Moderator Performance (was Mods not Gods)

gandalf

votejohn wrote: »

Gandalf, your missing the post that I quoted

"You're here for all of 2 days and looking to change the planet.

Good luck with it."

there was no question there for Podman, i just thought it seemed like the post served to do nothing except perhaps entice an argument.

If you look at mufflers post after this

He could have although I havent seen anything new yet but I fail to see why he had to register a second account to start this thread.

Then you will see that it was.

The questions stands, why set up a new account to ask the question if you already have an account?

And if the response if "because I can" then don't complain if we do not take this thread or any others that this user participates in the frivolous manner that the OP does to their account.

ynotdu

Just on the point of new members(not reregs)Well IMO their post should be treated as importantly as someone who has been here since day one.

I also think they should be moderated more lightly than experianced posters,I accept that is slightly contradictory:),Their posts are as valid as anyone else but they are only on the (Long:D)road to getting a grip on how boards operates.

Happy New year to ALL My readersMy reader!:)

gandalf

ynotdu wrote: »

Just on the point of new members(not reregs)Well IMO their post should be treated as importantly as someone who has been here since day one.

Oh I agree with you 100%. The problem is when you have someone like the OP who has re-regged a new account to whinge then you make it more difficult for new members because you will have people considering are they really a new member or just another poster who doesn't have the fortitude and backbone to post using their normal account.

Podman

gandalf wrote: »

If you look at mufflers post after this

He could have although I havent seen anything new yet but I fail to see why he had to register a second account to start this thread.

Then you will see that it was.

That's not a question, it's a comment.

gandalf wrote: »

Oh I agree with you 100%. The problem is when you have someone like the OP who has re-regged a new account to whinge ..

You obviously don't agree 100% or you wouldn't have said

gandalf wrote: »

.. don't complain if we do not take this thread or any others that this user participates in the frivolous manner that the OP does to their account.

(apologies if I got this out of context, I had to fill in some blanks in your sentence)

I've already answered the query twice anyway, and if your that bothered you can read the thread, if your not bothered then don't go on about it pretending like you are.

gandalf wrote: »

.. you make it more difficult for new members because you will have people considering are they really a new member or just another poster who doesn't have the fortitude and backbone to post using their normal account.

Your clutching at straws here..
How exactly does having a second account make it more difficult for new members?
Do you think that personal insults, antagonizing behavior and provocation will encourage new members?
Or, do you just not like where this thread might be going?

With regards to a dual account, I'm not the first and I won't be the last to have one. I may decide to cancel one or another account at some point in the future, that choice is mine, I might decide to send a few emails to selected people but I won't be asking anyone's permission. I still consider myself a new poster, as I have only been around for 9 months, including taking 4 months out.
I am responsible for what I say, regardless of what account I use to say it. Hundreds of people on this site can see the dual account details, nobody is really breaking any new ground by repeating the fact over and over and over and over again. I'm sure there's a thread for whingers, go there instead of trolling this one.

muffler

Podman wrote: »

I'm sure there's a thread for whingers, go there instead of trolling this one.

Maybe you should practice what you preach.

I have read this thread and I still see no valid reason offered by you for creating a second account and posting what seems to no more than a thread to whinge. You have offered up no constructive comments.

You also post with an air of arrogance which will get you really, really far on this site.

Podman

muffler wrote: »

Maybe you should practice what you preach.

I have read this thread and I still see no valid reason offered by you for creating a second account and posting what seems to no more than a thread to whinge. You have offered up no constructive comments.

You also post with an air of arrogance which will get you really, really far on this site.

very constructive

DeVore

Set My People Free!!!!



The soccer forum is probably our most severely moderated forum, and certainly our most complained about in terms of feedback over the year and yet when we ran a survey there only recently, it turned out that the majority of people actually felt the mods were bang on.

Boards grows, that means more people come here and stay here then leave. If you want anarchy, there is 4chan ... this is Boards. This is how we do things. Suggest some alternative and I'll consider it but until then... there are other discussion sites you can use if our moderation system offends.

Oh and as for your "second account", it simply shows a lack of integrity and belief in your own opinions.

DeV.

tallaght01

DeVore wrote: »

Oh and as for your "second account", it simply shows a lack of integrity and belief in your own opinions.

DeV.

It is indeed that serious.

Podman

DeVore wrote: »

Set My People Free!!!!
.....
Boards grows, that means more people come here and stay here then leave. If you want anarchy, there is 4chan ... this is Boards. This is how we do things. Suggest some alternative and I'll consider it but until then... there are other discussion sites you can use if our moderation system offends.

