Feedforward & Trustees

OutlawPete

I think Feedforward is a great idea but I'd just like to give a little Feedback on Feedforward if that's okay.

I can see that a mountain of work has been put in, honestly I can, but it all seems to be a little complex and not very user friendly.

Could it possibly be tidied up somewhat?

Prehaps easier said than done but at the moment, it just all seems to be a tad overwhelming to be hit with so many Stickies (why are they stickies to begin with?) and the 'One Post Per Person' vs 'Free For all' threads really do come across as overkill.

Can't we just have one thread for each issue?

Also, with regards to the Trustee list in Feedforwad Private.

Only a few months back there were threads asking and discussing precisely what people felt that the criteria for choosing Trustees should be. Many excellent points were made, well supported points at that.

Now I look at that list and wonder if any After Hours Non-Mod Trustees have been chosen at all or were all the points made regarding what people felt the Trustee criteria should be, just ignored?

I see Snyper is there, which is cool - but is he there as a Trustee for AH?

If so, is just one Non-Mod Trustee enough for After Hours, the busiest of all the forums (fora if you must) on Boards?

Considering the percentage of Feedback threads that stem from AH issues, I would suggest at least one more AH Trustee would be appointed.

Personally, I would like to see My Name Is URL given Trustee status and write access to Feedforward.

Dohnny Jepp

OutlawPete wrote: »

Now I look at that list and wonder if any After Hours Non-Mod Trustees have been chosen at all or were all the points made regarding what people felt the Trustee criteria should be, just ignored?

I see Snyper is there, which is cool - but is he there as a Trustee for AH?

If so, is just one Non-Mod Trustee enough for After Hours, the busiest of all the forums (fora if you must) on Boards?

Considering the percentage of Feedback threads that stem from AH issues, I would suggest at least one more AH Trustee would be appointed.

In regards to it being messy I have no comment to make, Maybe it is but is it hurting the development of ideas by being messy? or would it take much trouble to tidy it up?

Anyway what I do want to comment on is the "trustee's for certain fora" viewpoint.
I'd rather see people selected because they are known to have boards.ie's best interests at heart, boards in ites entirety and not just particular fora.

Sparks

While I live the aesthetics of a more minimal solution, maybe it just has to be that messy. I mean, it's trying to work out a people problem rather than a math problem, and people are just plain messy.

Overheal

OutlawPete wrote: »

Now I look at that list and wonder if any After Hours Non-Mod Trustees have been chosen at all or were all the points made regarding what people felt the Trustee criteria should be, just ignored?

I see Snyper is there, which is cool - but is he there as a Trustee for AH?

If so, is just one Non-Mod Trustee enough for After Hours, the busiest of all the forums (fora if you must) on Boards?

Considering the percentage of Feedback threads that stem from AH issues, I would suggest at least one more AH Trustee would be appointed.

Personally, I would like to see My Name Is URL given Trustee status and write access to Feedforward.

Thats not how it works. And that discussion was had, if you recall:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055849303

Also, using After Hours as an example, who doesn't at some point post in or read After Hours? I post in there a lot myself.

If a user feels strongly about in issue, for example that may pertain specifically to the photography forum, the lack of a Photography forum trustee doesn't stop them from having a word in.

My name is URL

OutlawPete wrote: »

Personally, I would like to see My Name Is URL given Trustee status and write access to Feedforward.

Thanks for the thought but tbh I don't see what I could add to FF by being a 'trustee' that I can't add in FF Public.. I've only posted in there a couple of times anyway.

Imho there's probably already too many 'trustees' given that anyone is able to post in the Public section, and assuming that anyone that does post there has their points taken into consideration

This is the best username ever used here

OutlawPete wrote: »

I think Feedforward is a great idea but I'd just like to give a little Feedback on Feedforward if that's okay.

I can see that a mountain of work has been put in, honestly I can, but it all seems to be a little complex and not very user friendly.

Could it possibly be tidied up somewhat?

Prehaps easier said than done but at the moment, it just all seems to be a tad overwhelming to be hit with so many Stickies (why are they stickies to begin with?) and the 'One Post Per Person' vs 'Free For all' threads really do come across as overkill.

Can't we just have one thread for each issue?

Also, with regards to the Trustee list in Feedforwad Private.

Only a few months back there were threads asking and discussing precisely what people felt that the criteria for choosing Trustees should be. Many excellent points were made, well supported points at that.

Now I look at that list and wonder if any After Hours Non-Mod Trustees have been chosen at all or were all the points made regarding what people felt the Trustee criteria should be, just ignored?

I see Snyper is there, which is cool - but is he there as a Trustee for AH?

If so, is just one Non-Mod Trustee enough for After Hours, the busiest of all the forums (fora if you must) on Boards?

Considering the percentage of Feedback threads that stem from AH issues, I would suggest at least one more AH Trustee would be appointed.

Personally, I would like to see My Name Is URL given Trustee status and write access to Feedforward.

6th, Billy the squid. And many others. All been there Bro.

You are not the first, nor the last. Nor stuff.

OutlawPete

Overheal wrote: »

Thats not how it works. And that discussion was had, if you recall:

If I recall??

