Discussion on the Help Desk

seamus

Hitchhiker's Guide to... wrote: »

Think we're going to need a bit more than the vacuous "and the reason is valid", given all the detailed feedback against the system on this thread.

Helpdesk was traditionally a discussion between the user and an admin. Where the mod's input was needed, the mod was given access to the helpdesk to comment. Giving access is not a difficult process, but maintaining the access list is, because it was easier to leave mods with the access on the understanding that they would only comment when asked.

What started occuring with complaints/ban appeals is that other mods with no relevance in the discussion started putting their oars in á la Feedback.

So to remove the pain of maintaining any kind of access list, what was desired was a system whereby:

1. Any user can start a thread.
2. The relevant mod can be granted access to that thread only to comment on it

vBulletin doesn't have per-thread permissions. So an alternative was to provide *all* mods with general access to the helpdesk, but with premoderated posts. So comments from the relevant mod could be approved, comments from anyone else are removed.

However, another technical limitation arose there. It wouldn't be possible to pre-moderate moderator's posts, without premoderating *everyones* posts, including the thread starter (it's a limitation caused by usergroups).

This is why we now have the situation where the thread starter's posts are premoderated, but every single post by them is approved.

It's not perfect, but it's easier than maintaining an access list.

If it was possible to not have to premoderate the thread starter's posts, then it would be done.

My name is URL

Would individual HDs for each category not fix (or at least improve) the situation? CMods would be the ones to decide whether cases need to be deferred to Admins, and Mods would have a direct and less public line of communication with the users having the issue, while at the same time maintaining transparency

Just a thought, I'm sure there are flaws to it too though

tbh

My name is URL wrote: »

Would individual HDs for each category not fix (or at least improve) the situation? CMods would be the ones to decide whether cases need to be deferred to Admins, and Mods would have a direct and less public line of communication with the users having the issue, while at the same time maintaining transparency

Just a thought, I'm sure there are flaws to it too though

would 13 helpdesks be more efficient than one tho? and if you change the system, wouldn't it be easier to change one helpdesk?

My name is URL

tbh wrote: »

would 13 helpdesks be more efficient than one tho? and if you change the system, wouldn't it be easier to change one helpdesk?

It would require more moderation but I don't think it'd be less efficient regarding the end results. I just think that Mods and CMods of each forum should have a more direct say in how their respective forums run, because they're the ones with a better grasp of how things are done in the forums they mod.

I know the current dispute resolution process is designed to make it more direct between mods and users, but the fact that it's not an open system might put some off.

Maybe people would feel more comfortable dealing in a direct and open way with the people responsible for looking after the forum they have an issue in.

tbh

My name is URL wrote: »

It would require more moderation but I don't think it'd be less efficient regarding the end results. I just think that Mods and CMods of each forum should have a more direct say in how their respective forums run, because they're the ones with a better grasp of how things are done in the forums they mod.

I know the current dispute resolution process is designed to make it more direct between mods and users, but the fact that it's not an open system might put some off.

Maybe people would feel more comfortable dealing in a direct and open way with the people responsible for looking after the forum they have an issue in.

but the current hd proceedure is for cmods to deal with an issue before it goes to admins -it's important that that is followed, I agree, because of the points you've raised above. Part of the way we ensure it's followed is to remind users over and over till it becomes bedded in that this is the procedure to follow. And that's part of the complaint that seems to be repeated here, that admins *shouldn't* do that, they should just deal with the complaint.

I'm not splitting hairs with you, I promise, I just don't understand what would be different in the system you're proposing to the one that's already there. My own feeling about helpdesk is that it's the least worst way of doing things, if there's an alternative, I'm all ears.

My name is URL

tbh wrote: »

but the current hd proceedure is for cmods to deal with an issue before it goes to admins -it's important that that is followed, I agree, because of the points you've raised above. Part of the way we ensure it's followed is to remind users over and over till it becomes bedded in that this is the procedure to follow. And that's part of the complaint that seems to be repeated here, that admins *shouldn't* do that, they should just deal with the complaint.

I'm not splitting hairs with you, I promise, I just don't understand what would be different in the system you're proposing to the one that's already there. My own feeling about helpdesk is that it's the least worst way of doing things, if there's an alternative, I'm all ears.

Isn't the system that's in place atm what's causing a lot of people to feel how they feel? The whole ACT thing somewhat relates to how that system works.

Mods & Cmods should be accountable for what happens on their forums.
The communication between Users and Mods (as well as Admins) should be as transparent as possible

That's just my take on it, I don't know if anyone else would agree

muffler

There's one major flaw with the help desk procedure and its one I can relate to. A user can make a nasty allegation against a mod and is told to either PM the mod in question or contact the Cmod. Thats it, end of help desk thread.

The user has achieved what he set out to do and that was to discredit the mod in the eyes of the glaring mass.

I dont think you can call that either fair or equatable.

tbh

My name is URL wrote: »

Isn't the system that's in place atm what's causing a lot of people to feel how they feel? The whole ACT thing somewhat relates to how that system works.

yes, but it seems to me that the only difference between what we have now and what you're suggesting is that instead of 1 problem forum, we have 13. If you simply split the forum out to 13 forums without making any changes to the system, you'll just have 13 smaller problems.