Don't get me wrong here, this isn't an attack of boards, its a discussion about how to reduce the occurrence of a few bad decisions. I'm happy to see that issues are already dealt with, but I wonder how many thread arguments should escalate so far in the first place. I understand people disagree in threads, but anger, for example, won't make it any better. It's up to every poster to realize that.

Already a few ideas/contributions have come to the surface from this thread (#1, #20/1, #23, #28, #32, #37, #41), the fact that they are already in place shouldn't mean we all stop trying, it's a testament to you guys obviously knowing your stuff.

There has been some good and some bad feedback so far, the bad feedback varies from constructive criticism, to (unfortunately) negative comments destructive to the thread flow, getting personal on occasion. The positive posts within the thread are self evident.

DeVore wrote: »

Oh and as for your "second account", it simply shows a lack of integrity and belief in your own opinions.

DeV.

After some more checking today, I did see some rules of etiquette that apply to everyone here...
-- Duplicate accounts are not permitted - if you require a duplicate account, please PM one of the admins to discuss it.
I never saw this rule before today, and nobody who posted about a dual account was able to link to it for me, so they obviously didn't know either! (arguing blind). As a result of finding this, I won't be posting as podman in the future. As far as I'm concerned, that'll be the end of it.
I will be continuing to post as chompy, with the same integrity and belief in my own opinions as I have in the past, and as you have read here.
-- Personal Abuse will not be tolerated – Attack the post and not the poster.
There are lots of posts in this thread that have little relevance to the original question, but instead I find personally offensive, misrepresenting and distracting from the topic, with some people spiraling off on their own, thinking I said something I didn't. How is that not considered trolling?

In guidelines it's suggested that people contribute in a constructive way, comment on the post not the poster, and that there be no backseat modding, personal abuse or being a dick. If anyone here suggests that these rules only apply to users and not to everyone, your reading them wrong.
Most people follow these rules and guidelines anyway, except for the 0.001% of course.
There are also a few valid posts here that don't veer any further away from the thread but address irrelevant issues that were brought up.

This thread was made to discuss ways of minimizing user dissatisfaction, to make people realize that "we're only people" and we make mistakes, no matter what our "position" in life is.
People like to think they're right all the time, that they can do no wrong. It's not true, none of us are infallible.

This thread should stay open, that's my vote.

Podman

RopeDrink wrote: »

... Even if you wanted to discuss something openly, there is the HelpDesk Forum - I try not to mention Feedback as I consider that as a place FOR Feedback, not debating situations or the actions of people on the website but sadly a lot of people choose to use it in that manner, of which has not yet been opposed so you can include that as well.

I (as podman) posted in the Feedback forum as I think his thread has relevance to everyone, from the super-admin down. It's important that every user has the opportunity to contribute their idea/suggestion, which isn't available in Helpdesk, only the op is able to reply there.

Spiritoftheseventies

I think that mods do a very good job as a whole. But the problem is that some mods from one category post on another thread in another category and think it gives them the right to post whatever they want. Wont mention names but it happened a few times last year Again thought most of them do a good job.

Podman

muffler wrote: »

...I fail to see why he had to register a second account to start this thread.

I had made 35 other posts as podman before beginning this thread.

chompy

chompy wrote: »

I had made 35 other posts as podman before beginning this thread.

But why?

Spiritoftheseventies

Podman wrote: »

In guidelines it's suggested that people contribute in a constructive way, comment on the post not the poster, and that there be no backseat modding, personal abuse or being a dick. If anyone here suggests that these rules only apply to users and not to everyone, your reading them wrong.
Most people follow these rules and guidelines anyway, except for the 0.001% of course.
There are also a few valid posts here that don't veer any further away from the thread but address irrelevant issues that were brought up.

I think those guidelines are very noble but have been told by one mod that I need to grow a thicker skin when i took issue with a personalized post while another poster via pm told me that banter was the key to getting along on boards. Clearly I must have read those guidelines wrong. But have seen a lot of posts where posters have called another poster this that and the other. Some are very clever about it.

Podman

Papa Smut wrote: »

But why?

1. I like the name,
2. after returning from a long break I liked the idea of a fresh start, even though it wasn't exactly a fresh start, it's the idea that's important. (for example, after a long break from playing guitar, I found that I was more enthusiastic about breaking in a new guitar that trying to resurrect an old interest that was dead),
3. I felt like contributing to boards again. ("and I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those pesky kids")

I didn't start a new account to get anyone's back up, or try to be someone else. And quite frankly I'm surprised at how many people jumped on the bandwagon about it, and posted in the thread without making any contribution at all, not even to say that post #1 was a bad idea. Many prefer the witch hunt, it's easier.
I didn't start a new account so that people could amuse themselves chasing the rabbit around the tree.

