Moderation of commuting and transport

corktina

Hilly Bill wrote: »

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

Judgement Day wrote: »

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

OK, so you seize on one part of the post and ignore the "making it better part"...this is a prime example of what happens....if you don't care about IE you wouldn't even read the threads..

testarossa40

I would like to engage more with C&T discussions, but I don't, and this is entirely due the quality and nature of many of the discussions & contributions in this Forum. The constant invective, derailments, and contentious tone - invariably & predictably instigated by the "usual few" - frankly puts me right off bothering. Personally, I would have little time to be keyboard-warrioring and F5-ing for hours on end just to see who has taken the bait and to continue provoking all & sundry.

I was originally delighted when a 2nd Moderator was announced however while rules enforcement is certainly more prominent, there has been little to no improvement in discussion quality - probably because there's so much fire-fighting to be done and in any case Mods are not necessarily Editors, unfortunately. There are certain frequent C&T users that routinely post what can only be described as drivel - low-quality, ill-informed, and assured to degenerate into a heated discussion once somebody bothered or riled-enough gets involved. I have formed the opinion after reading through hundreds of these users' posts that there is somewhat more calculation & pattern involved than accident. I don't bother to contribute to these so as not to risk "attacking the poster, and not the post" which at times seems the ONLY actionable red line in this Forum...

As a suggestion, I would like to see Mods take a line on post & thread quality as well as general behaviour so that low-quality posting could become a criterion for deletion and so maybe prevent some of the "So's your Ma" threads? Ie a post could be deemed low-quality if it makes an unsubstantiated claim, doesn't contribute anything substantial to the discussion, or is likely to incite argument or derailment. I appreciate this may be a contentious suggestion and result in increased Moderating overheads but it's a bullet that needs biting in this particular Forum imo.

Finally for now to quote a rule from another forum I frequent:

• When stating facts, statistics or newsworthy bulletins, please be sure to include an HTML link or reference to a publication. If you are merely providing an opinion, please MENTION THIS in your post. It is each member's responsibility to avoid arguments based on rumors or misinformation.

- posts that do not adhere to this rule are deleted, repeat-offenders infracted...

Hilly Bill

Judgement Day wrote: »

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

Ive grown to like you JD

gowley

monument wrote: »

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.

would be very interested to hear your reply when you have the time. as the op on this thread i do feel you have a question to answer and to be fair you have said you will reply when you have time.

monument

We're also thinking of an off-topic / banter thread that many other parts of boards have -- relaxed in that it's not following one topic, but rules on personal abuse etc would still apply... Any thoughts?

Losty Dublin wrote: »

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.

People should deal with what others say, not who they are.

The requirement caused disruption* and an undue focus on the person rather than what they were saying.

* often with new and old posters who were accused of having a conflict just because they defended a company etc and they knew what they were taking about (so they must work for the company, goes the logic).

AltAccount wrote: »

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.

That's an

AltAccount wrote: »

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.

We're thinking about approaches like that -- there's no agreement and there's no clear views on who may be banned and there may be final warning first etc.

testarossa40 wrote: »

I would like to engage more with C&T discussions, but I don't, and this is entirely due the quality and nature of many of the discussions & contributions in this Forum. The constant invective, derailments, and contentious tone - invariably & predictably instigated by the "usual few" - frankly puts me right off bothering. Personally, I would have little time to be keyboard-warrioring and F5-ing for hours on end just to see who has taken the bait and to continue provoking all & sundry.

I was originally delighted when a 2nd Moderator was announced however while rules enforcement is certainly more prominent, there has been little to no improvement in discussion quality - probably because there's so much fire-fighting to be done and in any case Mods are not necessarily Editors, unfortunately. There are certain frequent C&T users that routinely post what can only be described as drivel - low-quality, ill-informed, and assured to degenerate into a heated discussion once somebody bothered or riled-enough gets involved. I have formed the opinion after reading through hundreds of these users' posts that there is somewhat more calculation & pattern involved than accident. I don't bother to contribute to these so as not to risk "attacking the poster, and not the post" which at times seems the ONLY actionable red line in this Forum...

As a suggestion, I would like to see Mods take a line on post & thread quality as well as general behaviour so that low-quality posting could become a criterion for deletion and so maybe prevent some of the "So's your Ma" threads? Ie a post could be deemed low-quality if it makes an unsubstantiated claim, doesn't contribute anything substantial to the discussion, or is likely to incite argument or derailment. I appreciate this may be a contentious suggestion and result in increased Moderating overheads but it's a bullet that needs biting in this particular Forum imo.

Finally for now to quote a rule from another forum I frequent:

• When stating facts, statistics or newsworthy bulletins, please be sure to include an HTML link or reference to a publication. If you are merely providing an opinion, please MENTION THIS in your post. It is each member's responsibility to avoid arguments based on rumors or misinformation.

- posts that do not adhere to this rule are deleted, repeat-offenders infracted...

Thanks for the feedback --- I really like the suggestion of following the rule you've quoted.