I addressed that discussion in my OP, it was that thread that had me naively believing that Trustee's would be chosen that would represent the average user.

There was a lot of talk (which was well supported) about how Trustee's should be selected that had little to do with the running of the site (ie; non-mods) but nonetheless gave a lot back to the site in other ways and could discuss and critique other opinions without losing the head.

When I look at the Trustee list, I don't see names there that would suggest Trustee selection has been any different to moderator selection to be honest.

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

I'd rather see people selected because they are known to have boards.ie's best interests at heart, boards in ites entirety and not just particular fora.

Why would the best interests of After Hours, not be in the best interests of Boards as a whole?

I feel the same about Bargain Alerts or any other section of Boards that represents a very large slice of Boards activity.

It would seem natural to me that some regular non-mod contributers from these forums be Trustees, not just to represent their forum but more to make sure that regular users in the busiest sections of Boards are represented.

I realise that all users can post in FFPublic but if being a Trustee is not a big issue, then why was there so much talk about it?

My name is URL wrote: »

.. assuming that anyone that does post there has their points taken into consideration

Well, I guess only time will tell and that is the crux of the issue.

If points are taken on Board in FFPublic from all members and not just skimmed over based on who makes them, then who the Trustees are will indeed be a non-issue.

RopeDrink wrote: »

.. considering the place is brand spanking new, you have to expect Mess for now considering the scale and scope of what we seek to achieve from it.

Fair enough.

Nevyn

Miffed you haven't been asked/considered ?

OutlawPete

Thaedydal wrote: »

Miffed you haven't been asked/considered ?

No, why do you ask?

I have already said who I would have wanted to be selected as a trustee.

Nevyn

I asked cos I was curious, thanks for answering.

Dohnny Jepp

OutlawPete wrote: »

Why would the best interests of After Hours, not be in the best interests of Boards as a whole?
.

IMO, the forum someone posts in is irrelevant.

Look at it this way,

user 1:Intelligent, good reasoning and can see an issue from all angles. Doesn't often read AH but as he is a frequent user of boards, he knows what its about.

user 2: Intelligent but gets caught up in debates and can't see from issues for other point of views. Is a regular user of AH.

Which of these two users would be more helpful in generating and and implementing ideas?

Although user 1 is not a regular whilst user 2 is, user 1 would be more beneficial to AH because he is better equipped to make a more encompassing reccomendation/decision.

AckwelFoley

FF was not designed to to gather a crack team of representatives from each forum or user type as such, however they did im sure try to get a representation of the forum community when selecting trustees, it was itself members albeit moderators that suggested and debated the list of trustees

Being able to debate a point with ample rational and offer a few constructive suggestions towards a solution without an agenda or bias is also important if not paramount.

I fail to meet that above criteria.

Im there as eye candy

OutlawPete

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

user 2: Intelligent but gets caught up in debates and can't see from issues for other point of views. Is a regular user of AH.

I agree User 1 is better but we are not just limited to those two choices.

User two would be unsuitable anyway as they "get caught up in debates and can't see from issues for other point of views".

There are many members that have been AH regulars for years that are very suitable for Trustee status, post in Feedback regularly and have always presented their side of the debate while respecting the opposing view, in unison.

RopeDrink wrote: »

FFor will not base itself around specific Forums

That is NOT what I am suggesting here, far from it.

RopeDrink wrote: »

It's for adressing site issues and discussing possible largely agreed on solutions between members, regardless of where they visit on the site.

Of course, but I feel that it would be fitting if someone could look at the Trustee list and see that it contains the the odd name of ordinary members from right across Boards.

RopeDrink wrote: »

It may be the most used Forum on the site but Boards.ie =/= AfterHours ..

Why do you keep exaggerating my point; I relaise that After Hours does not equal Boards.

Again, my point is that it would have been apt to see that there was more than one long time regular poster (of which I am not) of the busiest section of Boards appointed as one of the long list of Trustees.

This point was raised when discussing what members felt that the Trustee criteria should be, but now seems to have been ignored.

I too would prefer a more level headed trustee that has never really used After Hours but is excellent at putting forth their point and reasoning with others, than an AH regular that has tunnel vision and throws their toys out of the pram when they don't get their way.

However, I do not think 'Longtime After Hours contributer' & 'Levelheaded intelligent Boards member' are all that mutually exclusive, far from it in fact.

dr.bollocko

All the classic rock forum posters fully support this agenda and in addition request their representation present in FF.

Overheal

So far we've had quite a few people step up and use the Feedforward Public platform. Their views are often taken under consideration. They have so far come from hell knows what fora to discuss everything from images in quotes to privacy and security matters.

The fact of the matter thus far has been that if posters have had in issue in an area of the site they've stepped up and discussed it. Like the blasted signatures.

I digress. I guess I just don't understand the issue here. In precisely what way do you feel the list is lopsided?

Again, my point is that it would have been apt to see that there was more than one long time regular poster (of which I am not) of the busiest section of Boards appointed as one of the long list of Trustees.

Who is this one person? I could easily withdraw half a dozen from the list. Probably more. Mods Admins and Users, clean and tainted track records.

Put "Long Term" into relativistic meaning.

