Forum Feedback (Please thank this post so we know you have seen it)

m r c

GreeBo wrote: »

If I was to try to sum it up simply...
Talk about the fact, not the decision.
Help?

Yes that's helpful thanks.

So this is fine.
I see Rory has decided to play for Ireland.

This is not.
I think it's great that Rory has decided to play for Ireland.

That a good example?

FixdePitchmark

m r c wrote: »

Yes that's helpful thanks.

So this is fine.
I see Rory has decided to play for Ireland.

This is not.
I think it's great that Rory has decided to play for Ireland.

That a good example?

That is ridiculous if that is the case.

GreeBo

m r c wrote: »

Yes that's helpful thanks.

So this is fine.
I see Rory has decided to play for Ireland.

This is not.
I think it's great that Rory has decided to play for Ireland.

That a good example?

More like how do you think Ireland will do in the Olympics ( the way that thread is going is fine)
And nothing to do with the decision at all. Assume there was never any question add to who he was to play for, we all know it's Ireland now, basically...time to move on.

charlieIRL

P_1 wrote: »

Just my 2 cent, when you're zapping things like that might it be an idea to add a few lines explaining why. Perhaps it's just posting style but sometimes mod posts can come across as rather authoritarian and dictatorial.

but i did, I left a note reminding the posters of the charter.

PARlance

Why not have some form of access request for the golf forum? Akin to the soccer forum.

My observation is that generally this place is fairly trouble free but you know there's going to be trouble around the majors and the odd time when golf hits the mainstream headlines.
If guys that are just passing by for an off the cuff comment had to send a request to post I think it could save a lot of trouble.
It wouldn't affect regulars or occasional posters.

*****

<MOD SNIP>

Fair enough, posters may have still come in with objections about not being able to discuss it freely but that is standard and to be expected. It may or may not be right, but it should be expected.

Greebo, you have cited people continually posting as the reason you adopted, what I see as, an aggressive approach with "For those of you hard of hearing..." and that tone continued in this thread on a few occasions.
I really think you should know by now that this rubs a lot of the forum up the wrong way.
And considering that these posts get deleted, how are people that don't see them go up going to know that. They just see an overly aggressive post and that's not a good start.

After all, as posters we are told we need to remain calm, I think Moderators need to remain calm as well.
Hassle should be expected and it's just as effective to issue a "Next post will be a ban" without adding other bits that clearly wind a lot of people up.

I also think the other mods should take a step up and issue these "sterner" second and final warnings, it seems to fall to Greebo most of the time.

So, in an ideal word for me:
There would be some way to restrict the Seagull posters who fly by every now and again, making a racket and sh*ting all over the place only to be gone as soon as golf isn't a headline.

The non greebo mods take up some of the sterner warnings and help him crack the whip a bit more... (I'd still love you Charlie )
The Greebo mod continues to crack the whip but maybe acknowledges that the delivery of this can be better.

So, less of a Bad Cop/Good Cop scenario, and more of just a Cop/Cop scenario

It's a good forum and is well moderated for the most part, and it's certainly a thankless job but seeing as it's the feedback thread, I may as give it.

Anatom

PARlance wrote: »

Why not have some form of access request for the golf forum? Akin to the soccer forum.

My observation is that generally this place is fairly trouble free but you know there's going to be trouble around the majors and the odd time when golf hits the mainstream headlines.
If guys that are just passing by for an off the cuff comment had to send a request to post I think it could save a lot of trouble.
It wouldn't affect regulars or occasional posters.

*****
<MOD SNIP>

Fair enough, posters may have still come in with objections about not being able to discuss it freely but that is standard and to be expected. It may or may not be right, but it should be expected.

Greebo, you have cited people continually posting as the reason you adopted, what I see as, an aggressive approach with "For those of you hard of hearing..." and that tone continued in this thread on a few occasions.
I really think you should know by now that this rubs a lot of the forum up the wrong way.
And considering that these posts get deleted, how are people that don't see them go up going to know that. They just see an overly aggressive post and that's not a good start.