Having a second account does not mean that what you say is any less valid -fact.
I'd rather have a hundred decent posts that a thousand trashy ones.
It is the poster's points that make for good thread contributions, and not their ID or their thank-you count or their amount of posts or friends.
I'm really surprised that none of the "inquisition" could link to the guidelines for me, but instead railroad the thread away from it's original topic.

(pm for DeVore)

Rev. BlueJeans

Because it's easier for the monkeys to throw faeces than to look outside the cage.

Look, I can see where you're coming from, and also that most of the volunteers here do a bang up job for which they are not thanked half enough. o>

I can also see, on an ongoing basis, that despite multiple complaints about certain issues that very little is done.

The thing is that the upper echelons are striking a balance between keeping the volunteers happy, and the users. By the way, the two are not mutually exclusive, as so many moderators are users elsewhere, and there are what seems like a million of them at this stage.

IOW, dealing with moderator foibles publicly in order to placate the users will drive certain mods batty, whereas, as things stand, dealing with problems behind closed doors, or indeed just paying them lip service publicly as happens in most cases, just results in a lack of transparency, a feeling among the populace that there is little point in making a complaint, *or* expressing disquiet with the way a forum is run/a moderator has conducted themselves in their duties-even if the user concerned hasn't been censured personally.

We can see that a fair proportion of complaints that land on HD bear little weight, and are simply people blowing off steam. However, for those that have a genuine grievance, the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. As I say, many people aren't bothering with the complaints procedure because they see little point.

If a mod acts the langer, even on a one off basis, and is backed up by mates with hur hur remarks-which strengthens the feeling of disenfranchisement on the part of the user, and an admin simply says, "we'll take this on board"-after one of their colleagues links the mods on the thread to one on the mod forum, where's the transparency?

Would it be so hard to deal with the matter (via PM if necessary-for the sake of discretion, admin issued infraction/warning or whatever is merited in any particular case), and post on the thread the action that has been taken, with a line or two of reassurance that this should not happen again? What's the big issue there? God knows there's enough smod/admins around now to easily cope with the workload.

If someone feels that one particular mod on one of the busier(est?) forums on the site is heavy handed and over-zealous in their attempt to exert editorial control on the community-which is in essence random and varied at the best of times, what recourse do they have?

Where is the facility for users to express opinions where they are not directly involved themselves? What's wrong with simply tighter modding on Feedback to prevent any victimisation of anyone on either side of the fence?

HelpDesk is a failure. Didn't work on adverts, doesn't work here.

star-pants

I'd just like to say, that complaints - when put forward in a serious manner are taken as such. When users complain about something going 'ohhh yeah the MODS being all IM IN DA POWER and has banned me blah blah they'd no right, stupid mods' etc -- it's very hard to take them seriously, because they're not acting civilly and are just going to provoke annoyance where it need not be.

Even the title of this thread 'Mods not Gods' would provoke a lot of people/mods, as I for one do not think myself a God in the forums I moderate. Some of us deal with a lot of abuse from posters, some of us have a lot of work to do every day to keep our forums clean and smooth running, so painting all mods with the same brush is insulting to say the least.

The problem a lot of people don't seem to see, is that if you give out about something in a smartarsed way and throw abuse, subtle or not, you lose the full respect of whomevers dealing with you. I don't mind if someone questions what I do as a mod, but when I get pms like 'what the f*ck did I do now??' - well I'll take offence and you'll not have an easy ride.
I see so many threads started here /helpdesk going 'oh ffs I've been banned, wtf, I only said X and of course the mods being all on powertrips have banned me'. To me I instantly think 'well if that's your attitude I might not wonder at why you've been banned'
I've seen some threads whereby someone goes 'Hey, I got banned for X by Y mod, here's the thread, I feel I've been wrongly banned because of Z, if an admin could take a look?' then they usually progress better.

Threads aren't automatically dismissed if someone starts it with a bad attitude, but it's not going to do them any favours.
Admins take the threads seriously if they're serious. You get some posters who blatently ignore warnings/charters and always complain about being banned and say they're being picked on. When they're just not paying attention.

I agree that some people posting in this thread purely to complain about a dual account and not to add anything else constructive is rather silly. Whilst I myself questioned it, I wasn't going to post with that as my only concern. I posted up my view on this issue and you only really responded to my bit about your dual account. You started this thread, you need to keep it on topic. Reply to posts that give ideas/constructive criticism, not ignoring those and only responding to people giving out to you. You gave your answer regarding your dual account, if you keep talking about it people aren't going to get past it.

