Moderation of commuting and transport

monument

Please keep things general and do not post about exact examples of moderation or users or their behavior.

Just things that need addressing:

• Attack the post and not the poster is the golden rule on here -- forget name calling, forget personal attacks.
  
  
• We're asking everybody (including me) to please stop accusing people of trolling. It has become such an inflammatory word it has nearly lost practical meaning but causes huge disruption -- bringing threads way off-topic and getting in the way of quick moderation.
  
  
• This can't be made clearer: Discussing moderation in-thread will not be allowed. It's even more so disruptive to the threads and open discussion about every mod action would also make moderation unsustainable on a voluntary basis.
  
  
• There are processes in place where users can appeal their infractions or banning (ie if you get banned or infracted you can PM the moderator and, if you're not happy after that, follow it up in the Dispute Resolution Forum) and more generally you can PM us if you need to.
  
  
• If you overreact you're the one who has clearly broken the rules, another poster may have egged you on and kept within the rules (or they could also be in trouble, but it does not excuse your misbehavior) -- this seems far harder to understand than it should be.

Any questions about the above or about moderation in general? (Again please note the message at the top of this post!)

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

Please keep things general and do not post about exact examples of moderation or users or their behavior.

Just things that need addressing:

• Attack the post and not the poster is the golden rule on here -- forget name calling, forget personal attacks.
  
  
• We're asking everybody (including me) to please stop accusing people of trolling. It has become such an inflammatory word it has nearly lost practical meaning but causes huge disruption -- bringing threads way off-topic and getting in the way of quick moderation.
  
  
• This can't be made clearer: Discussing moderation in-thread will not be allowed. It's even more so disruptive to the threads and open discussion about every mod action would also make moderation unsustainable on a voluntary basis.
  
  
• There are processes in place where users can appeal their infractions or banning (ie if you get banned or infracted you can PM the moderator and, if you're not happy after that, follow it up in the Dispute Resolution Forum) and more generally you can PM us if you need to.
  
  
• If you overreact you're the one who has clearly broken the rules, another poster may have egged you on and kept within the rules (or they could also be in trouble, but it does not excuse your misbehavior) -- this seems far harder to understand than it should be.

Any questions about the above or about moderation in general? (Again please note the message at the top of this post!)

Confusion sometimes arises when you attack a post it can be mistaken for attacking the poster and therefore a moderator might issue infractions or warnings when you were only replying to the post itself.


I take it that discussing moderation is allowed in this thread?

Does overreacting apply to moderators as well?

Victor

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I take it that discussing moderation is allowed in this thread?

In general terms, yes. Let's not get into specifics.

Cookie_Monster

following the site wide accepted principle of bolding text when moderating would be appreciated.

Vic_08

monument wrote: »

Please keep things general and do not post about exact examples of moderation or users or their behavior.

Just things that need addressing:

• Attack the post and not the poster is the golden rule on here -- forget name calling, forget personal attacks.

So "the poster" is a sacred cow then but everything else is fair game? Why does posting on this board mean one should be immune from criticism when attacking other identifiable people or groups up to and including unsubstantiated accusations of criminal behaviour is allowed without any moderation?

For the record I have no problem with that general rule albeit with some caveats.

If a poster is lying and it can be proven then should saying they are a liar be banned just because it is personal? Same with hypocracy, it has always been fair game on here to attack posters based on their occupation or "conflict of interest" but apparently not based on known FACTS about other people's non-work related activities or "conflicts of interest".

monument wrote: »

[*]We're asking everybody (including me) to please stop accusing people of trolling. It has become such an inflammatory word it has nearly lost practical meaning but causes huge disruption -- bringing threads way off-topic and getting in the way of quick moderation.

Fine, as long as you (the moderators) actually deal with trolls. Unless you are suggesting there are not any trolls on this board?

Get rid of the BS spouting muppets and there will be far less disruption to deal with. There are plenty of posters on here that take the trouble of providing corroboration for their posts but they are all too often drowned out by the trolls that just spout the same crap whatever evidence has been presented to dis-prove them.

On any number of occasions members that go out of their way to be informative, accurate and provide lots of external evidence to back up their posts end up getting banned or infracted after getting frustrated with constant posts of rubbish and malicious invective from others.

monument wrote: »

[*]This can't be made clearer: Discussing moderation in-thread will not be allowed. It's even more so disruptive to the threads and open discussion about every mod action would also make moderation unsustainable on a voluntary basis.

