Allow more feedback

Time Magazine

Admin folk,

I have some very simple feedback: allow more feedback.

I feel you are too quick to block off things from being discussed. This is a discussion forum.

Allow people to express dissatisfaction. They might have something very worthwhile to say.

Allow mods to query. (Mods eyes only.) We're important and don't like being shut up.

Boards should be open 24 hours. I should not have to wait for my posts to be effectively pre-moderated in these discussions.

It is insulting to posters to delete cogent, insightful, inoffensive posts. It is telling that these days people are saving copies of their posts just in case.

We've been through this before. Talking doesn't hurt.

Finally, yes, we know that ultimately it is the team of admins who call the shots. We know that the shareholders of Boards Ltd have given you this power. We understanding the need for such a system. We understand that you volunteer many hours and that you make the right call almost always.

But please understand that simply repeating your authority several times over will not make any given decision anymore acceptable to the community.

Your continued refusal to fully engage in dialogue makes bitter pills a little harder to swallow. Even allowing a vent can relieve some of this pressure.

Basically, let us talk. Even if we're talking shite, it's our site too.

Regards,
TM

Overheal

I would be inclined to agree, But its easy, very easy, for Feedback threads to get absolutely nuts [even in the absence of Cats]. A Big problem is when the threads basically get Dominated by just a few posters, and what you get in return is 3 or 4 pages of 3 or 4 posters just arguing back and forth with eachother in the Off-Hours while theres no-one else to add their contributions. In the example you posted, Boards Should be open more than 24 hours, that thread was going at an insane rate: 5 new posts Popped up by the time I had my first written up. Which is ironic, given the opening statement of the post in question.

The problem being that sometimes, the Volume just gets nigh unsustainable.

We're important and don't like being shut up.

Already brought up in said thread already, though conceivably missed on the re-read. Case and point.

We've been through this before. Talking doesn't hurt.

As far as that unique episode goes, Im not sure what discussion you felt was necessary. Not to re-open a closed case, but it seemed pretty clear-cut to me, albeit extraordinary.

Time Magazine

Time Magazine wrote: »

Admin folk,

I have some very simple feedback: allow more feedback.

I feel you are too quick to block off things from being discussed. This is a discussion forum.

Allow people to express dissatisfaction. They might have something very worthwhile to say.

Allow mods to query. (Mods eyes only.) We're important and don't like being shut up.

Boards should be open 24 hours. I should not have to wait for my posts to be effectively pre-moderated in these discussions.

It is insulting to posters to delete cogent, insightful, inoffensive posts. It is telling that these days people are saving copies of their posts just in case.

We've been through this before. Talking doesn't hurt.

Finally, yes, we know that ultimately it is the team of admins who call the shots. We know that the shareholders of Boards Ltd have given you this power. We understanding the need for such a system. We understand that you volunteer many hours and that you make the right call almost always.

But please understand that simply repeating your authority several times over will not make any given decision anymore acceptable to the community.

Your continued refusal to fully engage in dialogue makes bitter pills a little harder to swallow. Even allowing a vent can relieve some of this pressure.

Basically, let us talk. Even if we're talking shite, it's our site too.

Regards,
TM

Excellent post

Nevyn

As much as I am loathe to say this maybe it's time to bring back yorema.ie
http://web.archive.org/web/20020721220040/http://www.yorema.com/

The list of things which we are not allowed discusson in this 'discussion' site certianly seems to be growing.

nesf

Yeah, biggest problem is that most people have already made their mind up about this before even beginning to discuss it.

Seriously, I cannot see any way for a demodding of a popular mod to go well regardless of how justified it may or may not be. Discussion is of arguable value in such a situation since it polarises rather than improves the situation.

Nevyn

That is one way of looking at it but unless people can be allowed to have thier say and air thier grievences then things will fester and resentment builds that is counterproductive to how this place runs which is due to bonds of trust.

nesf

Thaedydal wrote: »

That is one way of looking at it but unless people can be allowed to have thier say and air thier grievences then things will fester and resentment builds that is counterproductive to how this place runs which is due to bonds of trust.