As said there are hundreds of mods, and whilst we have rules, and the admins/co-mods all watch each other to keep everyone in check, some might be more heavy handed than others. If these situations are pointed out in a non offensive way, it would make it easier to deal with. If I see one of my co-mods doing/saying something I don't quite agree with, I might question them or say 'look that was a bit unfair' or whatever. And they'd do it to me. Because we all need to work off the same page.

Different forums require different levels of moderation - some are easy going/quiet/ self sustaining forums, some are impossible, needing modding 24/7 to keep things from going nuts. What some posters don't see, if they're not long term posters, or even have been here a few months, is that the mods have seen all this before. We've learnt things and seen when something has potential to kick off. So it gets nipped in the bud, because we don't want the hassle and the reported posts. But people/posters who've not seen it before think we're taking the fun out of it, being party poopers, or siding with someone, when in fact we're not, we've just been there, done that, got the headache.

You yourself have said that 99% of moderators do a good decent job. I believe so too, which is why in my first post responding I gave our chain of command. If posters follow it correctly when giving complaints, I think things would be dealt with a lot better, and we would get better feedback and be able to pinpoint problem situations/problem mods a damn sight quicker.
I myself have had posters argue via pm with me, not listening and not accepting what I've said. I have redirected them to the CMod (which is the next port of call) and that if they can't help then Helpdesk is the next. I get told they're not going to bother cuz we're all the same or whatever. THIS is the problem, people either don't bother, or they start feedback threads f'ing and blinding without having gone to the moderator / Cmod in question.

So I think the process is place is a good one, just both posters and moderators need to utilise it properly. Posters AND moderators that jump into complaint threads making stupid comments or random :pac: don't help anyone.

Spiritoftheseventies

Re guidelines.
"Comment on the post not the poster.

Responding to someone's point with personal attacks, regardless of how "witty" you think they are, is not big or clever. It just comes across, at best, as being an ass and at worst a bully with a small doodah (we mean “mind” of course).

It’s much better to stay on the topic of their post, not on the person who posted it. People will respect you for that, take your opinion more seriously and you put the ball back in their court to answer your points.

Abuse is tantamount to saying "you have beaten me with your argument; I can only resort to name calling".

If someone abuses you, don’t respond in kind. Report the post and a moderator will swing by to review it. Abusing them back simply drops you to their level and will probably get you both infracted and/or banned".

Have tried PMing mod on this and have been told to grow a thicker skin. What are guidelines. just guidelines. Make it a rule and maybe personal abuse stops.

Rev. BlueJeans

Yes, complaints need to be both made, and dealt with in a mature manner.

Many aren't, we all know that. Most mods work hard and try to be fair, we all know that too.

The problem is that the chain of command doesn't work, or in at least some cases, is not clearly shown to work. There is no transparency, which isn't the same as starting a witch-hunt.

This in essence is preventing people from expressing concerns about the way, say a certain forum is moderated, or expressing solidarity with the way a user has been treated. A recent banning left users wishing to back up a member of the community with no place to turn-with all that came out of it being the advice to the banned user to PM the mod in question. Now why in the blue blazes should someone be expected to deal directly with the person with whom they have the grievance in the first place, *if they don't want to*?

Admins tend to post their final word, and then lock the thread, in order to close the issue-which is a harsh method of basically telling complainants to get out of the sandbox.

That's just one reason in which the system is flawed. Seems to be a clear case of too many chiefs in my view. The CMod layer seeme to be ignored for the most part, although when even used properly, it does not always work well even with the best will in the world: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055774390

star-pants

RE: Guidelines

They are just that - guidelines for boards.ie
Each forum has their own set of rules added to this, some will say any personal abuse will get you banned. Some forums are more lax due to the topics/nature of that forum. Some stuff is said tongue in cheek or whatnot.
In general *I* have had to grow a thicker skin so as not to be offended by what people say/their views on my view.

We cannot moderate everything. Something you might deem as personal abuse may not be seen by personal abuse by someone else. It's very hard to set a direct line at that.
Which is why we give guidelines to posting, rough rules that are subject to each situation.

IF someone says something to you that you feel is very clearly personal abuse and nothing is done, talk to another mod or the Cmod if it's that serious.
A thing that is also handy to accept is that this is the internet, no one should make you feel bad , I honestly couldn't give a toss what anyone says about me on here. I don't know them personally, they don't know me, so there's f-all truth in it. If they wanna be petty, let them I say.

Rev. BlueJeans

What there seems to be, at least as expressed by the more proactive admins both new and old (as in DeV), and by the CMs, is a wish to maintain and improve things.

