Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Feedback - Charter Discussion

  • #1
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 10,341 LoLth


    This is a thread for discussion of the forum charter which can be found HERE.

    All opinions are welcome and the charter is open to change.


«13

Comments



  • Suggest a definition of what the forum mods mean when they refer to trolling




  • tbh wrote: »
    Suggest a definition of what the forum mods mean when they refer to trolling
    Whats wrong with the classic definition?




  • What is the classic definition?




  • Forums/Categories should have their own individual feedback areas. Lots of stuff discussed in FB atm are very noisy and don't really appear to lead to any noticeable changes taking place.

    Some forums already have feedback stickies.. they seem a lot more effective for dealing with issues pertinent to the forum they're contained within. Maybe the issues which mods/cmods deem to have implications for the site as a whole could be moved here to be dealt with by the current FF crew?




  • tbh wrote: »
    What is the classic definition?
    As Wikipedia puts it best:
    someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.


  • Advertisement


  • How do you prove that that is their primary intent? This is the thing that annoys me about people playing the troll card - if I post a genuinely held opinion, someone else who doesn't agree with it calls me a troll - as if I couldn't possibly have a rational reason for holding that opinion, the only reason I'm saying what I'm saying is to wind people up. Calling troll is a judgement call - I have no problem with the appointed mods making that call, even if I might not agree with them, as long as the parameters for making that call are clearly laid out in advance - and not just used as a stick to beat someone who holds an unpopular, but sincerely held, opinion. I'm not saying the mods *would* do that, but as the charter is being defined, it makes sense - to me - to lay this stuff out now.




  • @tbh: certainly something I have thought about but I want ot be careful not to leave a "hole" in teh definition so that a clever troll can point at the charter and say "show me the rule I broke" and use the charter as a tool to beat me/other users over the head with. trolling is something that *needs* to have room for mod discretion (especially low level trolling as is being discussed in the soccer thread currently). The Wikipedia definition + padding may be enough.

    @My Name is URL: that has been discussed multiple times and while it has merit it has its downside as well. This is not the thread for resurrection of that discussion. Its for discussion of the current charter for the current feedback forum.




  • tbh wrote: »
    I have no problem with the appointed mods making that call, even if I might not agree with them, as long as the parameters for making that call are clearly laid out in advance
    I don't think any forum charters have the exact parameters of what defines a troll clearly laid out do they? LTI doesn't, for example.




  • It's never really come up in LTI :). It does arise in, say, tGC, hence:

    Comments regarding personality traits which begin with words like "women just want to" or "all men are" are never true, and never serve any purpose except to inflame other users who feel the need to post to object to them them.
    Therefore, they will be regarded as flaming (posting a intentionally provocative post with the deliberate intention of bringing the thread off-topic) and users may be banned or infracted at the mods discretion.




  • tbh wrote: »
    It's never really come up in LTI :)
    Probably because you've got it covered in the charter :D


  • Advertisement


  • I might suggest the addition of something along the lines of 'Discussions on Forums should not feature input from those permabanned from same.'




  • Nodin wrote: »
    I might suggest the addition of something along the lines of 'Discussions on Forums should not feature input from those permabanned from same.'

    I dont think permabans should be excluded from giving feedback, but, I do feel they should either disclose the information themselves upfront or when asked so that their opinion can be taken with a pinch of salt if needs be.

    Its not something that I feel would be enforcable by a hard and fast rule though, not without some discussion with the other admins. Is it fair to discredit an opinion based on a ban that could well be from a long time ago and from a different mod, possibly for an outburst or insult on a particularly hot/controversial topic at the time. I would like to think that sour grapes will be evident in the quality of feedback given.




  • Think every forum should be open to having its own Feedback thread..




  • Think every forum should be open to having its own Feedback thread..

    This was discussed elsewhere. There is nothing against each forum having its own feedback thread if the mods want to set one up.

    this thread however is for discussion of the charter for the feedback forum.