After all, as posters we are told we need to remain calm, I think Moderators need to remain calm as well.
Hassle should be expected and it's just as effective to issue a "Next post will be a ban" without adding other bits that clearly wind a lot of people up.

I also think the other mods should take a step up and issue these "sterner" second and final warnings, it seems to fall to Greebo most of the time.

So, in an ideal word for me:
There would be some way to restrict the Seagull posters who fly by every now and again, making a racket and sh*ting all over the place only to be gone as soon as golf isn't a headline.

The non greebo mods take up some of the sterner warnings and help him crack the whip a bit more... (I'd still love you Charlie )
The Greebo mod continues to crack the whip but maybe acknowledges that the delivery of this can be better.

So, less of a Bad Cop/Good Cop scenario, and more of just a Cop/Cop scenario

It's a good forum and is well moderated for the most part, and it's certainly a thankless job but seeing as it's the feedback thread, I may as give it.

Good post there PARlance.

Remember too, that the written word can be easy to misinterpret when compared with saying something to someone face-to-face...

Speaking as one who has been censured in the distant past (cough, cough) I'd have to agree that this forum is pretty well run indeed. Much of that has to do with the time and commitment the mods (GreeBo and CharlieIRL esp) give to it.

However, we need to bear in mind that most regular posters on here are decent enough and are simply interested in learning and discussing a sport they love to play, while knocking a bit of craic out of it as well. <MOD SNIP>
Perhaps everyone can learn something from this and, as someone just said, I think we can all move on from it at this stage...

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

Why not have some form of access request for the golf forum? Akin to the soccer forum.

My observation is that generally this place is fairly trouble free but you know there's going to be trouble around the majors and the odd time when golf hits the mainstream headlines.
If guys that are just passing by for an off the cuff comment had to send a request to post I think it could save a lot of trouble.
It wouldn't affect regulars or occasional posters.

We really dont want to go down that route, wanting to be as inclusive as possible. Having to request access might turn away a few people who we would want, I dont think its worth it?

PARlance wrote: »

*****

<MOD SNIP>

Fair enough, posters may have still come in with objections about not being able to discuss it freely but that is standard and to be expected. It may or may not be right, but it should be expected.

It is expected, thats why charlie gave an on thread warning about it. It was ignored, repeatedly. Thats when cards get handed out. We are not here to mother people, each person doesnt deserve an individual warning; this isnt a paid job remember.

PARlance wrote: »

Greebo, you have cited people continually posting as the reason you adopted, what I see as, an aggressive approach with "For those of you hard of hearing..." and that tone continued in this thread on a few occasions.
I really think you should know by now that this rubs a lot of the forum up the wrong way.

I have reviewed this thread and tbh I cant see any post in here that is anyway aggressive?
As I said previously, the "hard of hearing" comment was because people were again breaching the charter despite and on thread warning. I gave a firmer on thread warning. The other option is cards and infractions.

PARlance wrote: »

And considering that these posts get deleted, how are people that don't see them go up going to know that. They just see an overly aggressive post and that's not a good start.

Posters see on thread warnings and that posts have been deleted. Leaving posts in place just increases the churn. We dont just zap them, we zap and comment mod style

PARlance wrote: »

After all, as posters we are told we need to remain calm, I think Moderators need to remain calm as well.
Hassle should be expected and it's just as effective to issue a "Next post will be a ban" without adding other bits that clearly wind a lot of people up.

I'm always calm! Hassle shouldnt be expected though. Why should volunteers expect to deal with hassle for something thats known by everyone and people have already been warned about?
Again, this isnt play school, people need to be responsible and accept the consequences of their actions.

PARlance wrote: »

I also think the other mods should take a step up and issue these "sterner" second and final warnings, it seems to fall to Greebo most of the time.

So, in an ideal word for me:
There would be some way to restrict the Seagull posters who fly by every now and again, making a racket and sh*ting all over the place only to be gone as soon as golf isn't a headline.