This is a noble goal, and one we should all try to aspire to, rather than simply accepting things as they are, even if we do have to toughen our skins in the process.

Boards is like a childrens tea party compared to some other sites out there, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved.

star-pants

I'm not saying we have to accept things as they are - I'm saying that the system we have in place is not being used correctly. So what's the point in changing things if people don't use them properly anyway?
Yes we have to grow and change with things - but if people ignore the system nothing we change will work.

Boards is one of the most popular and used sites - I don't think it would be if it was as crap as so many seem to think.

Podman

Although this thread was "inspired" by an event with another user, I didn't have any gripes with anyone in particular to begin with. I thought that it would be a good place from which to start a discussion.

This thread is about self control, and applies to us all, not just Moderators. If any user thinks they are right 100% of the time, they have a lot of work ahead of them to kill the beast. The thread has Mods in the title but the content applies to everyone. Mods make most of the tough decisions in forums, and are normally responsible for those decisions, taking most of the heat and being accountable for their actions.

Rev. BlueJeans wrote: »

The thing is that the upper echelons are striking a balance between keeping the volunteers happy, and the users. By the way, the two are not mutually exclusive, as so many moderators are users elsewhere, and there are what seems like a million of them at this stage.

I know what you mean and for the most part that is the case, but in essence being a mod and a user is exclusive to just being a user. A mod can remove another mod/user's posting privileges, access or whatever they want, and are (rightly so) given more leeway in threads. Problems only arise when tempers flare after people have been angered, and in anger it's very hard for anyone to see beyond the hurt.

Rev. BlueJeans wrote: »

IOW, dealing with moderator foibles publicly in order to placate the users will drive certain mods batty, whereas, as things stand, dealing with problems behind closed doors, or indeed just paying them lip service publicly as happens in most cases, just results in a lack of transparency, a feeling among the populace that there is little point in making a complaint, *or* expressing disquiet with the way a forum is run/a moderator has conducted themselves in their duties-even if the user concerned hasn't been censured personally.

That's why I decided to make the thread here, and not in humanities or something, because the Feedback forum allows everyone to respond and give their comments/ideas on something that they would only find if they were looking for some kind of feedback from the bosses, who should see the thread anyway. It's not a bitching thread, as some would have it portrayed, it's supposed to be constructive towards a growing system.

As regards doing things publicly, this thread isn't for specific gripes, it's not for dressing down the way things are already done. It's here to promote discussion on how to eliminate bad decisions. The fact that all users make bad decisions at one time or another is also a problem, but it doesn't get half the bad press that bad mod decisions get. I'm not against mods, anyone who can read should know that by now.

It's about seeing a moment of anger coming, and not giving in to it. This stuff is too important to be restricted to pm's or helpdesk.

Rev. BlueJeans

star-pants wrote: »

I'm not saying we have to accept things as they are - I'm saying that the system we have in place is not being used correctly. So what's the point in changing things if people don't use them properly anyway?
Yes we have to grow and change with things - but if people ignore the system nothing we change will work.

No, it's not being used correctly, but neither is it infallible in itself. That's my point.

Some people will always plough their own furrow, all the system can do is try to minimise that, and the workload and stress for all involved.

What's wrong with calling for a bit more transparency, without crossing the line into turning the volunteers into pariahs?

star-pants wrote: »

Boards is one of the most popular and used sites - I don't think it would be if it was as crap as so many seem to think.

First up, I don't think anyone said it was crap. Boards has an awful lot going for it, a general experience free from muppetry, and critical mass to name but two.

It is also too bureaucratic for its own good in some respects, with the grievance procedure being skewed in favour of the status quo, whether we like it or not. There is also no precedent for complaining about moderation policy on parts of the site, unless one is directly affected-and even at that very little is *seen* to be done.

Some of the longest threads on this forum are filled to the brim with strong opinion (and yes, some bandwagonning too) expressed by many many members of a community against one decision or another, or the way a community is managed. Swift decisive action is never an end result of such mass complaints, rather the issue at hand is left to peter out over a day or two, and, as we've seen on a national level, it invariably works, as we're a fickle bunch at the best of times.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ooh looky, a squirrel!

chompy wrote: »

This thread is about self control, and applies to us all, not just Moderators. If any user thinks they are right 100% of the time, they have a lot of work ahead of them to kill the beast. The thread has Mods in the title but the content applies to everyone. Mods make most of the tough decisions in forums, and are normally responsible for those decisions, taking most of the heat and being accountable for their actions.

They're also in the firing line, as they are the first interaction with authority many users have here.