OutlawPete

RopeDrink wrote: »

* We cannot force people to become trustee's

I don't doubt what you are saying but it seems odd to me that users that have been so vocal in Feedback over the years would not wish to step up and become a Trustee if asked.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Some people actually refused to participate, which we can understand & respect.

Perfectly understandable.

However, as I posted in the 'Criteria for selecting Trustees' thread, I would have liked there to be some form of nomination process for Trustees, which people could have opted out of had they so wished.

I realise that not all forums on Boards could have their own Trustee, as that would mean there would be somewhere in the region of over a thousand of them

I also don't think that it should be a 'popularity vote' per se, but I do feel that the pool from which Admin selectedsome of the Trustees, should have come from some form of nomination process.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Do consider that quite a lot of people who where asked may have actually been AH regulars, not that it'd have mattered in the sligthest where they post.

Well, I think it matters.

I don't think it matters to any great degree what I think I might add, but this is Feedback and so that is all I am trying to give here.

RopeDrink wrote: »

There are no 'representatives' as such as we aren't trying to cater for specific Forums, but site issues.

I believe that it is important to have the busiest sections of Boards represented in FFP by people that frequent these sections regularly, just my opinion, but that's what I feel.

If there was a McDonald's convention tomorrow in the Four Seasons and they had regular customer representatives from their branches attending to iron out any issues that keep cropping up, but yet the they don't have customer representatives from their busiest branches, then inevitably issues will be missed.

Now I am sure that they will still iron out problems at ALL branches based on dealing with the problems that have cropped up at the smaller ones, but without doubt, the busier branches would have quite unique issues which would need addressing, even if they are not really a problem at the smaller branches.

Now, I know that there are many Mods from all the busiest sections of Boards on that Trustee list, but my only problem is that there is no non-mod voices from these forums in there, not many non-mods overall for whatever reason actually.

Overheal wrote: »

Their views are often taken under consideration. They have so far come from hell knows what fora to discuss everything from images in quotes to privacy and security matters.

Yes, but that is FF Public.

I applaud the concept and premise of what FF is and hopes to be.

I have only made two suggestions there so far and one has been adopted (higher KB in the sigs) and the other hasn't (nomination of the pool of users Admin choose Trustees from ).

Overheal wrote: »

In precisely what way do you feel the list is lopsided?

I just don't feel that the average user is represented.

In the discussion thread on what people felt that the criteria should be for choosing Trustees, it came accross (to me at least) that what was wanted was a few members to become Trustees that may not exactly be Moderator material.

Members who could objectively debate and offer a fresh take on things and not just the usual Mod / Admin one.

Yet, give or take four or five names, the Trustee list reads like a Mod / Admin directory:

--amadeus--
-Chris-
Agent Smith
AnCatDubh
Asiaprod
Asok
Beruthiel
Bond-007
bonkey
BuffyBot
CabanSail
chris
Cloud
Conor
convert
D4RK ONION
Darragh
Dav
Des
DeVore
Doctor DooM
donegalfella
Dord
Dr Galen
dr.bollocko
Dub13
dudara
Evil Phil
fozzle
Gordon
GuanYin
Hill Billy
jor el
kbannon
Kinetic^
koolkid
Lemming
LoLth
Lucy Lu
MiCr0
Mr E
muffler
nesf
nouggatti
oscarBravo
Overheal
P. Breathnach
Paul
pickarooney
Ponster
Poor Uncle Tom
psni
r3nu4l
rainbow kirby
Red Alert
regi
RopeDrink
Ross
sceptre
Scofflaw
seamus
Sharpshooter
Silverfish
smashey
snyper
Sparks
Sparky
Spear
Steve
tbh
Thaedydal
The Recliner
Time Magazine
Tom Dunne
Trojan
trout
uberwolf
Wibbs
Will
Zaph

The Recliner

OutlawPete wrote: »

Yet, give or take four or five names, the Trustee list reads like a Mod / Admin directory:

Yup it does

As far as I know Admins were all given access by default

But the mainreason it reads like that is because despite time passing quickly the action of the forum hasn't, it is still in the early stages and we are only coming up to its first couple of big decisions being actioned

From what I can tell it was felt that in order to iron out any kinks in the process that it should mainly be Mods and Admins so that thread would stay on topic and useful discussion would ensue

After the first couple of issues are dealt with some people might drop out but more people will be added, these will in general come from the non Mod/Admin population and peopel will be added and removed as the discussion is relevant to their interests

P. Breathnach

The Recliner wrote: »

... After the first couple of issues are dealt with some people might drop out but more people will be added, these will in general come from the non Mod/Admin population and peopel will be added and removed as the discussion is relevant to their interests

Wha'? Being invited to be a Trustee has been a high point in my life. Are you implying that I might be casually discarded on nothing more than a whim?

One thing I do not go along with: the idea that Trustees represent any group within boards.ie rather than the broader community. I do not think to represent the forums in which I am most active, nor do I think those who participate in those forums would accept me as representing them (I get into a lot of arguments, most of which are conducted in a fairly civil way).

My understanding is that I was invited to take part because I am an active member, broadly onside in the sense that I do not set out to cause trouble, and I have opinions on many things, some of which might not be part of a consensus. I could have misunderstood, and I might be here as window-dressing -- but I don't think so, because there is the constant danger that I might disagree with just about anybody.