The non greebo mods take up some of the sterner warnings and help him crack the whip a bit more... (I'd still love you Charlie )
The Greebo mod continues to crack the whip but maybe acknowledges that the delivery of this can be better.

So, less of a Bad Cop/Good Cop scenario, and more of just a Cop/Cop scenario

It's a good forum and is well moderated for the most part, and it's certainly a thankless job but seeing as it's the feedback thread, I may as give it.

To be frank, there are lots of occasions where I will give a stern on thread warning where the other option would be cards, I can go back to giving out cards but based on feedback on this thread before I had moved away from that.
I think posters need to accept that we, as mods, are really not willing to have to sift through post after post and issue polite warnings again and again. Thats not the job, at least not in my opinion.

GreeBo

Lads stop discussing individual moderations actions towards a poster please, Beasty has already warned about this.

P_1

charlieIRL wrote: »

but i did, I left a note reminding the posters of the charter.

Ah so you did, my apologies in that case

Beasty

PARlance wrote: »

Why not have some form of access request for the golf forum? Akin to the soccer forum.

What makes you think this will improve things? The Soccer Forum access was introduced to help deal with issues specific to Soccer. I guess it also helps stem spammers, but the recent introduction of a 50 post requirement before being able to post links has resulted in a massive improvement on that front anyway

Are you witnessing an influx of low postcount trolls? That's all the access mechanism really helps control. TBH it's pretty easy for posters to post the requisite 50 posts across the site and gain access if they really want to regardless of the process. What it does do though is put of posters genuinely interested in posting as it suggests to them the forum has introduced it to deal with some major issues (which I am certainly not seeing here), and posters prefer not to go through the hassle - indeed they may have a spur of the moment thought they may wish to contribute only to forget all about it when they see they need to go through a convoluted access process

PARlance

Beasty wrote: »

What makes you think this will improve things? The Soccer Forum access was introduced to help deal with issues specific to Soccer. I guess it also helps stem spammers, but the recent introduction of a 50 post requirement before being able to post links has resulted in a massive improvement on that front anyway

Are you witnessing an influx of low postcount trolls? That's all the access mechanism really helps control. TBH it's pretty easy for posters to post the requisite 50 posts across the site and gain access if they really want to regardless of the process. What it does do though is put of posters genuinely interested in posting as it suggests to them the forum has introduced it to deal with some major issues (which I am certainly not seeing here), and posters prefer not to go through the hassle - indeed they may have a spur of the moment thought they may wish to contribute only to forget all about it when they see they need to go through a convoluted access process

I explained why in the following paragraph. Nothing to do with above.

*************

Seperate feedback;
Close the feedback thread.

SnowDrifts

Agreed Parlance... there is no point having a "feedback thread" if the Mods are not even going to consider any feedback they receive. It's a shame the way the forum is moderated in that way.

GreeBo

So you don't get your way and it's toys out of the pram time?
Restricted access:
- is extra work for mods
- drives away new posters
- is not required on a forum that doesn't have a spam problem
The vast majority of mod work is driven by regular posters, there is very little one of posters.

Also it had been considered before, it's not something that we would discuss with posters, no need as you are all already here.

Feedback thread is here for everyone btw.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

So you don't get your way and it's toys out of the pram time?
Restricted access:
- is extra work for mods
- drives away new posters
- is not required on a forum that doesn't have a spam problem
The vast majority of mod work is driven by regular posters, there is very little one of posters.

Also it had been considered before, it's not something that we would discuss with posters, no need as you are all already here.

Feedback thread is here for everyone btw.

To use a well trotted out line, why the personal attacks?!?!

No toys were harmed in my post.
I kept my response (to Beasty) quite short as I now feel this thread deserves minimum input.

I wasn't going to respond to you because I don't believe there is any point trying to discuss anything with you on here.