The perception is, that they are ergo immune from any censure on behalf of the management of the site. This is not true in many cases, but they also carry a far bigger stick than the users as a group, or individually. Yes, users individually can be and are often, total idiots in the way they act, but they are as a group, the bread and butter of the site, and their collective opinions are as a rule ignored. They have no voice, despite the mechanisms in place.

chompy wrote: »

I know what you mean and for the most part that is the case, but in essence being a mod and a user is exclusive to just being a user. A mod can remove another mod/user's posting privileges, access or whatever they want, and are (rightly so) given more leeway in threads. Problems only arise when tempers flare after people have been angered, and in anger it's very hard for anyone to see beyond the hurt.

It's emotive, and the worst in people comes out when they've been slapped. That in essence gives users bad press, and I think has been instrumental when taken collectively over the years in creating a culture of "them and us".

chompy wrote: »

That's why I decided to make the thread here, and not in humanities or something, because the Feedback forum allows everyone to respond and give their comments/ideas on something that they would only find if they were looking for some kind of feedback from the bosses, who should see the thread anyway. It's not a bitching thread, as some would have it portrayed, it's supposed to be constructive towards a growing system.

This is the place for it. The title is somewhat unfortunate though, even though it is somewhat accurate in isolated cases-as with the users=abusers cliche I saw on here recently.

Rigsby

Podman wrote: »

So who moderates the Moderators?

You won't have to search for long in the Helpdesk or Feedback to find complaints about certain Moderators being heavy handed, usually in favor of their own arguments or personal friends. It's not always easy to PM someone if you think they hold a grudge.

There should be a performance review of Moderators and Administrators every few months, too many complaints and they get the boot. What do you think?

I dont particularly disagree with you, but it's not a good omen for you to be complaining about mods after only a few weeks on "boards"

ntlbell

Rigsby wrote: »

I dont particularly disagree with you, but it's not a good omen for you to be complaining about mods after only a few weeks on "boards"

You do realise you don't need to have an account to read boards right?

Anyway the lenght of time spent is really irelevant, you don't have to be on boards long to see poor modding descisions.

Kirnsy

muffler wrote: »

You're here for all of 2 days and looking to change the planet.

Good luck with it.

muffler wrote: »

Maybe you should practice what you preach.

I have read this thread and I still see no valid reason offered by you for creating a second account and posting what seems to no more than a thread to whinge. You have offered up no constructive comments.

You also post with an air of arrogance which will get you really, really far on this site.

pot.kettle.black?

Podman

star-pants wrote: »

I agree that some people posting in this thread purely to complain about a dual account and not to add anything else constructive is rather silly. Whilst I myself questioned it, I wasn't going to post with that as my only concern. I posted up my view on this issue and you only really responded to my bit about your dual account.

I believe I thanked you for your posts, they made 100% more of a contribution than some posts have done. Point noted
I'm not going to comment about every little thing I agree with though, or I think is helpful. Sometimes the poster says it all. I appreciate any constructive comments, whether positive or not.

star-pants wrote: »

You started this thread, you need to keep it on topic. Reply to posts that give ideas/constructive criticism, not ignoring those and only responding to people giving out to you. You gave your answer regarding your dual account, if you keep talking about it people aren't going to get past it.

Quite right.

star-pants wrote: »

Different forums require different levels of moderation - some are easy going/quiet/ self sustaining forums, some are impossible, needing modding 24/7 to keep things from going nuts. What some posters don't see, if they're not long term posters, or even have been here a few months, is that the mods have seen all this before. We've learnt things and seen when something has potential to kick off. So it gets nipped in the bud, because we don't want the hassle and the reported posts. But people/posters who've not seen it before think we're taking the fun out of it, being party poopers, or siding with someone, when in fact we're not, we've just been there, done that, got the headache.

I agree. If someone deserves a ban, do it with a big ****ing stick. It's important that the mod or whoever does the banning, explains briefly in the thread why the ban goes ahead. Most helpdesk threads I can remember reading have this very explanation in them (another case of suggesting an idea that's already in place), but the mod in the forum should indicate clearly why the user is being banned, which doesn't always happen. And also that the reason is valid, not just in reaction to something.

Rigsby

ntlbell wrote: »

Anyway the lenght of time spent is really irelevant

I disagree. Someone getting a say, two week ban after only four weeks on boards ( not talking about the OP) looks a lot worse that getting the same ban after four years IMO.

ntlbell

Rigsby wrote: »

I disagree. Someone getting a say, two week ban after only four weeks on boards ( not talking about the OP) looks a lot worse that getting the same ban after four years IMO.

What do you mean "looks worse" ?