If you make a change to the system, why not do it in the main HD forum

tbh

muffler wrote: »

There's one major flaw with the help desk procedure and its one I can relate to. A user can make a nasty allegation against a mod and is told to either PM the mod in question or contact the Cmod. Thats it, end of help desk thread.

The user has achieved what he set out to do and that was to discredit the mod in the eyes of the glaring mass.

I dont think you can call that either fair or equatable.

totally agree. A user accused me of lying because he misunderstood what happened on thread, and there was nothing I could do about it, even tho he apologised to me in PM.

My name is URL

tbh wrote: »

yes, but it seems to me that the only difference between what we have now and what you're suggesting is that instead of 1 problem forum, we have 13. If you simply split the forum out to 13 forums without making any changes to the system, you'll just have 13 smaller problems.

If you make a change to the system, why not do it in the main HD forum

If the main HD forum was to be opened up there'd be a hell of a lot of noise in it, and some issues could be overlooked.

By giving each Cat a HD, the noise will naturally be reduced. And the only input will be from those directly involved in maintaining the individual forums.

tbh

My name is URL wrote: »

If the main HD forum was to be opened up there'd be a hell of a lot of noise in it, and some issues could be overlooked.

By giving each Cat a HD, the noise will naturally be reduced. And the only input will be from those directly involved in maintaining the individual forums.

AHHH - sorry, I understand now. I'd be supportive of that, sure.

dr.bollocko

We are getting side tracked.
The reality of boards now is a bunch of communities with overlaps and divides. Particularly relating to say, motors, soccer, AH, Poker as I'd observe it.
Now you take an issue in soccer. PM the mod.
"Feck off pal" says the mod. More politely but not the answer you were looking for regardless.
This has taken maybe a 24 hour period between ban and response, maybe less.
PM the c-mod.
"Sorry sunshine, not a hope."
Perhaps we're now on day two of said ban.
Hmmm.
Post in helpdesk.
Does the thread get approved automatically? Or does an admin need to approve the thread?
Hang on, I'll check.
No it doesn't need admin approval.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64188789#post64188789
Somebody should delete that.
So you post your thread. Wait maybe 8 hours to a day for a response from an admin.
Admin: Usually it's "Did you PM the mod?"
Poster: "Yes."
Admin: Did you PM The cat mod?"
Poster:"Yes."
Admin:"Well then you're probably wrong if you're in here sonny."
Poster:"But I reckon it's unfair. Having said that my ban's been lifted now and I can't get any support on my side because despite my issue all of you guys with lots of letters after their name who I've never seen posting on the forum I was banned from have said I was wrong. And all I've seen are a bunch of other people ranting about why x mod is crap and they're all getting banned and everyone in here is saying that they're wrong too. Because they didn't PM a cat-mod."
Admin looks around. "Don't see anyone in here agreeing with you sonny. Off you pop."
Poster wanders off grumbling. "Now why in the feck did I bother going through all that crap when all I have seen is a process in which three people tell me I'm wrong one after another for a few days and then my ban gets lifted anyway by the time we're even discussing the issue. With the admins. With nobody speaking for me or on my side at all. Well this system is a load of bullcrap. And I won't use it again."

In fact we should probably rename helpdesk the "You're probably wrong so please don't bother your hole and save yourself from typing those posts at all" forum.

Vs.

Smaller feedback / helpdesk fora for specific communities.
I mean the biggies, not your pokemon and the like with no posters. /cough thunderdome /cough.
No pre-moderation. Moderated by the mods whose name you actually recognise because they post in and understand the forum you post in so they have authority as well as the knowledge to make a decision.
You ask a question. Get an answer from somebody you recognise.
Specific issues are actually allowed to be discussed.
(Note you actually getting an answer that isn't "Did you PM x? Did you follow dispute resolution procedure Y? Honestly if you don't even know what the DRP is then I'm already quite sure you're wrong.")

Oh noes. We have unmoderated feedback and theres thirteenz of them. Not just onez now. Oh my god. There are not enough cat pictures. Somebody get me a cat and a hitler moustache.
Trolls show up.
Moderators are moderating smaller feedback forums.
Trolls get warned politely, then removed if persistent.
Moderators of smaller feedback forum explain calmly to trolls why they trolling.
Trolls understand. Troll and moderator hug. Boards better place.
Everyone happier. Dev headache gone.

_blank_

seamus wrote: »

This is why we now have the situation where the thread starter's posts are premoderated, but every single post by them is approved.

I can categorically state that that simply is not the case.

Every single post by an OP in Helpdesk is not approved.

I know, because I'm a victim of it.

tbh

Doc, I think you're being unfair in your summary of HD as it is now. Having said that, I think the alternative you suggest is better than how I would summarise HD as it is now

_blank_

tbh wrote: »

Doc, I think you're being unfair in your summary of HD as it is now.

No it's not.

If someone wants to appeal a ban of one week, It can take up to three days for them to get heard in HD. That is ridiculous.

Hank Scorpio

Bollockos post is excellent - Plus hes neutral!