No problem with that as a rule, there will always be someone unhappy at moderators for something and it is fair enough to not allow second-guessing on threads in general.

However IMO the tone of certain moderating posts on here has been OTT and unnecessarily rude.

The fact that this thread is here at all suggests that there is something up with the board.

My opinion is that the whole slant of moderating on this board is wrong. It seems to me that as long as things are kept polite and civil towards other posters then any old shyte can be posted. That policy can work on some boards but I think it has been proven over time that it just doesn't here. There is too much deviciveness and general bad feeling along with enough BS spouters to drag many topics into slanging matches full of ficticious and unproven rubbish. My own feeling is that a more pro-active moderating style is needed to damp down the worst of the BS and allow the worthwhile posts and posters to have a chance.

monument wrote: »

[*]There are processes in place where users can appeal their infractions or banning (ie if you get banned or infracted you can PM the moderator and, if you're not happy after that, follow it up in the Dispute Resolution Forum) and more generally you can PM us if you need to.

That's fine as long as there is some expectation of being properly and fairly treated. One of the very few times I have bothered trying to engage with moderators on this board I was completely ignored, after spending a substantial amount of time explaining my POV to have a PM not even opened pretty much told me everything I needed to know.

monument wrote: »

[*]If you overreact you're the one who has clearly broken the rules, another poster may have egged you on and kept within the rules (or they could also be in trouble, but it does not excuse your misbehavior) -- this seems far harder to understand than it should be.

It also seems like a troll's charter, see my point about trolling above. The very fact you are advocating that says it all, troll BS and goad all you like and it is fine with the mods and bonus if you can get a reaction, your target will get the ban.

IMO if the moderating was more pro-active with containing the trolls then this would be a rare occourence rather than a constant one.

rainbowdash

Victor wrote: »

In general terms, yes. Let's not get into specifics.

If we are allowed discuss moderation in this thread then monument should perhaps get the door.

Somebody made allegations against him the other night (in the taxi thread) and reported his posts to the powers that be. He banned the other poster on the spot and deleted the allegations.

Its against the principles of natural justice, in that you cannot be the judge in your own case.

He should have let somebody else investigate the allegations against him instead of banning the other poster the same a dictator would operate.

corktina

i think that vic08 illustrates the problem quite neatly.
There are very very few trolls on C&T but there are a lot of people who passionately believe in their point of view.
Often people on here (it seems to me) cry "troll" when they are unable to disprove an opposing opinion.

monument

I'm going to reply in detail later when I have the time to give a detailed reply, but for now, please note:

The line in this thread: Please keep things general and do not post about exact examples of moderation or users or their behavior.

Also: Please avoid using the word troll, even in this thread. It's not constructive, please outline what you mean, trolls can include a range of things.

Con Logue

corktina wrote: »

i think that vic08 illustrates the problem quite neatly.
There are very very few trolls on C&T but there are a lot of people who passionately believe in their point of view.
Often people on here (it seems to me) cry "troll" when they are unable to disprove an opposing opinion.

I think you have stumbled on a core point here.

An opinion, no matter what empirical facts are involved in the formation of it, is ultimately a subjective thing personal to the holder.

In one recent thread, a poster reeled off a list of buses as somehow proof that InterCity buses were a Good Thing and far away in preference to maintaining an intercity railway network. That may well be the case for the person making the point, but he might as well have been talking about Nimbus 3000 Quidditch brooms as far as I would be concerned.

Ultimately, strings of posts that appear to claim that one form of transport on a particular route should wax while another should go and do the decent thing with a revolver and a bottle of whisky prove only one thing, that certain people are passionate for their own reasons about a particular form of transport. You might as well say that all clothes stores other than, say, Penneys should voluntarily liquidate themselves and hand over all their business to one shop only, and arguing that way about rail freight, or buses or whatever, is ultimately just as productive.

bk

But Con non of what you just said is trolling and non of it is against the rules of boards.

Almost everyone on boards is passionate about something, otherwise they wouldn't bother to be coming here. Just because you don't agree with their position, doesn't make it trolling.

Con Logue

bk wrote: »

But Con non of what you just said is trolling and non of it is against the rules of boards.