Rigsby

ntlbell wrote: »

What do you mean "looks worse" ?

... as in "to a mod." A person is bringing early undue attention to themselves if they get themselves banned after only a few weeks, be they in the right or wrong.

Rev. BlueJeans

It only looks worse if the ban was for a daft reason, or they executed the complaint badly from their side.

If the ban appeal was treated with disdain by an admin purely on the basis of a users join date (catch them admitting to that!) then they would themselves not be fit for the rule they hold tbh.

Podman

A few people suggested that the title "Mods not Gods" is too strong, unfairly leaning against the Mods.

I'll change the title, but to what? any ideas?

I was thinking "Bods not Gods"

---

By the way, in future I won't be arguing with trolls, I'll be reporting them.

Kiera

chompy wrote: »

By the way, in future I won't be arguing with trolls, I'll be reporting them.

Thats the most advisable thing to do tbh. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "feeding the trolls"

Spiritoftheseventies

Fair play for keeping this thread open. Debate is healthy.

Rev. BlueJeans

It's disappointing to think that any user could think that an active admin could possibly close this thread in any event.

It's an active discussion, and as such won't be closed-but the fear of such is something that shouldn't be a factor.

Spiritoftheseventies

You tell me. I have seen cases of people complaining about posts that are clearly there to provoke a reaction. But inexperienced poster who naively uses the troll word gets a yellow straight away most times. I think there is a bit of a fear factor in some categories where posters are simply afraid to speak out now due to the threat of sanction or a thread being closed. Not always the mods fault but i think sometimes they are a bit quick to step in and sometimes it on the wrong side.

Dragan

Podman wrote: »

So who moderates the Moderators?

You won't have to search for long in the Helpdesk or Feedback to find complaints about certain Moderators being heavy handed, usually in favor of their own arguments or personal friends. It's not always easy to PM someone if you think they hold a grudge.

There should be a performance review of Moderators and Administrators every few months, too many complaints and they get the boot. What do you think?

Yeah right, have you seen some of the pointless, bull****, ego driven complaints lodged by users against Mods?

Rev. BlueJeans

Well, there you have it lads, time to pack up and go home.

Because some users are plonkers, it obviously follows that all mods are infallible, and no form of redress is needed.

Podman

Dragan wrote: »

Yeah right, have you seen some of the pointless, bull****, ego driven complaints lodged by users against Mods?

I have yeah, I've seen some pointless, bull****, ego driven arguments on both sides.

So, extend the review to users too?

How would it work?
The user (abuser) who gets repeated bans/reprimands has their history of posts examined to determine 1.are they consistently malicious, 2.has their behavior changed since being "informed" of their abuse, 3.the extent of their involvement in degenerated threads, 4.do they instigate trouble then sit back and watch the show, 5.were they the victim of thread abuse themselves to make them kick off, 6.are they just an innocent person, 7.how big a difference does it actually make.
Just a few ideas.

I understand there are different levels of punishment for infractions, has anyone ever had their ip blocked?

invincibleirish

DeVore wrote: »

The soccer forum is probably our most severely moderated forum, and certainly our most complained about in terms of feedback over the year and yet when we ran a survey there only recently, it turned out that the majority of people actually felt the mods were bang on.


DeV.

They did?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055732327

What do you think of the Soccer forum Moderation...?

Should be very harsh 10 4.95%
Should be harsher 17 8.42%
Just right 69 34.16%
Should be more relaxed 68 33.66%
Should be a lot more relaxed 38 18.81%

By my reading of this a clear majority of people who voted expressed a preference for SF moderation to be relaxed, but was it?.

Furthermore, after the events surrounding the Helix ban fiasco (another modnot god issue) there appeared to be a move by the boards nomenclature to allowing ordinary SFers to give feedback, yet the above thread was promptly shut in early December as it had 'served its purpose'.

seems things haven't really changed at all tbh.

ynotdu

Well since Soccer is not a matter of life or death ,it is more important than that! Will not insult anybody by quoting the source!

Really the Soccer forum being a 'request' thread is a joke!
I would not even ask to be allowed into a forum.
Catch a grip,It's a beautiful game,but it's only a game!!!!!!!!
Jeez look at the forums people get into without a request!

Spiritoftheseventies

chompy wrote: »

I have yeah, I've seen some pointless, bull****, ego driven arguments on both sides.

So, extend the review to users too?

How would it work?
The user (abuser) who gets repeated bans/reprimands has their history of posts examined to determine 1.are they consistently malicious, 2.has their behavior changed since being "informed" of their abuse, 3.the extent of their involvement in degenerated threads, 4.do they instigate trouble then sit back and watch the show, 5.were they the victim of thread abuse themselves to make them kick off, 6.are they just an innocent person, 7.how big a difference does it actually make.
Just a few ideas.