In my 2 years + on boards i dont think iv ever a ban being overturned on helpdesk. Kinda reminds of an ex soccer mod who was constantly giving me infractions, gave up after appealing once for the reasons outlines by bollocko above. The process is far too tedious.

dr.bollocko

tbh wrote: »

Doc, I think you're being unfair in your summary of HD as it is now. Having said that, I think the alternative you suggest is better than how I would summarise HD as it is now

Perhaps I was being facetious but I still think my description of why helpdesk doesn't work is wholly accurate.
BTW we never did get a response to the thread you started there either did we?
Here it is in case you'd forgotten as it appears everyone else has.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055655851

27/08/2009. I am still waiting by the phone.

We'll be waiting a while yet for a return on that one. Glad it wasn't a request to overturn a ban or something eh?

Dub13

I see the point about how long a helpdesk review can take,Des made some good points about a week ban taken a couple of days.Does anybody have any suggestions about how to improve this process...?

Also should this not have its own thread.

_blank_

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Perhaps I was being facetious but I still think my description of why helpdesk doesn't work is wholly accurate.
BTW we never did get a response to the thread you started there either did we?
Here it is in case you'd forgotten as it appears everyone else has.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055655851

27/08/2009. I am still waiting by the phone.

We'll be waiting a while yet for a return on that one. Glad it wasn't a request to overturn a ban or something eh?

Good example.

I myself asked a question about a forum I mod, and while the time frame isn't anything like your wait, it's far longer than I expected to wait.

Apparently it's "being discussed". Now that shows a couple of things.

1. There are too many Admins, and a consensus can't be reached, so nobody ever comes back with an answer

2. Requests get forgotten about, which is not an ideal situation

3. Nobody actually wants to address the query for some reason

We need a proper turnaround time for queries. If we were to continually bump threads it wouldn't go down to well either.

Christ almighty, and Admin looked into your one, but they aren't even an Admin anymore.

Unbelievable.

tbh

dr.bollocko wrote: »

BTW we never did get a response to the thread you started there either did we?
Here it is in case you'd forgotten as it appears everyone else has.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055655851

27/08/2009. I am still waiting by the phone.

I forgot about that, so I'm not going to blame anyone else for forgetting.

We'll be waiting a while yet for a return on that one. Glad it wasn't a request to overturn a ban or something eh?

it's like saying I was waiting in A&E for 10 hours with a splinter in my finger - good job it wasn't a heart attack, eh?

but still, I'm not going to disagree with you, and I like your and URLS suggestion of cat-specific feedback forums.

dr.bollocko

tbh wrote: »

I forgot about that, so I'm not going to blame anyone else for forgetting.

Forgot to get back to a banned user.
Forgot to look at proposed changes to a forum I never read.
Forgot to post in the feedback thread relating to admins.
Forgot to ask a moderator a few more follow ups before demodding.
Forgot to check with co-mods or cat mods.
Forgot to explain my decision clearly.
Forgot to approve a post.
Forgot to explain to current mods why a newly proposed moderator isn't suitable.
Forgot that to be polite costs nothing.

Do you still think the current interaction between moderators, posters and admins is working as well as it could be?
Really?

tbh

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Do you still think the current interaction between moderators, posters and admins is working as well as it could be?
Really?

I don't think that there is anything in the world that is working as well as it could be. But pointing the fact out without suggesting a different way of working is pointless, to my mind.

LoLth

Thought I'd join in on this discussion. I'm not here to dictate anything about the thread itself or make any attempt to keep it on track etc. I just thought I'd respond to questions as best I can and not have you going on a best guess scenario. I am relatively new to the admin stuff but I've been around for a long time. I cant guarantee I have an answer to all of your questions but if I dont, I'll tell you and then go and see if I can find one.

I'd like to start by actually asking a question myself

Xavi6 wrote: »

Pre-moderated posts for a start.

Also the people allowed to contribute is very restricted to the point where it's essentially a single user against the whole of the admin team plus maybe a mod or two who are most likely to all be on the same side anyway.

the latter part of this statement concerns me. Is this your idea of what a user would think? is this your perception of the helpdesk in general?

I personally would think of the helpdesk as a place for resolution of an issue through discussion rather than a battleground where you face off against your enemies. Ideally, and I do use the word "ideally" instead of "actually" on purpose a user or moderator who has an issue with a decision that affects him or her (I'm just going to use him for now) should be able to post on the helpdesk and discuss the matter with the person that caused the issue and hopefully a neutral third party. Its not meant to be a trial or a fight, its just supposed to be help in resolving the problem. The key word for me would be resolving. It was not meant to be a place for seeking retribution or for character assassaination or mud slinging and name calling. I do see your view on being against the "whole of the admin team". Probably why admins dont all jump into a thread. One or two would respond.more than that would be unusual and only if directly requested. Thats my understanding of it anyway. There may be exceptions but those would have to be considered on a case by case basis and the circumstances examined surrounding the event rather than just the event itself.

The process of helpdesk:

A user posts that a ban is unfair or just wonders why he cant post to X forum anymore. The process is , an admin picks up the thread, checks the user history and posts to see if there is a ban or infraction, if there is the admin checks the reason for the ban. That is then communicated back to the user. If the user says "thats not true" or further objects then the moderator or cmod in question is contacted and brought in to give their side of the story. Sometimes though, this can get messy. One or the other has a momentary lapse in judgement and posts something they shouldnt.