Almost everyone on boards is passionate about something, otherwise they wouldn't bother to be coming here. Just because you don't agree with their position, doesn't make it trolling.

Indeed, I would not consider it trolling at all. But I would question any assertion that an opinion is proof of anything other than the opinion of the person making it. That is not trolling either.

bk

Con Logue wrote: »

Indeed, I would not consider it trolling at all. But I would question any assertion that an opinion is proof of anything other than the opinion of the person making it. That is not trolling either.

Of course it is all just opinion unless actual factual evidence is pointed out.

That is why I try to link to annual reports, timetables, etc. whenever available.

TINA1984

I think people taking a sarcastic & obnoxious line should be dealt with as harshly as possible by the moderating team. In a particular thread which I posted in here a few weeks back there was a couple of posters who drenched their replies to the 'opposition' in snide, pissy remarks. These armchair experts seem to think it acceptable to condescend in their replies, a litttle civility would go a long way.

Con Logue

TINA1984 wrote: »

I think people taking a sarcastic & obnoxious line should be dealt with as harshly as possible by the moderating team. In a particular thread which I posted in here a few weeks back there was a couple of posters who drenched their replies to the 'opposition' in snide, pissy remarks. These armchair experts seem to think it acceptable to condescend in their replies, a litttle civility would go a long way.

I have a simple rule of thumb, the more brittle the way the point is being made, the wider the berth should be given. Condescension is certainly not a sign of confidence.

ANXIOUS

I don't really post hear but I read it daily. I've noticed that people here are very intrenched with their views, and they feel that they have to defended their mode of transport to the ground and try and change everyone else's opinion to match their own.

It's very annoying for the people who are just passing by any opinion they have gets attacked.

ANXIOUS

I don't really post hear but I read it daily. I've noticed that people here are very intrenched with their views, and they feel that they have to defended their mode of transport to the ground and try and change everyone else's opinion to match their own.

It's very annoying for the people who are just passing by any opinion they have gets attacked.

Con Logue

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I don't really post hear but I read it daily. I've noticed that people here are very intrenched with their views, and they feel that they have to defended their mode of transport to the ground and try and change everyone else's opinion to match their own.

It's very annoying for the people who are just passing by any opinion they have gets attacked.

In a funny way it reminds me of Leixlip where I grew up, there were pitched battles in the summer between the Hillers and the Far Enders and woe betide anyone who accidently got inbetween

Apart from location of individual housing estates I couldn't tell you how the whole thing started

monument

Con Logue wrote: »

I think you have stumbled on a core point here.

An opinion, no matter what empirical facts are involved in the formation of it, is ultimately a subjective thing personal to the holder.

In one recent thread, a poster reeled off a list of buses as somehow proof that InterCity buses were a Good Thing and far away in preference to maintaining an intercity railway network. That may well be the case for the person making the point, but he might as well have been talking about Nimbus 3000 Quidditch brooms as far as I would be concerned.

Ultimately, strings of posts that appear to claim that one form of transport on a particular route should wax while another should go and do the decent thing with a revolver and a bottle of whisky prove only one thing, that certain people are passionate for their own reasons about a particular form of transport. You might as well say that all clothes stores other than, say, Penneys should voluntarily liquidate themselves and hand over all their business to one shop only, and arguing that way about rail freight, or buses or whatever, is ultimately just as productive.

I've already asked twice and while I'm avoiding mod action on this thread, it's not a free-for-all, so if you continue to bring up exact examples you will be infrared.

Vic_08 wrote: »

So "the poster" is a sacred cow then but everything else is fair game? Why does posting on this board mean one should be immune from criticism when attacking other identifiable people or groups up to and including unsubstantiated accusations of criminal behaviour is allowed without any moderation?

For the record I have no problem with that general rule albeit with some caveats.

If a poster is lying and it can be proven then should saying they are a liar be banned just because it is personal? Same with hypocracy, it has always been fair game on here to attack posters based on their occupation or "conflict of interest" but apparently not based on known FACTS about other people's non-work related activities or "conflicts of interest".

No, everything else is not fair game.

Also: The conflicts of interest rule has been removed and, in any case, attacking somebody just because they are a staff member etc would also fall under attacking the poster rather than post.