  • LoLth wrote: »
    I dont think permabans should be excluded from giving feedback, but, I do feel they should either disclose the information themselves upfront or when asked so that their opinion can be taken with a pinch of salt if needs be.

    Its not something that I feel would be enforcable by a hard and fast rule though, not without some discussion with the other admins. Is it fair to discredit an opinion based on a ban that could well be from a long time ago and from a different mod, possibly for an outburst or insult on a particularly hot/controversial topic at the time. I would like to think that sour grapes will be evident in the quality of feedback given.


    ...correct me if I'm wrong, but you aren't permabanned for a single incident, afaik...if somebodys just 'on holidays' for a bit, fair enough, I've no objections, but a permanent exclusion is rather different.




  • Nodin wrote: »
    ...correct me if I'm wrong, but you aren't permabanned for a single incident, afaik...if somebodys just 'on holidays' for a bit, fair enough, I've no objections, but a permanent exclusion is rather different.

    depends on the incident. Its not always warning then ban then permaban. some things, like posting pornography or seriously compromising a forums rules warrant more than just a warning.




  • Nodin wrote: »
    I might suggest the addition of something along the lines of 'Discussions on Forums should not feature input from those permabanned from same.'

    I stand corrected.

    recent update to the charter:
    added 08/11/2011:
    Users under a ban from a forum
    Users currently serving a ban from a forum with a duration over 1 month are not allowed to post on feedback threads concerning that forum. Once the ban is lifted or the term has ended, then the user is more than welcome to participate. This is to stem a growing trend of banned users hijacking threads to either appeal a ban or take the opoprtunity to make life more difficult for the mod or mods that imposed the ban in the first place. Any post reported, if posted after this amendment to the charter and during a ban period will be investigated. Any user found breaking this rule will have a ban from feedback imposed on them, without warning, that will only be lifted when their original forum ban has expired or has been lifted. To appeal a ban, please use the Dispute Resolution forum and follow the Dispute resolution procedure. If you wish to complain outside of that process, please feel free to do so on any of the other forums hosted outside of the boards.ie/adverts.ie servers.

    Some banned/permabanned users were willing to give honest feedback but too many were takign advantage of the opportunity to make life difficult for the mods and were using feedback to execute a grudge. I honestly never wanted to have to impose this rule (as I posted above) but recent trends on feedback threads, not just those within the last few weeks, have shown that this is an almost impossible task to moderate and manage. The *only* solution that I can see has to be one of zero tolerance. I apologise for implementing this rule to those that feel this will impact them unfairly and I apologise to thread starters and mods for not implementing it sooner.

    LoLth




  • Should make it somewhat easier for yez.




  • LoLth wrote: »
    I stand corrected.

    recent update to the charter:


    Some banned/permabanned users were willing to give honest feedback but too many were takign advantage of the opportunity to make life difficult for the mods and were using feedback to execute a grudge. I honestly never wanted to have to impose this rule (as I posted above) but recent trends on feedback threads, not just those within the last few weeks, have shown that this is an almost impossible task to moderate and manage. The *only* solution that I can see has to be one of zero tolerance. I apologise for implementing this rule to those that feel this will impact them unfairly and I apologise to thread starters and mods for not implementing it sooner.

    LoLth

    I disagree with this new rule, but respect your decision.

    I think a stern "do not post in this thread again" warning to posters that are not being constructive would suffice, it takes as much effort to moderate this way as it would a blanket ban.




  • TheZohan wrote: »
    I disagree with this new rule, but respect your decision.

    I think a stern "do not post in this thread again" warning to posters that are not being constructive would suffice, it takes as much effort to moderate this way as it would a blanket ban.

    I do agree with you, to an extent, and it has been my approach in the past. However, the multiple PMs that follow still take time and thats time I dont always have at my disposal. Additionally, on several occasions, the poster might not be directly addressing their ban but instead nudging a complaint from another user or simply keeping a complaint alive long past its resolution for the sake of either wasting time or tarnishng the reputaiton of the mods in question.