Its a flexible but long procedure that tries to cover all bases. Its not perfect. oversights do happen (proof that admins arent just sub-routines of a network brane!) Admin response adds one timeframe, then mod response or cmod response etc. its not like a phone, its not instant. Trust me, I joined the admins recently and already this has been discussed. I went back through the admin forum and I see it has been discussed in the past.

There is a discussion going on currently concerning this. I dont want to post details as there is nothing solid enough to present yet but I will say that URL's post shares a lot in common with my own and other admin's viewpoint and that is getting a good hearing. Will that be the way things go? I dont know yet. What I would like though, would be for the admins to present possibilities to the mods and cmods and see which way would work best. The admins cant think of every angle and possible failing. All of boards together cant think of every single possibility. I'm pretty sure that we could cover a lot of potential pitfalls (and if we open it up to CT we'd probably all be sleeping with our lights on for a few weeks).

I usually hit th equick reply button and post a huge behemoth essay tl;dr answer to threads but this time I hit the quote button so I wont

As I said at the start, I am happy to answer any questions that I am capable of answering and I'm willign to research any answers that i dotn know already. If I dont answer or respond to a question promptly, it may be that I'm either away or I havent had enough of a chance to get into it. But I can assure you that I wwill not ignore any posts aimed at me (if I do, its not intentional so please point it out to me).

BuffyBot

I've split this off the de-modding policy discussion in order to keep the other thread intact

sceptre

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Do you still think the current interaction between moderators, posters and admins is working as well as it could be?
Really?

General post, above as my intro excuse.

Hello.

Where are my manners, I haven't popped my head about the parapet yet:)

Of course it isn't. That's something of a truism as questions go because there's always room for improvement as the corporate manual of crappy questions and answers says. So the answer to the corporate-style "do you think it's working as well could be..." question always has to be "no".

Ignoring the question and dealing with the actual query: No. I can see it from this thread for example (I don't need to use this thread as an example but it's the closest one). As it happens I barely have enough time to read before it's spun off into another direction. I don't make things personal as I'm crap at it but the past page reminds me of my late mother's tactic for arguments. When in doubt, also horse out something that didn't get done months ago as though the particular can be applied to the general in any sort of rational way. Here's a hint: it can't.

That query you've got up there (Dr shoud have been sorted months ago. Obviously it was forgotten. That's not really good enough, though to be honest, until we get a proper ticket based system that's going to happen. I'd have bumped the thread a second time. But then I'm not my mother, while I'm polite I'd give it an auld second go rather than filing it away in some sort of Festivus-inspired list of grievances. But it still should have been sorted.

Des, your query should be sorted too. That hasn't been forgotten, it's just nothing's been done since as on the list of priorities it's lower than the stuff that needs to be teased out due to events in the past week and other more pressing matters. I could lie to you but where would be the point in that. Your request is about priority three on the scale from one down to four at the moment. Incidentally there is no priority scale, I'm illustrating the relative importance with a number scale.

Now, condescension. I realise some of you are going to ignore this part as I'm probably on one "side" of the discussion. Regardless of whether it's the side of light or the dark side I brought my own cookies though so that's OK. Put simple, a lot of people could do with putting away a bit of defensiveness. That requires less attacking. I don't see that happening because there's too much egotistical stuff going on here. And I'm waiting for every word of this to be analysed and for me to be requested to explain what I meant by the word "of". or something. I don't have the time so let's not.

It's like one of those Irish debate intervarsities in here. And I very much don't mean that in a positive way.

Incidentally when I ban or infract someone of the replies I get about 90% of them are entirely capitulatory. About 2% of the issued cards are overturned by me when the person responds. Varying reasons: my error, their reasonableness on a one way or the other issue, that kind of thing. I've banned two people from the Politics forum since June so believe me, those people were really acting the tool. And when a response to an infraction is abusive, it's properly abusive. I don';t need to go into the kind of content, virtually every moderator on this site has had some of those messages. But I'll tell you this: despite the number of "sorry about that" messages I receive, I'm pleasantly surprised every single time.

Muffler raised the most useful point of the past 20-odd posts, the issue of where a member makes an allegation against a moderator on a Help Desk thread that's totally unfounded and malicious (and the two ingredients are important), leaving the moderator without a right to reply. That's a problem. That's the relevant stuff I'd like to talk about right now but that's just my preference. Don't worry, it doesn't mean you can't talk about whatever the devil you want to talk about, I'm just more interested in solutions as that's my way. Now, for the small number of you who are more interested in analysing the word "of", that's your opener. Straight lines, not circles.


edit: the "dark side... side of light... I brought cookies" thing seems to be less than understandable. It's a reference to that "come over to the dark side... we have cookies". While many I'm sure will have understood the reference, apologies to anyone who didn't. Of.

_blank_

Glad to see the Admins have been let off the leash

tbh

Des wrote: »

Glad to see the Admins have been let off the leash

who are you accusing of keeping them on a leash des? just so we all know where we stand like.

_blank_

I'm not accusing anyone of anything.

But to answer you, themselves.

Three Admins come along at once would suggest I'm right.

tbh

Des wrote: »

Glad to see the Admins have been let off the leash

Des wrote: »

I'm not accusing anyone of anything.

But to answer you, themselves.