[I sometimes wonder if Trustee is the best label; perhaps Trusty might describe the role better.]

The Recliner

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Wha'? Being invited to be a Trustee has been a high point in my life. Are you implying that I might be casually discarded on nothing more than a whim?

Nope, I didn't intend too anyway

I know I have no right to remain with access if I am not contributing anything to the place so wouldn't have a problem if it was taken away, I asked for access initially because I thought I could help in the setting up phase, depending on what topics are up for discussion in future I may be of no further use

But I do think there is good reason for people to be added for specific discussions that might only have relevance to them

I know there was a problem for the Photography forum when the Boards terms of use changed, in future it would be an idea to have people from specific forums included in discussion that might directly impact them

In general though I agree that people are not there to represent forums but are there because they can have/had a positive impact on Boards but I think in some cases it might be necessary to become forum specific

Again I am only speaking from my own point of view and am probably way off the mark for what DeVore has in mind

OutlawPete

RopeDrink wrote: »

Many many people put out names of users who they felt had the drive to work on what FFor is trying to represent, and those people had been asked, of which some/most I'm sure accepted ..

I never seen an opportunity to put forward a name tbh.

If I had, I most certainty would have as I had two or three names that I would have liked to see have write access to FF Private.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Again, considering your main gripe is largely aimed at AH ..

It's not that I feel AH is a more important section of Boards than all others, it's just that it's all I know since I joined the site.

So when I look at the list, naturally I am looking to see names that I feel would represent the parts of Boards I frequent and hopefully give a non-mod voice while there to the decision making.

RopeDrink wrote: »

The only impact FFor had on applicants and 'suggested' trustee's was to close the doors on adding more users when a certain limit was reached.

Wasn't that limit reached very fast though, considering who was automatically added to it?

RopeDrink wrote: »

Once again, there are no forum representatives because discussing specific Forums is not what FFor is there for.

I understand that FF's purpose is not to discuss specific forums, but it is inevitable that certain issues will effect some forums more than others.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Now, turn your point on it's head... If AH had representatives, for whatever reason, then why not have, oh I don't know... Representatives for 'Comics' forum... Or 'Ballyfermot College' forum? And if we had them, what would be the point when any issue discussed on FFor is likely a web-wide discussion, not a contained discussion? It's all rather futile.

I addressed this in my last post; I do not think that all forums on Boards should have their own non-mod Trustee with write access to FF Private, as that would mean there would need to be over a thousand of them.

However, I do think that there should be around a dozen forums that should have a Trustee though, the busiest ones.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Like Overheal, I really struggle to see the issue with this at all.

Well, I think it boils down to me wishing to see some well regraded common members have somewhat of a role in FF Private.

That is what was discussed in the Criteria thread and many members seemed to have that viewpoint then and not so much now, for whatever reason.

I just want to see more names on that list that are not Mods, names that I feel would add to the decision making and so give users a sense that their opinions matter.

Feed Forward Public is great and all but if at the end of the day the decision is made in FF Private, then it really is just the Mod Forum for public viewing.

I believe a certain amount non-mod Trustees should be nominated by fellow Boards members.

I don't always feel that a popularity vote is the way to go, it's a private site after-all but in certain instances I do and this most certainly is one of them.

Admin could still have their say on who the Trustees are that get appointed but just that they would have to select them from a pool of five or so members that have been nominated by the users of Boards.

I know that there is not really a democracy on Boards but in this one area, I feel their should be.

RopeDrink wrote: »

This is appreciated, don't think you're being scolded for your questions or anything :cool: It's nice to see more interest in the system considering it's still taking baby-steps! And yes, this is FeedBack, and threads like this well help give more understanding/awareness of the project at hand and/or help improve it in the future.

Cheers.

The Recliner wrote: »

But the mainreason it reads like that is because despite time passing quickly the action of the forum hasn't, it is still in the early stages and we are only coming up to its first couple of big decisions being actioned

I appreciate that, genuinely.

The Recliner wrote: »

After the first couple of issues are dealt with some people might drop out but more people will be added, these will in general come from the non Mod/Admin population and peopel will be added and removed as the discussion is relevant to their interests

Excellent.

My name is URL

I agree with Pete's view that the average boards user has little representation within the 'trustee' group. Those within may be what boards is trying to define as it's 'average user' but that's a different kettle of fish altogether, and one which in my own view doesn't say a whole lot about the view that those in charge have for the real 'average user'

DeV himself proclaimed that it is elitist group, or something to that effect.. I can't find the post where he said it however. That whole separatist agenda is more damaging to FF than it is beneficial imo.. how you can say that FF is about incorporating people's ideas and addressing their concerns when at the same time there is an obvious disdain shown towards a large % of the userbase?

The whole thing seems to me like a committee of mates; chin-wagging & patting each other on the back for reaching decisions that would have been reached just as easily if no 'trustee' group existed.

That's just my own opinion of course

Overheal

Who do you consider 'well regarded'?

I'm a registered user; not a mod. I post, frequently and often, in After Hours.

And like I said im not the only one on that list that meets that criteria.