Now... That's me out, toys to play with.

dan_ep82

I moderated a busy car forum (100k unique hits per month) and I have to say I can understand where Greebo is coming from concerning some decisions not being made a vote.
Sometimes what the users want would be detrimental to the forum, generally its a group of vocal users, not the entire forum, who wish for these changes.
I believe as Greebo does, making the forum invite only would alienate potential new members for the purpose of stopping near non existent spam. The trade off is way too much IMO.

On another subject, I don't think Greebo is heavy handed with handing out infractions,bans and warnings ( at least not from what I've seen). He seems to only use the above when a poster is in breach of the Charter although there could be exceptions I haven't seen.

I think some of the warnings have to much personality in them, giving the user the feeling that "some guy behind a screen" is giving them a warning as opposed to the moderation team.

I've seen a few posts where this seems to be the case, as posted above the "For those of you hard of hearing..." , it seems to be the result of frustration, while more than likely justified, leaves the post open to smart comments in return ( it can be nothing else but a smart comment as we obviously cannot hear you)
Something like " Next Post On XXXX Topic Will Have To Result In A Ban As It Is In Breach Of The Forum Charter" will remove the moderator and replace it with the moderation team.

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

To use a well trotted out line, why the personal attacks?!?!

No toys were harmed in my post.
I kept my response (to Beasty) quite short as I now feel this thread deserves minimum input.

I wasn't going to respond to you because I don't believe there is any point trying to discuss anything with you on here.

Now... That's me out, toys to play with.

it's not a personal attack,
Both yourself and snowdrifts seem to have decided that the feedback thread should be closed simply because you didn't get the particular thing you wanted. You go on to say you won't be posting here again. In my view that's toys out of the pram.

GreeBo

dan_ep82 wrote: »

I moderated a busy car forum (100k unique hits per month) and I have to say I can understand where Greebo is coming from concerning some decisions not being made a vote.
Sometimes what the users want would be detrimental to the forum, generally its a group of vocal users, not the entire forum, who wish for these changes.
I believe as Greebo does, making the forum invite only would alienate potential new members for the purpose of stopping near non existent spam. The trade off is way too much IMO.

On another subject, I don't think Greebo is heavy handed with handing out infractions,bans and warnings ( at least not from what I've seen). He seems to only use the above when a poster is in breach of the Charter although there could be exceptions I haven't seen.

I think some of the warnings have to much personality in them, giving the user the feeling that "some guy behind a screen" is giving them a warning as opposed to the moderation team.

I've seen a few posts where this seems to be the case, as posted above the "For those of you hard of hearing..." , it seems to be the result of frustration, while more than likely justified, leaves the post open to smart comments in return ( it can be nothing else but a smart comment as we obviously cannot hear you)
Something like " Next Post On XXXX Topic Will Have To Result In A Ban As It Is In Breach Of The Forum Charter" will remove the moderator and replace it with the moderation team.

Mods are human, my "personalized" warning posts are the result of frustration and indeed anger. Frankly it's that or just start banning people who ignore warnings and breach the charter. The angry warnings are to avoid bannings, often when they are justified. This is as a result of feedback here that we (i) was too quick to wield cards.
I would point out that tone is notoriously hard to pick up from the written word and that some will find offence and take umbrage at anything.

As you know it's everyone's responsibility to know the charter before posting here, we are not willing or able to give every poster a warning on each topic.

Appreciate the feedback.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

it's not a personal attack,
Both yourself and snowdrifts seem to have decided that the feedback thread should be closed simply because you didn't get the particular thing you wanted. You go on to say you won't be posting here again. In my view that's toys out of the pram.

Appreciate the feedback.

P_1

GreeBo wrote: »

Mods are human, my "personalized" warning posts are the result of frustration and indeed anger. Frankly it's that or just start banning people who ignore warnings and breach the charter. The angry warnings are to avoid bannings, often when they are justified. This is as a result of feedback here that we (i) was too quick to wield cards.
I would point out that tone is notoriously hard to pick up from the written word and that some will find offence and take umbrage at anything.