Three Admins come along at once would suggest I'm right.

suggest you're right about what? You're basically saying that the admins had been told not to reply. I'd like to know who you think told them that. Stand over your posts!

parsi

I've mentioned before that prehaps HelpDesk should have a "Friend of the Court" type person.

Everyone who posts in HD has a grievance. The only people who can respond on that thead are the "Defendants" and the Judges. The OP doesn't have anybody to back him up or help him better formulate his case or even someone who can point to a different occasion on which the isue was resolved in a different fashion.

In short - the OP posts, may get smartassed replies, responds and gets more replies - assuming that his response is approved.

It's extremely onesided and this feeling of onesidedness can only be exacerbated by the poster being in a stressful position (trying to rescind a ban..).

sceptre

Des wrote: »

I'm not accusing anyone of anything.

But to answer you, themselves.

Three Admins come along at once would suggest I'm right.

Assumptions tend to be wrong more often than not. In this case you're wrong. I try not to assume. I type what I want when I have time so as I said above, I'm interested in the actual topic rather than the side-whateverthatisthatmakesnosensetome. I can get in a reply before teatime if there's something to reply to.

tbh wrote: »

suggest you're right about what? You're basically saying that the admins had been told not to reply. I'd like to know who you think told them that. Stand over your posts!

I'm sure Des can answer for himself but no-one has been told to reply or not to and no-one will be told or not to so some of you will believe that and some of you won't, either way I still have my cookies as referenced above. It's irrelevant to the actual discussion, personally I wouldn't have seen the point in making the initial comment but that's just me.

BuffyBot

Just to clarify: there is no "leash" and comments like that aren't helpful.

Previously, there were complaints by users of too many Admins becoming involved in threads and users feeling ganged up upon/drowned out etc etc.

So we took that Feedback on board, and have taken a much more structured approach, interjecting in limited cases, and limited numbers - and now we're being criticised for that.

I'm hoping that illustrates some of the difficulties here: there is a certain amount of "damned if we do, damned if we don't". When one group complains, we react: this then causes another group to complaint that we're not doing what they feel is right. Which leaves us doing what I constantly say we try to do - strike an acceptable balance. However, no matter which way we go someone will not like it.

However, it's not some conspiracy or anything like it. Just us trying to be responsive to Feedback that was previously given to us

So now, can we go back to the point in question?

_blank_

tbh wrote: »

You're basically saying that the admins had been told not to reply. I'd like to know who you think told them that.

Themselves.

leninbenjamin

sceptre wrote: »

Now, condescension. I realise some of you are going to ignore this part as I'm probably on one "side" of the discussion. Regardless of whether it's the side of light or the dark side I brought my own cookies though so that's OK.

To be blunt, the above post is almost a perfect case study of the root cause of a lot of people's grievances here.

Your sentences are somewhat convoluted so I don't fully understand the point you were trying to make, however, those type of throwaway comments aren't helpful. I don't understand what your intentions were, but it's very easy t construe it as dismissive, impolite and sends out the wrong message.

And as for the less defensive bit, you realise it has to work two ways? If an admin is going to instantly dismiss a point with some vaguely insulting analogy they aren't exactly leading by example.

LoLth

parsi wrote: »

I've mentioned before that prehaps HelpDesk should have a "Friend of the Court" type person.

Everyone who posts in HD has a grievance. The only people who can respond on that thead are the "Defendants" and the Judges. The OP doesn't have anybody to back him up or help him better formulate his case or even someone who can point to a different occasion on which the isue was resolved in a different fashion.

In short - the OP posts, may get smartassed replies, responds and gets more replies - assuming that his response is approved.

It's extremely onesided and this feeling of onesidedness can only be exacerbated by the poster being in a stressful position (trying to rescind a ban..).

I can see why you would think that and certainly that is a failing of the restrictions. However, when a user has a complaint, I would argue that it is very rare that they get a smartassed reply from an admin or from a mod. If they do, then this would be an exception. I am open to correction on this of course. Generally mods know not to give abuse to a user anywhere on boards and especially in helpdesk. A mod telling a user to go away in not so nice terms is actually treated harsher than a user saying the same to a mod. maybe the mods find this unfair? My opinion would be that mod/cmods and admins have responsibility with that comes authority and it is unfair for a figure in authority to treat someone in a manner that they themselves would find lacking. now, having said all that, if the user in helpdesk is genuinely stirring the pot or just looking to cause trouble for a mod, then they get pretty much the amount of time dedicated to them that they deserve. The admins that have dealt with this situation thus far have been pretty much 100% sure before deciding though so its not just hit and miss.

I have answered several "I'm banned!" requests on the helpdesk and so far havent had to call in a mod for his opinion. I have asked the poster if htey have discussed the ban with the mod and in two cases so far the poster has gone off to do so and responded to let me know that its all sorted now.

Even those banned for shilling get a fair go. they are told exactly why htey have been banned. If they apologise and explain that they didnt know etc they are directed to hello@boards.ie if they wish to continue or the ban is lifted and they agree not to do it again. admittedly the latter is a rare case, in my limited experience so far, but it has happened.

LoLth

Des wrote: »

Glad to see the Admins have been let off the leash

thanks. nice to see my attempt to answer the calls for admin openness are appreciated.