So again I'm not sure what the issue is. Unless its because I'm a yank (:mad:;))

Jazzy

um, what does feedforward do exactly? just seems like feedback when i look at it

OutlawPete

Overheal wrote: »

Who do you consider 'well regarded'?

Perhaps it would just be necessary for Admin to have some regard and respect for Trustees put forward by users, even if they don't necessarily agree with them all the time.

There are many non-moderators who contribute to the site and Feedback regularly and have done so for years.

They are articulate, can see issues objectively and are regularly spot on with their views.

They should be 'well regraded' by fellow users of Boards though, that is for certain and I feel that the two or three names I had in mind, very much fit that criteria.

Overheal wrote: »

I'm a registered user; not a mod.

You Mod FeedForward, you are a Mod.

Overheal

OutlawPete wrote: »

Perhaps it would just be necessary for Admin to have some regard and respect for Trustees put forward by users, even if they don't necessarily agree with them all the time.

There are many non-moderators who contribute to the site and Feedback regularly and have done so for years.

They are articulate, can see issues objectively and are regularly spot on with their views.

They should be 'well regraded' by fellow users of Boards though, that is for certain and I feel that the two or three names I had in mind, very much fit that criteria.

And they can post in FFP. Thats the function of FFP.

You Mod FeedForward, you are a Mod.

I Facilitate the decision making process, do a bit of housekeeping and spend an optimal amount of time harassing DeV and Dav to make their minds up... but its important to distinguish that I was not a Facilitator before I was a Trustee. I am also not part of the Moderator usergroup. I am a Registered User.

um, what does feedforward do exactly? just seems like feedback when i look at it

The inverse of Feedback: forward thinking constructive thought, as oppose to backward looking critique. Both are useful but are best served as separate entities.

Jazzy

Overheal wrote: »

The inverse of Feedback: forward thinking constructive thought, as oppose to backward looking critique. Both are useful but are best served as separate entities.

looks the exact same as feedback to me, just less spam. so theres feedforward, feedforward public and 'facilitators'... not think theres maybe a bit too much red tape? It just seems to me as a place certain people can go to and say whatever about how the site should be run and be immune from public criticism. I dont think it will really make that much of a difference to day-to-day goings on, but it will help nail people on help desk and feedback

WindSock

Personally I don't see a point to having many of those trustees. I think some, like myself just put their hands up for the sake of it. I bailed out though as I knew really I wouldn't get involved that much. I'm more of a Feedback kinda person. If it aint broke...
I prefer being able to have discussions with both users and mods. I don't see a point to restricting each from the other unless it is in relation to moderating duties.

AckwelFoley

WindSock wrote: »

If it aint broke...
.

Apply that to cars and perhaps the only car on the road today would be a model T Ford, available of course in a number of colours as long as that colour you want is black.

"If it aint broke" is a nice saying, however there are issues on boards.ie that members have problems with, if there were no issues, then you'd have no feedback to enjoy...

OutlawPete

Overheal wrote: »

And they can post in FFP. Thats the function of FFP.

As I posted above:

OutlawPete wrote: »

Feed Forward Public is great and all but if at the end of the day the decision process is made in FF Private, then it really is just the Mod Forum for public viewing.

Overheal

Technically the Decision isn't made on Boards at all. Its made at the head office.

OutlawPete

Overheal wrote: »

Technically the Decision isn't made on Boards at all. Its made at the head office.

That just solidifies my point even further so.

The Recliner

OutlawPete wrote: »

That just solidifies my point even further so.

It is made by taking into account posts in FF public and private though

OutlawPete

The Recliner wrote: »

It is made by taking into account posts in FF public and private though

I understand that but that totally ignores the reasons I have outlined in previous posts of why I feel that is wholly inadequate.

I have stated many times on this thread why exactly I feel it would be beneficial if there were a small collection of non-moderators appointed as Trustees, which would allow them to join in a contribute to FF Private alongside Mods and Admin.

To now just nonchalantly say: "they can post in FF Public", is as if I hadn't made the damn points in the first place.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Facilitator =/= Moderator.

It does if that person has moderator duties.

I have a lot of time and respect for Overheal, if he were not part of FF, I would be asking why not.

However, he is here now and so has become part of the Administration and Moderation team, that's just the way it is.

It would apprear to me that the whole idea of what a Trustee was implied to be about, is now slipping away and what FF Private is becoming is really nothing more than just a transparent Mod / Admin Forum, where ideas will be discussed and the average user can watch, but just not have any input in, other than had they got involved with the issue beforehand in FF Public.

OutlawPete

RopeDrink wrote: »

Some people are incapable of doing so whilst making valid points - These things had to be considered when embracing people into FeedForward... Anyone can have the best intentions at heart but not everyone can convey them in a precise and to the point matter and/or be capable of a proper debate rather than get sucked into an arguement or prevent themselves (and/or others) from derailing threads beit intentionally or otherwise.

This is all sound and has been said many times and I think I would be correct in saying that the above has been pretty much what has been expected of someone that might be selected to become a moderator.

So is that not in essence saying that a Trustee must meet the same standards as a Moderator?

I ask this as that is contrary to what was pretty much the consensus on the 'Criteria for Trustees' thread and the 'WTF is FeedForward' thread.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Okay, I've been here a while and I'm still not sure what FeedFoward is, to be honest. Is there a concise way of describing it without having to read a wall of text?