As you know it's everyone's responsibility to know the charter before posting here, we are not willing or able to give every poster a warning on each topic.

Appreciate the feedback.

Yes getting the right tone in the written word can be as tricky as the 12th at Augusta with the wind swirling. With that in mind, might it be worth considering depersonalising your mod posts in that case? There is a reason why companies tend to use bland, impersonal language in 'tricky' interactions with customers, perhaps that might work here?

I can understand how frustrating it can be to you if people are constantly ignoring you and the fact that you're trying to avoid handing out cards and bans is admirable. Unfortunately I do think that letting your frustration come across in your mod posts can tend to add fuel to a fire.

This isn't an attack on you by the way and I hope you don't take it that way.

Tiger Mcilroy

GreeBo wrote: »

Mods are human, my "personalized" warning posts are the result of frustration and indeed anger. Frankly it's that or just start banning people who ignore warnings and breach the charter. The angry warnings are to avoid bannings, often when they are justified. This is as a result of feedback here that we (i) was too quick to wield cards.
I would point out that tone is notoriously hard to pick up from the written word and that some will find offence and take umbrage at anything.

As somebody how had a shaky start to posting in the golf forum it was this very reason i got frustrated as the tone of posts is so easy to misinterpret and when mods are leaving a comment like this (however justified) then shutting down the replies it can imo get peoples back.

Obviously being a mod is a thankless task and compared to some other forums i have lurked/posted on the golf forum is by far one of the better run as its golfers talking about golf and things like the golf society are a credit to the site.

ForeRight

Can't say I've ever had a problem with greebo although I've never given him reason to card or ban me.
Keep up the good work Bo.

GreeBo

ForeRight wrote: »

Can't say I've ever had a problem with greebo although I've never given him reason to card or ban me.
Keep up the good work Bo.

oh I dont know.... :pac:

Anatom

I think the golf forum works very well. I have been looking at other ones recently which I won't mention here and honestly, there seems to be little if no moderation in operation there and you quickly see a descent into chaos.

The golf forum, on the other hand, is very interactive with a large amount of regular posters, some of whom actually manage to meet each other in person (imagine that!?!) at boards outings or off-line product sales (I bought irons from a boardsie last year - you know who you are!). Generally though, there seem to be very few issues here overall, this week notwithstanding, and that's a direct result of the approach taken by the mods - especially CharlieIRL and GreeBo (whose handle - and I'm a big Pratchett fan - is beautifully chosen!!) - and members alike.

dan_ep82

GreeBo wrote: »

Mods are human, my "personalized" warning posts are the result of frustration and indeed anger. Frankly it's that or just start banning people who ignore warnings and breach the charter. The angry warnings are to avoid bannings, often when they are justified. This is as a result of feedback here that we (i) was too quick to wield cards.
I would point out that tone is notoriously hard to pick up from the written word and that some will find offence and take umbrage at anything.

As you know it's everyone's responsibility to know the charter before posting here, we are not willing or able to give every poster a warning on each topic.

Appreciate the feedback.

I've been in situations where I would have loved to speak my mind and give vent to my frustration, but I always made sure that any warnings,pms etc that related to moderation duties were worded in the most professional way.

We never let our personal feelings show on the main forums, if we had issues where we wanted to speak our mind we kept it to the staff forum.

Its the same in any job with a disciplinary procedure. You would never get a warning, either written or verbal, that would give you reason to take umbrage with the wording. It would be very clear that you have broken a rule and further similar actions would result in disciplinary actions, no more, no less. After that it is the responsibility of the person the received the warning to act accordingly.

Its the same with the moderation,
This was perfect

As per the charter, there is to be no discussion of players declaring or not for any country. Next mention is a ban. No more warnings

This very nearly

For the hard of hearing, there is no discussion allowed on this forum about a players nationality or who they have or have not declared for. Next one is a ban. Arguing with a moderators decisions on thread is also a bannable offence. There is a feedback thread for this sort of thing

"There is no discussion allowed on this forum about a players nationality or who they have or have not declared for. Next one is a ban. Arguing with a moderators decisions on thread is also a bannable offence. There is a feedback thread for this sort of thing"

Your right, people will complain no matter what, and tone is very hard to pick up on, so best to remove tone from the post so no confusion can occur?