GuanYin

In my experience, town hall meetings (large groups of people shouting each other down on the floor - ie. feedback) rarely achieve anything unless someone is willing to ignore all the slights and insults, avoid responding in kind and filtering through all the noise and focusing on the one or two people who actually are emitting the signal.

In short, you're not going to actually accomplish anything in this thread.

I'm new to the mod team so I don't really know how things are run around here right now, but I would suggest if you are all really serious about resolving these issues and accomplishing something, you should maybe set up a thinktank. Maybe a small equal number of users and admins and mods who are generally respected by all and let them trash it out. The caveat would be the resolution would need to be accepted in advance by all, assuming all parties leave the thinktank in agreement.

Create a forum, make it read only, have a thread here for the townsfolk to shout from the cheap seats, but let a few reasonable, level-headed members discuss the issue and resolve in a non aggressive (and non passive aggressive) manner. If feedback has taught us anything it's that an unlimited number of people posting at each other solves nothing.

_blank_

GuanYin wrote: »

Create a forum, make it read only, have a thread here for the townsfolk to shout from the cheap seats, but let a few reasonable, level-headed members discuss the issue and resolve in a non aggressive (and non passive aggressive) manner. If feedback has taught us anything it's that an unlimited number of people posting at each other solves nothing.

You are talking about the Debate forum here, and I think that's a perfect solution to this.

LoLth

@Guanyin , possibly absolutely correct. However, I dotn see the harm in trying it here first and then , if this descends into chaos which I am hoping it wont as there are enough people who really do want to see a result, we can adjourn and to the fishbowl thread idea you have suggested.

Just selecting who represents the mods would probably be a huge task let alone finding representatives to equitably act as a proxy for the users.

I'm willing to give the townhall Q&A a go.

Nevyn

As it stands the conversation in help desk is between the admins the poster and the cmods as back up and the mod is at the far end of the process. I have had a poster lie about me personally and my actions after their ban and the post rebutting not approved cos the cmod was dealing with it. Mods should have the right to reply in helpdesk, currently we don't.

Earthhorse

The current discussion seems to be between keeping Help Desk as is or replacing it with a Help Desk forum per category. I would actually call these per category forums Feedback and I'll explain why in a bit. I think it's worthwhile broadly outlining the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches.

Advantages of Per Category Feedback Forums

1) Transparency: This isn't just a buzzword; it's a key principle in building trust. In any dispute resolution trust is key. Indeed, it enables resolution as parties don't get side-tracked into guessing games regarding the other parties motives. And the more that is out in the open the harder it is to play such games.

2) It's discoverable: At the moment, boards has hundreds of forums subdivided into thirteen categories. Under one of these categories, sys, there is one forum for these kinds of issues, Help Desk.

We are often told how few of the posts on this site are complaints in nature. That's great; provided of course that the reason for this is that people have no complaint to make. They may do, but either simply cannot find the one forum tucked away in the corner or are confused between it and Feedback (three posts moved from the current front page of Feedback suggests that indeed such confusion exists). We don't know for sure though, and it doesn't do to speculate.

Here's what we do know; the more discoverable something is the more likely people who need to use it will use it. This is why you have a Proceed button at the top and bottom of your page when buying something on Amazon (under the reasonable assumption that once you start buying something you want to finish buying it). It's why there's a Log Out link on virtually every page you visit on boards once logged in. Because logging out is important. So too is good dispute resolution.

3) It's a living cultural and etiquette archive from which we can all learn: One of the great things about "old" Feedback, and one which I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned to date was the fact that people could learn what our culture was, what we were cool with and what we weren't so cool with, simply by reading Feedback threads. Not difficult. And much more organic than a charter. It allows people to understand what's okay and what's not and even question it. That can only improve their experience of using the site.

4) It's culturally (or community) sensitive: There seems to be little argument over the fact that boards has morphed over the last year or two, at least, from being one community to being a set of communities. Whilst these communities can't said to be split entirely along category lines it's about as accurate a split as you're ever going to get. Certain shared values within these communities, which a good cmod will be aware of, means that they can rule more fairly and accurately on any issue before them.

5) It's collaborative: One of the great pluses of doing anything online; you can get input from so many different sources. It can be confusing, sure - cacophonous at times - but it'd be foolish to dismiss it as a result. Most of the time, in such decisions, it won't make a difference. But the more voices that are heard the more likely you are to stumble across a useful suggestion which you would not have had that voice been silenced.

Disadvantages of Per Category Feedback Forums

1) It's messy: Yeah, I said it. Not everything about the old Feedback model was great. One of the things was the clamour. boards has grown so much we can expect a lot of noise on these new Feedback forums. It can be mitigated by good moderation, sure, but you won't be able to entirely eliminate it.

2) It's more work (from a technical point of view): tbh has said elsewhere that, in effect, cmods are already dealing with a lot of complaints raised above mod level in their category (he can correct me if I've taken him up wrong there). So it wouldn't be extra work for them. But if it's decided, at any point, that these forums are to behave differently from others (disabling Quick Reply, say) then it might be more work for the guys. I don't know a lot about vBulletin, hence my use of the word "might".

Advantages of Current Help Desk Forum

1) It's controlled: This isn't a backhanded compliment; an attempt to portray the good as bad. It is a lot more ordered, allowing people to feel like their complaint hasn't been buried under a sea of objection and made irrelevant by cul-de-sac, off topic meandering.