True. Free speech is a double edged sword and all that.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

nesf wrote: »

Seriously, I cannot see any way for a demodding of a popular mod to go well regardless of how justified it may or may not be. Discussion is of arguable value in such a situation since it polarises rather than improves the situation.

If the bolded bit was true, there wouldn't be a politics forum.

nesf

Hitchhiker's Guide to... wrote: »

If the bolded bit was true, there wouldn't be a politics forum.

Many of the discussions in Politics are of little value. Look at any Palestine thread, same people throwing the same arguing points around ad infinitum. Most of the more productive threads on Politics imho are the ones where people enter with open minds and haven't already decided what they believe.

BuffyBot

I have some very simple feedback: allow more feedback.

Let's be fair, the hundreds of open threads on this forum alone shows we do allow Feedback

I feel you are too quick to block off things from being discussed. This is a discussion forum.

We try not to, and for the most part we succeed. However, I'd prefer constructive discussions which allow us to move forward: that's Feedback to me - not the 19 page threads of emotive discussions which do occur. The best Feedback comes from non-emotive threads - which is what I'm trying to gather.

Allow people to express dissatisfaction. They might have something very worthwhile to say.

We know people are disatisfied with a particular action, and I'm trying to encourage people to say what they want to in a constructive manner, and to ask questions. By bringing something to a general discussion rather than a person-centric one, I'm hoping we can actually get something out of it other than recriminations

Allow mods to query. (Mods eyes only.) We're important and don't like being shut up.

Again, for the most part we do. However, sometimes some debates are better left between the people involved

Boards should be open 24 hours. I should not have to wait for my posts to be effectively pre-moderated in these discussions.

Boards is. I'm not. In order to have a managable thread where I can clearly see the questions and address them, I put a temporary hold on it until I came back. Nothing would be served by a 20 page thread where I couldn't see what people are saying, or reply to their questions

It is insulting to posters to delete cogent, insightful, inoffensive posts. It is telling that these days people are saving copies of their posts just in case.

Again, we try not to. But sometimes we have to - no matter how cogent or insightful: if they are misplaced or likely to draw a discussion in a way we're hoping it won't, then it has to be done. Exactly the same way it's done in the forums.

Quazzie

Overheal wrote: »

I would be inclined to agree, But its easy, very easy, for Feedback threads to get absolutely nuts [even in the absence of Cats]. A Big problem is when the threads basically get Dominated by just a few posters, and what you get in return is 3 or 4 pages of 3 or 4 posters just arguing back and forth with eachother in the Off-Hours while theres no-one else to add their contributions. In the example you posted, Boards Should be open more than 24 hours, that thread was going at an insane rate: 5 new posts Popped up by the time I had my first written up. Which is ironic, given the opening statement of the post in question.

Does that mean that all forums shut be shut when the moderators sleep? Some people don't be online during BuffyBots waking hours so by locking the thread she invalidated their opinions. Yet another example of how severely out of touch with the users the Admins of this site really are if you ask me.

Quazzie

BuffyBot wrote: »

Boards is. I'm not. In order to have a managable thread where I can clearly see the questions and address them, I put a temporary hold on it until I came back. Nothing would be served by a 20 page thread where I couldn't see what people are saying, or reply to their questions

Request more moderators of feedback if needed rather than shut down a thread would be my suggestion to this problem.

The thread that was locked was feedback, not "1-on-1 with BuffyBot" so really your precence in particular wasn't required.

BuffyBot

To be fair: I never said or implied it was ideal.

But to make things more managable, it's a useful way to do things. Especially when people are prone to post things in the heat of the moment. As I said above, I'm trying to get a thread where I can actually keep track of things, collate them and work from there. A 20 page monster left to run and run: not conducive to that

Cabaal

Quazzie wrote: »

Request more moderators of feedback if needed rather than shut down a thread would be my suggestion to this problem.

.

To get 24hr cover you'd need to be sure that
1 The mods are in different time zones
2 They don't actually have jobs and can spend all their time on boards

Its not workable to guarantee 24 moderators, mods do their thing in their spare time its not a job they get paid for

Quazzie

It would be reasonable to say though that if a thread is shut down because of lack of moderation capabilities (as genuine as the reasons are) then surely haveing more mdoerators would help to solve this problem in some way. 24Hr moderation is a idealogy that ill never be realised but surely having more than two moderators would help the situatuon vastly.