P. Breathnach

Anabelle Nutty Guy wrote: »

Okay, I've been here a while and I'm still not sure what FeedFoward is, to be honest. Is there a concise way of describing it without having to read a wall of text?

My read on it:
- Feedback is dealing with issues after they have arisen and perhaps caused a problem, and trying to improve boards in the light of any lessons learned.
- Feedforward involves considering how boards works, and trying to find ways in which it might work better.

Feedback is firefighting; feedforward is planning.

OutlawPete

RopeDrink wrote: »

Do you not think it nice that a regular user was adopted into the system rather than, oh I don't know, just picking Mods/CMods/Admins to do it? Overheal is an example of this.

Of course I do.

My point is that he is now moderating FF and so that is his role.

Regular users will see him as such and surely you must see that.

I am not saying that he now has some kind of special allegiance to Admin and so his views will always be in accordance with thier thinking or he's for the chop, but undoubtedly there will be those that do see it that way.

All that aside, Overheal is just one user and I have already acknowledged Snyper as another, it is still not even close to enough of the regular user base being represented in the Trustee group though.

I take on board that this is all brand new, but I still get no sense from Admin yet that there is an intention to make sure that the regular user base will be represented to any great degree.

Surely with all the Moderators on that list they could suggest one or two regular members who they feel would be of benefit if they were appointed as trustees.

RopeDrink wrote: »

That isn't even close to how Moderators are picked - Moderators are picked based on showing their interest, desire and effort in the Forum they have been picked to look after ..

I have seen Moderators picked to moderate AH that I have never even heard of.

That's not to say they don't or didn't do a fine job, but just to say that "interest" and "effort" most certainty were not prerequisites in the past, that's for sure.

RopeDrink wrote: »

I can't relate to half of what you say because there just seems to be a major rift when it comes to Moderation.

I don't get what you mean by a "major rift".

I just don't feel the Trustee list should be so heavily weighted with Moderators.

I think at least 25% of those with write access there, should be chosen from regular users that Moderators and Admin would be happy to work alongside.

I don't believe for a second that the type of people you are looking for can only be found within the Mods of Boards, to the degree that that Trustee list suggests anyway.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Bare in mind it's still very very New ...

I do bear that in mind which is why I feel it so important to air these views now, rather than another six months down the line, when it will be far to late as things will be in full swing at that point.

DeVore

Some swift points.

Decisions are not made in HQ. They are made in my head. I check my head with two selected people from the community (Amadeus and Seamus) and two from the office (Darragh and Dav).... then I make it and post it. Check the time of the recent PMs decision, its like 3am or something (cos I have insomnia at the moment).

Secondly we had more non-mods in the likes of Spear and Amadeus etc but the problem is that while the left hand is choosing non-mods as Trustee's the right hand is picking mods for forums. The same qualities that attract us to invite someone to be a trustee, are the same qualities that make someone attractive as a mod.
And I know what you are thinking, stop people who are user-trustees from being mods but then you make a disincentive to agree to being a trustee for some.

Its messy cos it has to be that messy more or less, we can try to clean it up but it wont be more then cosmetic really. The process needs to be that long because its complex and serves a number of purposes. FFA threads allow a robust debate but can be dominated by vocal elements. OPPP threads allow all to have their "democractic" say but dont allow rebuttal. Public and private are needed because we would simply be awash with arguments and noise if they were all the one. This way avoids refusing the public their say while recognising that some people are much more insightful about community building then others due to sheer experience here.

FF is needed because bits of Boards are broken and need fixing and future planning and because I want to expose the community to the realities of having a limited amount of resources so you all understand why we can simply have that feature or why we do things in a convoluted way.

The majority of users should never go near FF imho, its the engine room and its complex and confusing and thats ok, people need to learn about boards before they understand what is going on in there. Its one of the things which makes us unique on the net, but as a result, it is confusing to the casual user. Thats because its not *for* the casual user.

its Mod heavy because they have the most experience, do the most work and shoud have the most say in where the bus goes. I have been spicing it up with independent voices and dissent-capable people but they keep getting nicked for mod of other forums

Oh, on the idea of AH trustee. No. And we wont be doing positive discrimination for women blacks or muslims either . I dont care who you are, I care whats between your ears and how much of it you will share with me. No one represents anyone but themselves in there, stop thinking of "them and us". Mods mod one tiny part of the site and are otherwise users everywhere else, so in a sense, there ARE lots of AH users in there already.

DeV.

The Recliner

OutlawPete wrote: »

To now just nonchalantly say: "they can post in FF Public", is as if I hadn't made the damn points in the first place.

That is not what I said at all, I apologise if I have ever suggested something like that, I would be ashamed if I commented on 99.8% of the Boards population like that, maybe I needed to expand on th point a bit but I thought it was clear that I was replying by saying that the public are not ignored because both Private and Public are taken into account

I have stated many times on this thread why exactly I feel it would be beneficial if there were a small collection of non-moderators appointed as Trustees, which would allow them to join in a contribute to FF Private alongside Mods and Admin.