    Its a balancing act and currently, valid feedback is getting overshadowed by posts from users with a grudge and mods are spending more time defending themselves from those accusations than responding to feedback from users that are willing to engage and are open to having their opinion changed.

    bottom line is there are a lot of users on this site and feedback from a user that posts in the spirit of the forum and abides by the charter is a lot more useful than those that will not or cannot. Why should we change the site to suit those that refuse to change to fit the site ?

    Honestly, your suggestion has been tried. It hasnt worked. This addition to the charter is, for me, a last resort and not one I am too happy about implementing but, its for the best overall.


  • Advertisement


  • LoLth wrote: »
    thats time I dont always have at my disposal

    Hi LoLth :)

    This looks to me like you are the only Admin regularly involved in Feedback.

    Is this the way it is? How many Admins are there, and why aren't more of them involved in Feedback?

    I've noticed before that you yourself seem to have a lot of Admin-y responsibilities on your shoulders (you are also seemingly the only Admin involved in the Forum Request Forum on anything approaching a regular basis).

    Trout seems to be the man for DRP closure, and Zaph deals with Prison.

    Who are the other Admins, and what are their roles?




  • Des wrote: »
    Hi LoLth :)

    This looks to me like you are the only Admin regularly involved in Feedback.

    Is this the way it is?

    nope, the other admins pitch in as needed. I just tend to hit feedback first :)
    How many Admins are there, and why aren't more of them involved in Feedback?

    more than you might think and we're cloning more all the time.
    I've noticed before that you yourself seem to have a lot of Admin-y responsibilities on your shoulders

    no more than any other admin. The time I was referring to was RL time. I dont get to sit down with boards for the same length of time I used to anymore so I try to use time in a better way. Responding to PMs is always top of the list, the more pms the less time is left for other things.
    (you are also seemingly the only Admin involved in the Forum Request Forum on anything approaching a regular basis).

    I am a sort of self appointed caretaker of that forum but I'm not the only admin that drops in there. I post more perhaps but its not my "domain" in any way.
    Trout seems to be the man for DRP closure, and Zaph deals with Prison.

    Trout has yet to lose his layer of fatty patience. we'll get him skinnied down to a less tolerant admin soon enough :) as for prison, we generally deal with our own sitebans to make things clearer for the user, I dont siteban that many people so I would appear less there than Zaph. (which explains why he's less prominent on feedback as he's dealing with banned people.
    Who are the other Admins, and what are their roles?

    there's a list somewhere...cant remember offhand. We do have loosely defined roles but we try to steer clear of strict boundaries as you never know when you may be needed to fill a gap and also the same task day after day becoems a task and not something you enjoy and admins, like mods, are volunteers so we have to enjoy it to make it worthwhile (I'm a nice person but I'm not selfless, I've modded/cmodded and now admin because I get satisfaction from it. It may be the bannings, it may be helping to keep a community going, I dont know, let the speculation begin!). if I get time I'll PM you a link to the list (its in the mod forum isnt it? the who's who?)


    however, this is only tangentially related to the charter. Do you have a comment or question on the recent addition?




  • LoLth wrote: »




    there's a list somewhere...cant remember offhand.


    Here ya go :)




  • tbh wrote: »
    What is the classic definition?

    There's one in the parenting charter.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056190205
    Trolls
    What is a troll?
    A troll is a poster who posts in away to try get your goat.

    How will a troll do this?
    By being annoying confrontational and antagonistic and saying it's just that my opinion differs.

    What does a troll want?
    To disrupt a forum and upset the posters who post there.

    Why does a troll do this?
    For kicks, the more worked up you get the more fun a troll thinks it is.
    A successful troll will post something which is not enough to get them banned but the reactions of posters to it will get the poster banned and have posters turn on each other.

    How do we deal with trolls and neutralise their behaviour?
    By not reacting in the way they want, they are like the bold child acting out.

    First thing you can do is take a deep breath.

    Second things you can do is report the posts.
    While one or two trollish posts may not be enough to have the troll booted from the forum if they persist and there is a clear pattern of such behaviour they will be banned permanently from the forum. Yes this has been done before and will be done again if needed.