2) It allows only interested parties to speak: This is something I'm mostly a fan of when the issue at hand is quite sensitive or intricate. On such matters, the rest of us should be silent. Though at times defining interested parties can be a difficult thing, most of the time we can see that the people on board have covered most points we would have and us adding to the debate only adds volume rather than content.

Disadvantages of Current Help Desk Forum

1) It's slow: You don't have to look past the illustrative cases outlined in this thread and the one it was split from to know this is true. The pre-moderated nature of it makes it thus. The time lag allows tension to build. Conversely, good resolution dispute mechanisms dissolve tension, ideally quite quickly.

2) It's opaque: An admin asks the OP did they PM the mod. There is no response on thread. For all we know anything could have happened. Why should we know? The real question is; what does it cost us to know? The answer is nothing and the benefit of this is that the issue is seen to be resolved. Perception is very important in building trust for those observing the procedure; remember, they are the ones likely to use it in the future.

3) It disallows open participation: You might not miss out on that participation, but how will you ever know if you don't allow it? And if you do allow it and it adds nothing why can't it simply be ignored? So this restriction on input is of little benefit in the majority of cases.

4) It allows users to make accusations against other users without recourse: I wasn't actually aware of this until a few mods pointed this out. I've avoided being emotive in this post to date but that is actually disgraceful and no one should stand over it.

Why call them Feedback rather than Help Desk Forums?

This is something I touched on earlier and wanted to return to. The Help Desk metaphor is actually a really poor one. What is a Help Desk in real life and when do people come across it? My phone is broken; call Help Desk. I can't access the network; call Help Desk. I have a complaint regarding someone else's behaviour; call Help Desk? Hardly. Go to HR. Talk it out with them or with their manager. Talk about it with their colleagues. Call these category sub-forums Rec Feedback, Soc Feedback etc.

What becomes of current Help Desk?

It becomes exactly that, a Help Desk. People can get Social Groups renamed there. They can talk about problems accessing their account. It should deal with the technical issues its name implies.

What becomes of current Feedback?

It becomes general Feedback for the site. Threads like WindSock's one about a post archive. Or Faceman's milestone Thank You post. Far more along the lines of what, I believe, the admins have always wanted it to be.

What happens if I have an issue that isn't related to a particular forum or category?

Like being harassed or bullied by another user? At the moment, although such issues are, I'm sure, dealt with as best they can, I think things could be improved. The idea of a User Rep was suggested before and not entirely dismissed. A private forum where only interested parties can talk, but talk very openly, about events would be better, though I accept that it may be difficult to implement this under vBulletin's structure and that it's also a little off topic (I figured people would ask so I thought I would outline my answer).

That's the broad thrust of what I feel would be an improvement over the current procedures you have in place. Thanks to BuffyBot for splitting this thread from the other and Lolth for engaging with us. I hope I've outlined my opinions clearly (if not, please ask me to clarify) and that at least some of those goes toward improving people's experience on boards.

_blank_

great post mate

tbh

great post earthhorse.

Just to clarify:

"tbh has said elsewhere that, in effect, cmods are already dealing with a lot of complaints raised above mod level in their category (he can correct me if I've taken him up wrong there)"

If I said "a lot" I mean a lot of the complaints that are raised, not that there are lots of complaints. I can't really speak for the other cmods tho, because the in the sci cat, I've had to deal with maybe four complaints total. Modding the rec feedback forum, or whatever cat soccer is in, would be a tough gig...[but then, the cmods are dealing with those complaints anyway]

but that's not to take away from your post, which was great. as I believe I have said

Earthhorse

tbh wrote: »

"tbh has said elsewhere that, in effect, cmods are already dealing with a lot of complaints raised above mod level in their category (he can correct me if I've taken him up wrong there)"

If I said "a lot" I mean a lot of the complaints that are raised, not that there are lots of complaints. I can't really speak for the other cmods tho, because the in the sci cat, I've had to deal with maybe four complaints total. Modding the rec feedback forum, or whatever cat soccer is in, would be a tough gig...[but then, the cmods are dealing with those complaints anyway]

Yes, sorry, I took it the way you have explained, though I see how it could be read the other way. The important point I was making was that it doesn't ad to their workload but thanks for clarifying.

Xavi6

LoLth wrote: »

the latter part of this statement concerns me. Is this your idea of what a user would think? is this your perception of the helpdesk in general?

Bit of both tbh.

As has been said, the process of PMing a mod, PMing a Cmod, getting posts approved etc is too long winded and ends up being pointless for the most part when the outcome is generally the same, i.e. "Suck it up".

If I was a regular user I wouldn't even bother with Help Desk.

_blank_

Xavi6 wrote: »

Bit of both tbh.

As has been said, the process of PMing a mod, PMing a Cmod, getting posts approved etc is too long winded and ends up being pointless for the most part when the outcome is generally the same, i.e. "Suck it up".

If I was a regular user I wouldn't even bother with Help Desk.

I agree.

LoLth, the problem with the whole DPR is that it just takes too long.

From the Mod side, which I'm on obv, it's too cumbersome, here's a real life example, it actually happened.

Initial Ban. 1 Week.