Again, I see no problem with your moderation. You warn,card and ban at appropriate times, I just believe you could do it in such a way that stop you being villainized.

m r c

Dan p82 nailed it there. Great post.

I've found it hard sometimes to tell if it's greebo the mod or greebo the poster and if there was a tone change along with a bold text change it for sure would end him being villainized.

GreeBo

m r c wrote: »

Dan p82 nailed it there. Great post.

I've found it hard sometimes to tell if it's greebo the mod or greebo the poster and if there was a tone change along with a bold text change it for sure would end him being villainized.

If its in bold then its mod, otherwise its just me.

I do have to say that I find it hard to fathom how anyone can read anything into "for the hard of hearing" other than "eh, cop yourselves on lads"

but I'll try to take the point on board.

P_1

GreeBo wrote: »

If its in bold then its mod, otherwise its just me.

I do have to say that I find it hard to fathom how anyone can read anything into "for the hard of hearing" other than "eh, cop yourselves on lads"

but I'll try to take the point on board.

As an illustration, imagine if you were playing a round and you neglected to rake the bunkers after yourself repeatedly. Now when the ranger approaches to rebuke you over it would it sound better if he were to say "are you bloody thick" or "cop yourself on will ye"? Both conveying pretty much the same sentiment but the latter being less likely to get your back up.

GreeBo

P_1 wrote: »

As an illustration, imagine if you were playing a round and you neglected to rake the bunkers after yourself repeatedly. Now when the ranger approaches to rebuke you over it would it sound better if he were to say "are you bloody thick" or "cop yourself on will ye"? Both conveying pretty much the same sentiment but the latter being less likely to get your back up.

Two ways to look at that.
Firstly, remember that this ranger has already warned you about raking the bunkers.

The next time he finds you not raking one he has a number of options:

1) Remove you from the course (a ban)
2) Warn you more severely (red card)
3) Warn you again "can you lads not find the rake?" (for the hard of hearing)
4) Dear sirs, please try harder to rake the bunkers (another soft on thread warning)

Now remember that this ranger is a volunteer and has to deal with repeat non-rakers on a daily basis.

alxmorgan

GreeBo wrote: »

Two ways to look at that.
Firstly, remember that this ranger has already warned you about raking the bunkers.

The next time he finds you not raking one he has a number of options:

1) Remove you from the course (a ban)
2) Warn you more severely (red card)
3) Warn you again "can you lads not find the rake?" (for the hard of hearing)
4) Dear sirs, please try harder to rake the bunkers (another soft on thread warning)

Now remember that this ranger is a volunteer and has to deal with repeat non-rakers on a daily basis.

Part of the problem is context. If the ranger rolled up and went the hard of hearing approach to my playing partner and I didn't know he had been told many times I would think the ranger was OTT.

Same with a post like that in a thread. There could be loads of deleted posts and hence you feel the need to get tougher but if I click in and see "hard of hearing" I don't know whats preceded it and think that's a bit much. It's the impression it gives that is the issue. Emotive language should in my opinion never be used when acting as a mod.

FixdePitchmark

GreeBo wrote: »

Two ways to look at that.
Firstly, remember that this ranger has already warned you about raking the bunkers.

The next time he finds you not raking one he has a number of options:

1) Remove you from the course (a ban)
2) Warn you more severely (red card)
3) Warn you again "can you lads not find the rake?" (for the hard of hearing)
4) Dear sirs, please try harder to rake the bunkers (another soft on thread warning)

Now remember that this ranger is a volunteer and has to deal with repeat non-rakers on a daily basis.

If it is such a hard life . Why do you volunteer.

I think it is more to the the point . That some volunteers like to control.