    Third if you do reply to posts don't let the troll drag you down to it's level
    stay on topic and be civil as per the rules of the forum.




  • Would second TZ's post in that, while I disagree with this new Charter amendment LoLth, I still fully respect your decision to back it. I would also mirror Des's comments in that you do seem to put in more time that any other members of Admin (second only to RopeDrink perhaps) and anyone that spends even a little time here reading the threads can see that and so see my points as being directed at admin as a entirety, not just yourself.
    LoLth wrote: »
    Some banned/permabanned users were willing to give honest feedback but too many were takign advantage of the opportunity to make life difficult for the mods and were using feedback to execute a grudge.

    As I said in the other thread, this 'grudge' accusation has become a favourite weapon of choice for some mods in FB this past lately. It's for sure an easy way to muddy the waters and get admin's attention. Make a user look as if they have ulterior motives for saying what they are and so ir will appear as if there is little or no substance in their complaints, they have an agenda .. and to be fair, it works - and works well.

    I'm not for a second trying to suggest that there are not users that fit the above description by the way, as there most certainly are those that after being permabanned, should they happen into FB and see a thread regarding that same forum (or indeed a moderator that they had dealings with) will see it as an opening to troll, stir and get the boot in throughout the thread's lifespan.

    However, again I have to agree with TZ here in that those users should undoubtedly be moderated for that. Blanket banning users from ever giving feedback when it concerns forums that they have been permabanned from, is a bridge too far. I have been accused of having a grudge against a forum when there was no truth in it, so I speak from experience. A forum I only ever disputed moderation in ONCE and posted in ONE feedback thread concerning, yet got permabanned. Interestingly, the very thing you again cite here as one of the reasons for this amendment was also throw at me: "you were making trouble for the mods".

    So what? That's the nature of feedback when you don't agree with. It will rankle, of course it will but sure if it holds no water and there is no merit in it, there should be no problem pointing that out. It's as clear as day when someone has a GENUINE grudge against a forum as there never any substance in what they say. They usually talk in circles and if you asked them what they want, they wouldn't be able to tell you as they rarely if ever know. There is never any specifics to their complainants and they generally only know what they don't want moderators on a forum to do, never what they wish them to do.

    This new amendment has been pushed through for one reason and one reason alone and that is to SHUT USERS UP. Users that certain moderators wish had no voice when it comes to giving feedback regarding forum's that they moderate. Maybe not right away, but over time there will no question be a hell of lot more permabans for users from now on, as a consequence of this amendment, that's is for damn sure - because, as long as mods know that were they to permaban a user from their forum, they are also having the knock on effect of muzzling them in FB (and from even ever giving FB as long as that ban stands) well then unfortunately, the incentive will appear to great for some.




  • OutlawPete wrote: »
    Would second TZ's post in that, while I disagree with this new Charter amendment LoLth, I still fully respect your decision to back it. I would also mirror Des's comments in that you do seem to put in more time that any other members of Admin (second only to RopeDrink perhaps) and anyone that spends even a little time here reading the threads can see that and so see my points as being directed at admin as a entirety, not just yourself.



    As I said in the other thread, this 'grudge' accusation has become a favourite weapon of choice for some mods in FB this past lately. It's for sure an easy way to muddy the waters and get admin's attention. Make a user look as if they have ulterior motives for saying what they are and so ir will appear as if there is little or no substance in their complaints, they have an agenda .. and to be fair, it works - and works well.

    ..........

    I suggested this on the 8th of May, as it was obvious to me that vendettas by the permabanned were being dragged into feedback regarding mods, users and the fora they were slung out of. I'm not a mod.

    If you've been permabanned from a specific forum, have gone through the DRP and the decision has been upheld, what valid input are you going to be able to have, exactly? Whats the point of it?




  • Nodin wrote: »
    If you've been permabanned from a specific forum, have gone through the DRP and the decision has been upheld, what valid input are you going to be able to have, exactly?