PMs between me and the banned person - I had some RL stuff to do, so I couldn't continue the conversation, I told the user this, and I directed them to the DPR.

The user went straight to HD.

Admin told the user to contact the CMods.

In the meantime, I had bounced the situation off the CMod in the Mod Forum for the Forum, and he agreed with me. Now comes the first communication breakdown.

2 days after the initial ban and Mod forum conversation, the other CMod PMd me for comment, so I told that CMod about the conversation in the Mod Forum, and also filled in the details.

both CMods obviously agreed with the ban, because the user posted again in the HD thread, asking the Admin to look into it now. 30 hours(!) without any more input, so the user, rightly imo, bumped. Ten more hours passed and an Admin came back, and told the user that the ban stands.

This whole process took 4 and a half days, of a 7 day ban. The roundabout way of dealing with complaints like this makes users think that it's just not worth the hassle, it makes ME think that if I get a weeks ban from a forum that I don't agree with, then there is absolutely no point in appealing using the DPR, because by the time there is any resolution, one way or the other, then so much time will have passed that it just isn't worth it.

The user has five more posts after that, looking for clarification and asking more questions, and has seemingly been ignored. This isn't on.

Now, I realise that there was a shítstorm after the issues last week, but surely at least one or two Admins could be appointed to oversee HD and conclude any open issues in there.

The DPR is, in my mind, to discourage users from appealing, and to sweep problems under the carpet.

If I get a ban from somewhere tomorrow I probably wouldn't be arsed with the whole appeals process because it takes too long and isn't helpful.

The DPR was designed to help the Mods/CMods/Admin, with no thought for the user side of things.

Four days to complete the appeal process for a 7 Day ban is way too long, no matter what the outcome.

And a wall of silence after the final judgement has been handed down isn't really nice either.

BuffyBot

As has been said, the process of PMing a mod, PMing a Cmod, getting posts approved etc is too long winded and ends up being pointless for the most part when the outcome is generally the same, i.e. "Suck it up".

If I was a regular user I wouldn't even bother with Help Desk

+ Des

That's actually something I've also been thinking about, and I've mentioned in the Admins forum prior to this: so we're definitely aware of it as being a perception, and more importantly, an actual issue.

It might work for us, but it's not something that works so well for the end user. My thoughts were along the line that it was designed with us in mind (as in the non-users) when really it needed to be designed with the user are the core, even if it inconveniences the levels above them a bit.

nesf

Xavi6 wrote: »

Bit of both tbh.

As has been said, the process of PMing a mod, PMing a Cmod, getting posts approved etc is too long winded and ends up being pointless for the most part when the outcome is generally the same, i.e. "Suck it up".

If I was a regular user I wouldn't even bother with Help Desk.

I agree it's too long winded. The thing is though most complaints get "Suck it up" precisely because the user did actually break a rule and the moderator didn't act incorrectly.

The vast majority of complaints I see are where someone is complaining about a ban or infraction that was very much appropriate.

_blank_

In that case nesf, if the vast majority of complaints are going to have that outcome, surely a simpler, less long winded way of reaching that conclusion is the way to go.

This has two good points attached.

1. Less time wasted by everyone jumping through hoops, when the final outcome is obvious.

2. The actual issues that have merit are dealt with in a timely fashion, and no-one is left with a bad memory. A mistake was made, but it was sorted in a short time. That's better than taking 4 days in anyone's book.

nesf

Des wrote: »

In that case nesf, if the vast majority of complaints are going to have that outcome, surely a simpler, less long winded way of reaching that conclusion is the way to go.

This has two good points attached.

1. Less time wasted by everyone jumping through hoops, when the final outcome is obvious.

2. The actual issues that have merit are dealt with in a timely fashion, and no-one is left with a bad memory. A mistake was made, but it was sorted in a short time. That's better than taking 4 days in anyone's book.

It is simple. The user gets a PM back from myself and Scofflaw within a few hours telling them that the moderator was correct. It gets long winded if the user chooses to appeal this decision to the Help Desk, and generally if the mods and CMods agree on a topic it's very unlikely to be overturned because well, if we made mistakes constantly we wouldn't stay in the CMod role long now would we?

Our current turnaround is at most 24 hours to 36 hours on most issues at CMod level at the moment (excluding some complicated ones where a large amount of minor complaints about a forum's moderation is being questioned). Generally much shorter than this (i.e. could be 10 minutes if myself and Scofflaw are online and free when you make your complaint). This is about as good as one can expect given we're not paid to be online to answer queries to be honest.

Zaph

nesf wrote: »

The vast majority of complaints I see are where someone is complaining about a ban or infraction that was very much appropriate.

This is very true. It was mentioned earlier, perhaps even on this thread, that quite a few posters will PM to apologise and will accept their infraction/ban. I even had one guy recently who came back after a ban and apologised to the other posters in the forum. It's mainly the ones who have a misplaced sense of injustice who invariably end up in Help Desk. The simple reason so many appeals fail there is that there were no grounds for an appeal in the first place. However, it is important to have an appeals process in place for those occasional posters who have genuine grounds for appeal and wish to do so in a rational manner. And I agree with the earlier point that the system is too slow, and as a result it is letting down these users who perhaps should have their punishments reduced or quashed. That's not good enough, so now we just need to find a way that works a whole lot better.