And it has been stated that this will happen, I don't think anyone has declared that this is a bad idea and it was one fo the first things brought up when the idea of FF was kicked around

I just think you are being a bit impatient, FF is being set up so that in the long term there will be no need for a DeVore like figurehead to make decisions, it is being set up so that Boards can be self regulating, the process needs to be refined and honed until it works as it needs to be in place for a long time

Things in FF are moving at Glacial speed not normal Boards AH speed where things happen in real time and change by the minute

It will happen but it is a good thing to get the process right before we start throwing people at it

OutlawPete

The Recliner wrote: »

That is not what I said at all..

I was quoting Overheal.

The Recliner wrote: »

And it has been stated that this will happen, I don't think anyone has declared that this is a bad idea and it was one fo the first things brought up when the idea of FF was kicked around.

Precisely, it was one of the first things brought up and while no one has declared it a bad idea, no one has really said it will defiantly happen either.

The Recliner wrote: »

I just think you are being a bit impatient, FF is being set up so that in the long term there will be no need for a DeVore like figurehead to make decisions, it is being set up so that Boards can be self regulating, the process needs to be refined and honed until it works as it needs to be in place for a long time.

I totally get that but isn't it best to say this stuff now while the house is being built, rather than coming along at the end and saying: 'You missed a bit there lads'.

DeVore wrote: »

its Mod heavy because they have the most experience, do the most work and shoud have the most say in where the bus goes.

Without the passengers (regular users) this forum would just be a Bus Garage, with Drivers and Mechanics sitting around playing cards as there would be nobody to ferry to and from their chosen destinations.

Yes, I know Mods are regular users also, but most Moderators on this site are afraid of their own arse to challenge an administerial thinking..

I can think of five or six only that have the guts to say: 'Hang on a second, we are heading for the ditch if we keep in this direction, it'll create more problems than it will solve'.

Most would rather just drive through the ditch and keep on over the fields pretending all is well as the passengers go nuts in the back screaming that the driver is a fruit cake and should never have been selected to drive this route.

It's all fine and dandy saying that FF Public is there for everyone who wishes to contribute if they feel they can add something constructive but if it then goes into what basically looks like a Mod Forum with a two way mirror, then it just all seems a little hollow.

The average user on Boards needs to represented in FF Private in my opinion, I don't believe for one moment that it just so happens that the type of people you are after are all already Mods.

What does that say about the rest of the users on Boards that have put a lot into the forum over the yeas, that the only people that that it is felt meet the criteria for Trustee status, are by and large .. already Moderators.

You say that if some Trustees are deliberately not Mods, then this then gives a disincentive to become one .. well, good.

I'm sure there are many excellent long term users of Boards that have no wish to moderate (or even have the time) but yet would still like to lend their voice as a regular user to a forum that has given them just as much as they have given it.

DeVore wrote: »

I dont care who you are, I care whats between your ears and how much of it you will share with me.

Nobody is suggesting that you (Admin et al) select users that don't have what it takes, just that you stop popping into the Mod canteen when you want to add another name to that Trustee list.

DeVore wrote: »

No one represents anyone but themselves in there, stop thinking of "them and us".

That is very naive of you if you don't mind me saying.

There is a "them and us", and that Trustee list just reinforces that feeling of it tbh.

People talk about After Hours as being an intimidating place to post, I think it has nothing on Feedback.

Over the years, I have seen regular users make very well made points here and get ignored and then seen a member of Admin come along and make pretty much the same point and go on to thanked and back slapped of the thread.

It all just seems a little impenetrable.

DeVore wrote: »

Mods mod one tiny part of the site and are otherwise users everywhere else, so in a sense, there ARE lots of AH users in there already.

Then what was the point of Amadeus asking users what they felt should be the criteria for selecting Trustees at all, if all those opinions was just going to swept aside and ignored?

Overheal

OutlawPete wrote: »

I was quoting Overheal.

And while I can appreciate that reads like a brush-off, its really not. But from my perspective im less interested in who is/isnt a trustee and what is being said. Back when we had our dry run I was reading everything in both forums regardless of which was which. And I plan to continue the trend. I think it would be tragic if people didnt contribute their ideas just because they were or weren't a trustee.

Gordon

OutlawPete wrote: »

most Moderators on this site are afraid of their own arse to challenge an administerial thinking..

Sorry to cherrypick, but that statement is completely untrue.

Ponster

Gordon wrote: »

Sorry to cherrypick, but that statement is completely untrue.

Pretty much the opposite I'd say. Most mods manage to get their job done without even knowing who the admins are! Some others look forward to the admins messing up so they can rub their noses in it.

The rest of us have little trouble in telling them when we believe they are wrong.

OutlawPete

Gordon wrote: »

Sorry to cherrypick, but that statement is completely untrue.

Ponster wrote: »

The rest of us have little trouble in telling them when we believe they are wrong.

Well, it must happen in the Mod Forum because I rarely see it in Feedback, other than the half dozen Mods I eluded to.

Gordon

OutlawPete wrote: »

Well, it must happen in the Mod Forum because I rarely see it in Feedback, other than the half dozen Mods I eluded to.