Vic_08 wrote: »

Fine, as long as you (the moderators) actually deal with trolls. Unless you are suggesting there are not any trolls on this board?

Get rid of the BS spouting muppets and there will be far less disruption to deal with. There are plenty of posters on here that take the trouble of providing corroboration for their posts but they are all too often drowned out by the trolls that just spout the same crap whatever evidence has been presented to dis-prove them.

On any number of occasions members that go out of their way to be informative, accurate and provide lots of external evidence to back up their posts end up getting banned or infracted after getting frustrated with constant posts of rubbish and malicious invective from others.

I'm sorry -- the misbehavior of others will does not generally excuse a reaction misbehavior. Best thing to do is not to reply and report the post.

Vic_08 wrote: »

However IMO the tone of certain moderating posts on here has been OTT and unnecessarily rude.

My posts are straightforward and to the point -- if that straightforwardness is confused as unnecessarily rude, please excuse them.

Vic_08 wrote: »

The fact that this thread is here at all suggests that there is something up with the board.

A stronger line is being taken generally and also to end long-term disputes between a number of posters.

Vic_08 wrote: »

My opinion is that the whole slant of moderating on this board is wrong. It seems to me that as long as things are kept polite and civil towards other posters then any old shyte can be posted. That policy can work on some boards but I think it has been proven over time that it just doesn't here. There is too much deviciveness and general bad feeling along with enough BS spouters to drag many topics into slanging matches full of ficticious and unproven rubbish. My own feeling is that a more pro-active moderating style is needed to damp down the worst of the BS and allow the worthwhile posts and posters to have a chance.

No, it's not really correct to say "any old **** can be posted" just as long as you don't attack posters.

But equally this is a forum and people will have strong views about transport, and not everything can be proven or disprove -- if that rubs people up the wrong way again and again, public forums may not be the place for them.

Vic_08 wrote: »

That's fine as long as there is some expectation of being properly and fairly treated. One of the very few times I have bothered trying to engage with moderators on this board I was completely ignored, after spending a substantial amount of time explaining my POV to have a PM not even opened pretty much told me everything I needed to know.

I don't have any unopened PMs, but please excuse me if I have not replied to any, but at the same time please note this isn't a job for mods and we do it in our own time.

monument

corktina wrote: »

i think that vic08 illustrates the problem quite neatly.
There are very very few trolls on C&T but there are a lot of people who passionately believe in their point of view.
Often people on here (it seems to me) cry "troll" when they are unable to disprove an opposing opinion.

Yes! This is my largest problem and trying to then explain what the other poster is doing is not trolling is

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I don't really post hear but I read it daily. I've noticed that people here are very intrenched with their views, and they feel that they have to defended their mode of transport to the ground and try and change everyone else's opinion to match their own.

It's very annoying for the people who are just passing by any opinion they have gets attacked.

Thanks, that kind of feeds into corktina's point, strongly held views is a part of the make up of any forum like this one, but your point reminds us we should be aware of how passer by will view it.

Losty Dublin

monument wrote: »

Also: The conflicts of interest rule has been removed and, in any case, attacking somebody just because they are a staff member etc would also fall under attacking the poster rather than post.

Why has it been "removed"? A place where we can lay our cards can only be a good thing and it informs us a little about our fellow users and their backgrounds, where relevant.

Con Logue

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Why has it been "removed"? A place where we can lay our cards can only be a good thing and it informs us a little about our fellow users and their backgrounds, where relevant.

The conflict of interest thread was a huge loss. It is entirely relevant to know where we are all coming from to the table here and avoids misunderstanding.

monument

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Why has it been "removed"? A place where we can lay our cards can only be a good thing and it informs us a little about our fellow users and their backgrounds, where relevant.

Mainly because it did not fully resolve the problem it set out and it made other things worse -- putting too much focus onto people rather than than their arguments etc.

In any case, it was only renamed and is still linked to via the charter: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1227696#post1227696

Losty Dublin

monument wrote: »

Mainly because it did not fully resolve the problem it set out and it made other things worse -- putting too much focus onto people rather than than their arguments etc.

In any case, it was only renamed and is still linked to via the charter: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1227696#post1227696

On the contrary, it was there to let people know some basics about each other and especially if they had an interest to declare that may colour their posts. It caused no harm as long as I remember it being there, which is a long time now. Almost all the regular users have been happy posted their colours on it and with no issue; I can't see why there is any now.

