the end of the day someone, somewhere will always have to make a call. I just think it's better that that be done straight off (with an allowable margin of error) than after a lengthy process.

MrMicra

pickarooney wrote: »

I think boards.ie is a rare example of that mmost elusive of structures - a benevolent dictatorship. F

I agree that it is a benevolent dictatorship. The question is should it remain one or should it be structured in some other way.

Perhaps it would be useful to define the current structure of boards.ie (not the company structure the structure of the internet entity). When one understands what the current structure is one can look at what might be wrong with it now and what might become wrong with it in the future.

By the way devore I think you were a bit hard on flutteringbantam he was only reacting within the context created by his internet persona. He probably does care about the future of boards.ie.

As a corollary flutteringbantam if you go around trying to annoy people you shouldn't be surprised when they become annoyed.

AAAAAAH 10 past 2.

Eoin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Just be careful that boards.ie doesn't lose it's unique identity and become something that maybe that is too far removed from it's core activity,and hence tend to alienate the rump of people who at the end of the day are needed to keep the show on the road, your average jaundiced, cynical, acerbic and misinformed poster.

But wasn't the core identity of this site not 99% gaming for a while? Now the site has evolved so it's just one part of a large community. As the site gets bigger and bigger, it's going to have more influence in off line matters, and I think that has to be taken into account.

big b wrote:

I would be very concerned for Boards if it got above it's station -influencing politicians!!!- what % of boardsies must agree with an idea before it's put forward? What if 49% disagree strongly enough to leave?

I think you've got it the wrong way around. Any influence this site will have in off line matters will be because of its station and membership size. As seamus has said, people and organisations are starting to react to what is said here.

Aidric

eoin wrote: »

I think you've got it the wrong way around. Any influence this site will have in off line matters will be because of its station and membership size. As seamus has said, people and organisations are starting to react to what is said here.

What organisations would they be now? If you're talking about Gerry Ryan, Michael O Doherty or some low rank Indo hack then they're nothing stories tbh. Budgets at most media outlets have fallen through the floor and the scope for investigative and original journalism has dried up to a large extent. Just because a story from boards is recycled doesn't mean it's pushing the agenda, simply that the lazy/cheap option is being persued by journalists.
The site shouldn't get ahead of itself prematurely, it fulfills its core function very well and not a lot of tinkering needs to be done. A constitution certainly seems fanciful.