Just goes to show how much work goes on behind the scenes in every aspect of boards life

OutlawPete

RopeDrink wrote: »

If many people have this grave dislike for the number of Moderators in the Trustee list then try suggesting to the FFor team that it'd be beneficial for them to take in more regulars ..

That is what I am doing.

RopeDrink wrote: »

rather than berate the team or paintbrush Mods with your idea of how they think.

I am not "berating the team", just criticising moderators whose main aim in Feedback over the years seems to be to backslap.

I have made as many complements of the Admind / Mod team in Feedback, as I have criticisms.

When I started a thread here on Feedback complementing Boards I was accused of wanting to be a mod and now when I criticize something which I think is wrong, it is implied that I must have wanted to be a Trustee.

That's just the kind of crap I hate about Feedback.

People being accused of having an ulterior motive no matter what they say.

I love Boards, have done for years and have no interest in ever being a Trustee or a Moderator (not that I would ever be offered either and quite rightly too, considering how I have trouble being objective and tend to like throwing a few toys around, every now and then).

It is other, far more intelligent and articulate posters, that I wish to see have write access to FF Private.

I am quite happy being a regular poster, who infrequently posts the odd opinion in Feedback and FeedForward Public.

To somewhat paraphrase Groucho Marx:

"I don't care to belong to a club forum that would have people like me as a member moderator".

DeVore

If you have any suggestions, shoot! Anyone can propose we do discuss them and we do adopt them. Might be best to PM me or one of the trustees or facilitators. They can propose new members too.

DeV.

DeVore

How can we talk about "The mods" as a static group who have, from the start, circled the wagons when so many new ones have arrived in the last 18 months. So many more have stopped modding.

How can we talk about a disinclination to dissent when Krank Korner was the direct kick in the pants I needed to execute on what I had always wanted to build, which is FeedForward. Did any of those mods get shot in some Chinese style retribution? In fact Amadeus (at the time not a mod) became one of the people I asked to check my head.


There is subjective opinion, trotted out here by the same names and there is objective fact which simply doesnt tally with or support the former.


I'm sorry, I havent involved myself more with these sorts of allegations because I lack a common basis from which to communicate. How can you argue with the allegation that the cheese-people are eating the moon when you know for a fact that the moon isnt made of cheese.

DeV.

OutlawPete

RopeDrink wrote: »

I've not really read into what your concern with Moderators is because it has no real bearing on the topic

Dev made a comment on why the Trustee list is Mod heavy and how Mods should have the "most say in where the bus goes".

My comments were in direct response to that.

It is just so rare to see Mods and Admin all have the same opinion on a thread and then see one Mod say:

"Well, actually I agree with the OP and what they say actually could work if we just .. etc etc".

It's the taking on board the opinions of non-mods over felllow Mods and Admin, that I feel is all too rare.

I think also that Mods are the last ones to point out when something needs changing (in public at least) and so that is why I feel that more Mods need to step up and suggest changes when they feel they would be beneficial to Boards.

Perhaps they do so behind the scenes and it is all just really Mods not wishing to air their dirty laundry in public.

My whole point is based on the concern that FF Private might just become another Mod Forum and FeedForward just another part of Feedback.

I appreciate it is just early days.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Technically you're a Moderator...

That would be a bit like the security guard of a Joke Shop, referring to himself a cop ..

DeVore wrote: »

How can we talk about a disinclination to dissent when Krank Korner was the direct kick in the pants I needed to execute on what I had always wanted to build, which is FeedForward.

These are part of the five or six Mods I have been mentioning all along.

DeVore wrote: »

Did any of those mods get shot in some Chinese style retribution?

No, but Dr.B wasn't to know what reaction he was to receive exactly.

Surely KK was set up as all other avenues of achieving transparency were proving to be futile.

It's not really a good argument that all Mods must have it in them to go against the grain when they feel it appropriate, just because the Mods involved in KK did and yet are here they are, all still Moderating (or indeed, back moderating).

These particular Mods are a rare breed and if all Mods were of that calibur, I wouldn't be bothered in the slightest about the Trustee list being full of them, without so much as a non-mod in sight, as it wouldn't really matter to me then.

DeVore wrote: »

If you have any suggestions, shoot! Anyone can propose we do discuss them and we do adopt them. Might be best to PM me or one of the trustees or facilitators.

Grand so, will do that.

AckwelFoley

The term mod on this site in association with the "them v's us" is a little skewed.

This site has alot of mods and alot of forums, many og the mods on the list of trustees mod a very small amount of forums, and in effect are outside that forum are plain ol users. Perhaps there is a them v's us feeling out there because mods tend to agree on points similar to the admin, but thiats not a conspiracy, its perhaps because of reasonable knowledge on whats involved, or better understanding of the forum that mods and admins would have...

For example i would find myself agreeing with the admins in general much of the time, im not a mod, i never will be - but because my name isnt bolded you dont notice that im agreeing with "the man"

If i think something is absolut hogswash, i will happily tell them and voice myself, i have and will, i wasnt asked to be a trustee to tow the line, but i wont pull against them either with a different opinion for the sake of being heard.

OutlawPete

snyper wrote: »

..but i wont pull against them either with a different opinion for the sake of being heard.

You think anyone would want you to?

Other than the popcorn eating voyeurs I mean.