Am I mistaken in thinking that there use to 4 or 5 moderators for feedback?

nesf

Quazzie wrote: »

It would be reasonable to say though that if a thread is shut down because of lack of moderation capabilities (as genuine as the reasons are) then surely haveing more mdoerators would help to solve this problem in some way. 24Hr moderation is a idealogy that ill never be realised but surely having more than two moderators would help the situatuon vastly.

Am I mistaken in thinking that there use to 4 or 5 moderators for feedback?

It wouldn't really help because it'd be crossing one of the biggest lines drawn in the sand about moderating on here. i.e. that it's not a job, it's not something where you have to be on from X time to Y or else.

That's a line, that if crossed, would cause many mods, including myself, to step down. I give my time freely but only on condition that I get to choose when I give it. If something important comes up, boards gets put to one side and that has to be how it will be unless they want to pay me to do this.

Quazzie

I think you might have taken me up wrong nesf, or maybe I have said it wrong, leading to this misinterpretation. I'm not requesting that any one person, or any group of people be on-line at any specific times or intervals, what I am saying is that because of your exact point about the sporadic nature of moderation input and on-line accessibility that maybe a forum like feedback could utilise more moderators therefore reducing the possible time where the forum goes unmoderated, and requiring locking of certain threads.

I am in no way saying that BuffyBot, or indeed any moderator be forced to offer their services, other than at times that is convenient to them, because it is a voluntary service after all.

Time Magazine

BuffyBot wrote: »

Let's be fair, the hundreds of open threads on this forum alone shows we do allow Feedback

And to be fair the second word in this three-words-long thread-title negates any doubt that I'm suggesting you don't accept feedback. I'm suggesting you don't accept enough of it.

I'd prefer constructive discussions which allow us to move forward: that's Feedback to me - not the 19 page threads of emotive discussions which do occur.

Why do you think 19 page threads emerge? Think people have nothing better to do so they feign discontent?

Feedback threads people speaking their mind. Often it's ****e, often they get rightly banned for saying the admins are all idiots and the like. But fundamentally the 19 pages are feedback and, with respect, it's not the job of the admins to pre-emptively judge the value of feedback. By all means evaluate its usefulness ex post, and if it's abusive ban away, but stop with this "I don't think this'll be useful" approach.

We know people are dissatisfied with a particular action, and I'm trying to encourage people to say what they want to in a constructive manner, and to ask questions.

I have absolutely no doubt that your intentions are as you state. I'm telling you now that from my perspective at least, you're building frustration and resentment. I can understand why LL was demodded; I can. But I want to challenge you on it. I know you're volunteers, but I want you to expect a thorough grilling immediately from members for such an action. Too often the admin response is "oh, silly you, this has been debated for ages by the admins. Don't concern yourself with it." I will accept your decision one way or the other in the end, but your refusal to engage (via your decision that you "prefer" certain types of feedback and the nonsensical "this isn't the place for this, but neither is Feedback, actually it's just between us and him, even though all you guys are upset" attitude) stifles feedback and ultimately leaves posters pissed off with your decision.

Again, for the most part we do. However, sometimes some debates are better left between the people involved

It's precisely this attitude that I'm upset about.

Nothing would be served by a 20 page thread where I couldn't see what people are saying, or reply to their questions

It's precisely this attitude that I'm upset about. Yes, a 20 page thread where 400 different people come in and say they are in unhappy does serve a purpose.

Again, we try not to. But sometimes we have to - no matter how cogent or insightful: if they are misplaced or likely to draw a discussion in a way we're hoping it won't, then it has to be done. Exactly the same way it's done in the forums.

I disagree. This forum is completely different to other forums.

I would suggest one of two things happen:

1. Lose the opinion that 20 pages of non-insulting but repetitive feedback is useless
2. Introduce a non-admin mod of Feedback who can remove abuse but permit angry feedback. The admins can then step back and enter into an abuse-free Feedback and take everything on board, whether it's the type of contribution they'd "prefer" or not