Hilly Bill

I think the conflict of interest thread was like a red rag to a bull for the anti irish rail heads.

_Kaiser_

First off, fair play to ye for starting this thread and inviting feedback - there's several other sections on this site that could learn from this approach.

As someone who comes and goes to this particular corner of Boards, I read anything that catches my eye or where I think I might have something to throw in and for the most part I think things work pretty well.

I have seen the frequent battles between one side and another (always with the same posters) and in many cases it degenerates to a "he said, s/he said" match for dozens of posts. Normally I'd just skim past these as something that probably should have gone to PM, but I agree how someone checking things out could be put off by it.

In the main though there are some very knowledgeable articulate people here who are passionate about their points of view, but I'd agree that sometimes a step back is in order and a realisation that no matter how many times you say it, you aren't going to convert everyone.

The only comment I might have on moderation itself is the variance between mods (and to be fair this is something that's a common feature on other parts of Boards too). What one mod will pick up on, another will let side (sometimes too far). I realise it's a tough job guys and I don't know how much interaction you have as a group, but I'd encourage ye to be consistent regardless of the approach you take.

All in all though, it's one of the better sections of Boards and again credit to you for your work to keep it that way and this thread.

corktina

Trying hard not to mention specifics,I have to say there are no anti Irish Rail heads in C&T although often we have had people assign such beliefs to members quite wrongly.... those of us who hold views on particular lines or whatever usually do so with a desire to make IE better.

n97 mini

Con Logue wrote: »

In a funny way it reminds me of Leixlip where I grew up, there were pitched battles in the summer between the Hillers and the Far Enders and woe betide anyone who accidently got inbetween

Stuff of legend, rather than actual historical fact, or so it seems!

I do find one or two members seem to get jumped on as they're perceived as not having much meas on Irish Rail, even when just simply presenting the facts. I would prefer if this was dealt with more fairly. E.g. Stating Aircoach is 4x cheaper than the train is not being anti Irish Rail and is potentially useful to someone.

But that's not moderation really. I find the moderation on C&T to be broadly fine. Victor was a little impetuous, but has mellowed, and now monument is a little impetuous, but no doubt will mellow with time and get into the swing of things like Victor did.

There are one or two posters who seem to abrasive in nature, but hey that's what the Ignore button is for

Hilly Bill

corktina wrote: »

Trying hard not to mention specifics,I have to say there are no anti Irish Rail heads in C&T although often we have had people assign such beliefs to members quite wrongly.... those of us who hold views on particular lines or whatever usually do so with a desire to make IE better.

No anti irish rail heads? That has to be the post of the month

Judgement Day

I'm one of them - as if it needed stating.

AltAccount

There are a handful of posters who should have their access revoked without due process and with the support of the Admins.

Everyone already knows who they are but it's not "fair" to permaban without specific overt infractions being committed.

If the Mods and Admins made the cut and resisted the inevitable petulant PMS and DRP threads, the forum would benefit greatly from it.


Remove the tumour to save the patient.

Con Logue

n97 mini wrote: »

Stuff of legend, rather than actual historical fact, or so it seems!

I do find one or two members seem to get jumped on as they're perceived as not having much meas on Irish Rail, even when just simply presenting the facts. I would prefer if this was dealt with more fairly. E.g. Stating Aircoach is 4x cheaper than the train is not being anti Irish Rail and is potentially useful to someone.

But that's not moderation really. I find the moderation on C&T to be broadly fine. Victor was a little impetuous, but has mellowed, and now monument is a little impetuous, but no doubt will mellow with time and get into the swing of things like Victor did.

There are one or two posters who seem to abrasive in nature, but hey that's what the Ignore button is for

All interesting points, I wasn't quite aiming for full and verifiable historical accuracy, more trying to make a light hearted analogy to a poster who wasn't in any camp, perceived or otherwise.

I do think it is entirely fair to call simplistic posts that aren't accurate under all circumstances. The danger of course with that approach is that threads can degenerate into contests and heated ones at that. Challenging long standing posters with a somewhat different POV on the Internet is one of the least rewarding activities known to humanity and I have come to realise what the equivalent of painting a big painty target on myself on this board is, so I won't go there.