    Not all users that get permabanned have the option of a DRP thread, I have made that point many times now and as of yet, it has not been addressed. The thread I started on that particular point regarding admin issued permabans was swiftly locked and it was implied that I wanted to complain about the forum which I was banned from, which is the kind of thing that I am talking about. This 'grudge' stick is just being used as a tool to shut certain users up, users that have a genuine complaint (some don't, again - I of course get that) but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water here.

    If users try and dispute bans here in FB and/or try and get a witch hunt going against a moderator, then just moderate them (get new mods if necessary). Lets not punish the users who trying to give genuine feedback based on their experiences, even if that experience includes a permaban. Treating such users as if they just want to get digs in and have no other reason for posting is wrong, it shouldn't happen, not without very good cause at least and in my opinion, this new amendment, will make that an even more likely occurrence from hence forth, as that particular stick has now got even bigger, much to the delight of those who don't like hearing criticisms regarding their forum, no matter how legitimate such criticisms might be.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Whats the point of it?

    Users that have been permabanned from forums, don't always dispute their bans, many fully accept that they were deserved, that's just one point. Another being that users that have been permabanned might just have something worthwhile and valuable to say. Something that the mods may have missed amongst the din and chaos that goes with permabanning a user from time to time (I've seen many issued at once for instance). If FB was moderated more frequently (not trying to imply it isn't moderated well by the way) then I don't see why all users should not be able to give feedback without quandary, once of course that is that they obeyed the previous Charter (which I had thanked).

    Personally, I have no truck with admin, cmods nor specific moderators. On the contrary, I happen to think overall that they do a great job, as other than this current permaban (which I would without question would like to dispute in the DRF) I have had three other temp bans in my six years on Boards and each and every one of them was lifted using the DR process. I have also had occasion to request admin to delete certain abusive posts on Boards and they also were kind enough to do that for me. Nor indeed a grudge against any forum on Boards and this is my main point: we need to put an end to these constant accusations of users having grudges against forums. It's a tactic employed to muddy the waters and lessen the complaints that users might have with regards to forums and/or how they are being moderated.

    If moderators question a users motives in FB, then they should report the posts and let admin look into it and let them decide if there is evidence to support such accusations. Steaming into FB making these claims usually ends up with threads getting derailed and then ultimately locked .. another tactic perhaps. One wonders also what has admin making this amendment. Is it many forums on boards that want it? Just a few? Do the same mods/users reports posts in FB making these claims of 'grudges' and the like?

    As, maybe it's just me (quite probable) but I would have thought that any user making nonsense complaints in FB fuelled only by a grudge that held little or no weight, would be easily handled by moderators replies and/or reporting said posts. Address these users main points and ignore the noise, then where is the issue. What is this so called "trouble" that mods are having to go to, to such an extent that admin have to make this amendment to the charter? One wonders yet again would it really be that these moderators just don't like having to explain their moderation to mere users with unbolded usernames?

    As it seems to me (aye, an opinion) that certain mods are well able to come to FB and converse with users, address their points, agree to disagree and get on with their day, while there are others, that appear to resent the fact that any user has dared question their moderation, let alone the fact that admin would provide the very platform for them to do so. My guess is that the mods/admin responsible for pushing this new rule through are the very same ones that I am referring to with regards to some not been to receptive to constructive criticisms of how their forums are moderated and/or their individual moderation decisions. Which begs the question: is this all really just a case of the tail wagging the dog.




  • OutlawPete wrote: »
    Not all users that get permabanned have the option of a DRP thread, I have made that point many times now and as of yet, it has not been addressed..

    Thats up to the site mods. You seem to be under the impression that a site is obligated to you or that you have some 'rights' as regards matters disciplinary. They aren't and you don't. Not here, not anywhere that I'm aware of.
    OutlawPete wrote: »
    The thread I started on that particular point regarding admin issued permabans was swiftly locked and it was implied that I wanted to complain about the forum which I was banned from, which is the kind of thing that I am talking about. ..