I understand there are different levels of punishment for infractions, has anyone ever had their ip blocked?

Had their ip blocked? I would think that is last resort. probably for people who post very malicious stuff

Rev. BlueJeans

Like the camel ( a horse designed by committee-according to Alec Issigonis), boards, despite the benevolent dictatorship cliche, is and was subject to much input and prodding through the years-mainly admin/mod discussion, and one a few cases to be fair-user input too.

The over-riding answer to everything seems to be to add more rules. In most cases anyway.

Look at the ludicrous situation on AH where all NY discussion thread were pigeonholed into a sticky, and where the Henry incident was closed down en masse a while back, as just two examples, on one forum.

Look at Politics and sub fora-on the other hand, which to me at least seems to be an oasis of calm these days, since mods stopped sticking their oar in every two minutes. The likes of nesf there and scofflaw (even though the chap inexplicably signs his name to everything;)) are likeable, prolific contributors themselves, and mod in a light handed, yet omnipresent manner.

Those charged with soccer are running with the system already in place, so I wouldn't blame them for maintaining things-but the whole setup seems to me to be totally overcomplicated to say the least.

DeV's comment that everyone is happy there is both misleading and inaccurate. That's another days work though (soccer and the community feeling on it), and merits a thread in its own right.

It does illustrate though, that user opinion is often ignored, even on the part of those who do take the time to submit feedback in any manner open to them, I still hold that most people don't, out of apathy or because there isn't a clear way to do so.

Spiritoftheseventies

Rev. BlueJeans wrote: »

Like the camel ( a horse designed by committee-according to Alec Issigonis), boards, despite the benevolent dictatorship cliche, is and was subject to much input and prodding through the years-mainly admin/mod discussion, and one a few cases to be fair-user input too.

The over-riding answer to everything seems to be to add more rules. In most cases anyway.

Look at the ludicrous situation on AH where all NY discussion thread were pigeonholed into a sticky, and where the Henry incident was closed down en masse a while back, as just two examples, on one forum.

Look at Politics and sub fora-on the other hand, which to me at least seems to be an oasis of calm these days, since mods stopped sticking their oar in every two minutes. The likes of nesf there and scofflaw (even though the chap inexplicably signs his name to everything;)) are likeable, prolific contributors themselves, and mod in a light handed, yet omnipresent manner.

Those charged with soccer are running with the system already in place, so I wouldn't blame them for maintaining things-but the whole setup seems to me to be totally overcomplicated to say the least.

DeV's comment that everyone is happy there is both misleading and inaccurate. That's another days work though (soccer and the community feeling on it), and merits a thread in its own right.

It does illustrate though, that user opinion is often ignored, even on the part of those who do take the time to submit feedback in any manner open to them, I still hold that most people don't, out of apathy or because there isn't a clear way to do so.

Must say Scofflaw the best mod I have come across. Knows his stuff and he is fair as well.

Rev. BlueJeans

He is, and it should be remembered that there are many many more like him-without embarrassing people by naming names, but their dedication to the communities, to helping others, and cheering us all up by dispensing a bit of humour now and then, among many other attributes-is a great thing.

star-pants

Just regarding IP blocking, it's not something that can always be done / something that would be done remotely lightly. I'm not even sure if it *has* been done.
IP isn't just one person, a few people can share an IP address so is it fair to block all those people just for one being a twit?

ynotdu

star-pants wrote: »

Just regarding IP blocking, it's not something that can always be done / something that would be done remotely lightly. I'm not even sure if it *has* been done.
IP isn't just one person, a few people can share an IP address so is it fair to block all those people just for one being a twit?

Hi Starpants it is becoming more common for an individual to get a unique ip address.

There is another layer of banning by MAC address,like everything else it can be circumvented but takes a bit more work than most would bother with!:)

If You have been affected by this post please send euro50 to PO box

i

i will fix it for ya:pac::pac::pac::)

Rev. BlueJeans

Any fool can post through a proxy anyway.

Xavi6

ynotdu wrote: »

Well since Soccer is not a matter of life or death ,it is more important than that! Will not insult anybody by quoting the source!

Really the Soccer forum being a 'request' thread is a joke!
I would not even ask to be allowed into a forum.
Catch a grip,It's a beautiful game,but it's only a game!!!!!!!!
Jeez look at the forums people get into without a request!

I can only assume that you didn't research the reasons for the access request system before you dismissed it. Feel free to correct me though.