    I wonder where they got that idea from.....
    I was recently permbanned from a forum by a member of admin, via PM. I feel the permaban was unjust and unwarranted. Certain reasons given for the ban were for things which I feel users should be able to do on Boards freely, without fear of it ever getting thrown back in their face, such as: disputing a moderation decision in the Help Desk, giving Feedback etc. There were other accusations also made in the PM which were quite frankly, absurd, as I have never been so much as infracted on this particular forum and have only ever given Feedback in relation to it on one single thread in five years.

    .....any suggestions?

    This thing about "constructive criticisms of how their forums are moderated" by the permabanned - you don't see how that would end up as an endless rehash of the argument concerning the issue(s) that led to them being hoofed out in the 1st place?




  • Nodin wrote: »
    Thats up to the site mods. You seem to be under the impression that a site is obligated to you or that you have some 'rights' as regards matters disciplinary.

    I think the site is "obligated" to me with regards to matters disciplinary? What a nonsense statement.

    Boards.ie, with the DRF and the DRP has made it quite clear that they wish for bannings to be as transparent as possible and I am pointing out that there is one area where there is zero transparency and that is when admin ban a user at the request of the forum mods. If Boards.ie does not wish to allow users to dispute such bans, then that is obviously their choice. A point which I made clear in the last few lines of this post:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75199858&postcount=5
    Nodin wrote: »
    I wonder where they got that idea from.....

    As do I as I made it quite clear that I wanted to dispute my ban in the DRF.
    Nodin wrote: »
    .. you don't see how that would end up as an endless rehash of the argument concerning the issue(s) that led to them being hoofed out in the 1st place?

    Eh, did you read my post? I have stated many times that I beleive users that do that should be moderated and banned from FB if necessary.


  • Advertisement


  • I've actually not read the charter nor some of the above so forgive for stepping ahead, but...

    I simply have to say it - If any new rules are applied, I can only hope that one will be made which involves the locking/closing of any/all threads that ARE NOT FEEDBACK.

    I'm sure some people get a kick out of it but, personally, after so many years reading and posting here, I'm sick to death of all these threads cropping up from X Poster taking a pot-shot at Y Poster/Mod/Admin/ModDecision (Why was my thread locked? Why was so & so banned? etc).

    I can understand leaving these threads open if they even remotely hinted at any worthwhile constructive criticism for Boards to consider but 99.99% of these degrade into annoying dramatic mud-flinging (If they weren't already just a 100% anger vent, or a means to simply accuse people or 'highlight' their grievences with a person or persons as opposed to giving constructive criticism) - until some Admin gets a bit tired of the 'debate' and locks it... Usually after mumbling something about "Use DRP" or "This is not the place..." AFTER it's boiled up into a 2-3-4-5-6 page long Eastenders Episode over nothing.

    At the end of the day, it's quite simple "This Forum is for FeedBack regarding the improvement of Boards.ie" - If it's not FeedBack (ESPECIALLY if it's something more suited to the DRP or Private Messages between X & Y) please, please, please - JUST close the thread and send people on their way in the right direction.

    Just my 2cents which would point people to the RIGHT area and stop some FeedBack Off-Topic noise. These threads do no justice to the finger pointers or the people having fingers pointed at them - It also takes a lot of emphasis AWAY from the DRP if people can still get away with posting their annoying rants in FeedBack (Even if it doesn't get them the desired result). Nipping this crap in the bud will encourage the DRP to be used more than it currently is - So far it seems the majority would rather vent on FeedBack than take the time to use proper procedure and actually do something about their complaint.


Leave a Comment

Rich Text Editor. To edit a paragraph's style, hit tab to get to the paragraph menu. From there you will be able to pick one style. Nothing defaults to paragraph. An inline formatting menu will show up when you select text. Hit tab to get into that menu. Some elements, such as rich link embeds, images, loading indicators, and error messages may get inserted into the editor. You may navigate to these using the arrow keys inside of the editor and delete them with the delete or backspace key.

Advertisement