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

I've been a mod before and I'll crack you all before you crack me. I'll mellow when I get the problems mellow.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

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.

Thanks...

On the consistent thing, there'll always be bit of a different approach with two people but when I stepped in after Victor once and was explaining why to him afterwards he then interrupted and said that he just did not see the post I acted on.

Sometimes one of us will just miss something, other times we might not be reading the thread at all and only acting directing on reported posts -- things don't always happen in the sequence it seems.

gowley

rainbowdash wrote: »

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.

i think in fairness you could reply to this post. you have said when you have time you will but you have spent a lot of time replying to later posts. not in a position to judge the rights and wrongs but i think its a good point.

monument

Thanks for the reminder...

rainbowdash wrote: »

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.

I did indeed, discussion of moderation in threads is not allowed, doing so after somebody else was banned for the same is silly.

If you need a mod to explain something you PM them, you don't disregard repeated warnings of a fairly well known rule.

The first poster who was banned was banned mainly not for calling me out on anything said in that thread, but for going to the bother of quoting part of a mod warning on another, a warning in full which included words to the effect: do not quote this post. But even if those words were not included, it's a genral rule that moderation is not discussed.

rainbowdash wrote: »

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.

Start shouting at a judge in open court after you dissagree with his or her previous action, and after he or she has made repeated warnings and you'll find your self in jail on contempt of court. Judges sometimes have to be dictators in their own court rooms otherwise things get messy, protracted or otherwise out of hand quickly.

Modding is a bit like open court, in a country nightclub, and, unlike judges on nice money, we don't get paid at all!

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

Thanks for the reminder...



I did indeed, discussion of moderation in threads is not allowed, doing so after somebody else was banned for the same is silly.

If you need a mod to explain something you PM them, you don't disregard repeated warnings of a fairly well known rule.

The first poster who was banned was banned mainly not for calling me out on anything said in that thread, but for going to the bother of quoting part of a mod warning on another, a warning in full which included words to the effect: do not quote this post. But even if those words were not included, it's a genral rule that moderation is not discussed.




Start shouting at a judge in open court after you dissagree with his or her previous action, and after he or she has made repeated warnings and you'll find your self in jail on contempt of court. Judges sometimes have to be dictators in their own court rooms otherwise things get messy, protracted or otherwise out of hand quickly.

Modding is a bit like open court, in a country nightclub, and, unlike judges on nice money, we don't get paid at all!

Surely this thread would be going against that rule ye?

monument

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Surely this thread would be going against that rule ye?

Yes, for good reason and likely for a limited time only, and no more exact examples please.

Losty Dublin

monument wrote: »

The requirement caused disruption* and an undue focus on the person rather than what they were saying.

* often with new and old posters who were accused of having a conflict just because they defended a company etc and they knew what they were taking about (so they must work for the company, goes the logic).

I'm coming at this from a knowledge/angle perspective here. If JD, to take a good example, says a little about his history then we know where he comes from. I've a background, Corktina, Victor, Alek Smart, Spook.ie to name a few; we have know how in certain aspects of transport. how things work and this will bear fruit for most of us if we pay heed to them. Similarly, when people are active or involved with lobby/action groups then it's fair to declare an interest alone to guard their position or stance.

None of what you said about disruption happens as a rule, save for a few occasional cheap digs and from ignorant posters who want a high moral ground

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

Yes, for good reason and likely for a limited time only, and no more exact examples please.

I havent given any exact examples ive only asked question based on the thread.

This is part of the problem Monument that needs to be addressed. On several occasions across the threads including this one, you have told someone not to do something and yet you go and do it yourself.
I wont give exact examples as that would go against your ruling in your opening post.

Hilly Bill

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I'm coming at this from a knowledge/angle perspective here. If JD, to take a good example, says a little about his history then we know where he comes from. I've a background, Corktina, Victor, Alek Smart, Spook.ie to name a few; we have know how in certain aspects of transport. how things work and this will bear fruit for most of us if we pay heed to them. Similarly, when people are active or involved with lobby/action groups then it's fair to declare an interest alone to guard their position or stance.

None of what you said about disruption happens as a rule, save for a few occasional cheap digs and from ignorant posters who want a high moral ground

Thats fair enough Losty but if someone says they work for a particular company and post their own views , some will take that as the view of the company that person works for and not that particular poster if they disagree with them.

dfx-

This is the one forum that I would dread to moderate, it seems an impossible job. So full credit has to go to those who do.

There are far too many vested interests, a poisonous mix of employees, commuters, outside observers, enthusiasts, preservationists amongst others who are coming from several different angles who never seem to agree, who get annoyed with each other over the simplest things or especially suspect agendas - it has even happened in this thread.

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.

Excellent post.

AlekSmart

dfx- wrote: »

This is the one forum that I would dread to moderate, it seems an impossible job. So full credit has to go to those who do.

There are far too many vested interests, a poisonous mix of employees, commuters, outside observers, enthusiasts, preservationists amongst others who are coming from several different angles who never seem to agree, who get annoyed with each other over the simplest things or especially suspect agendas - it has even happened in this thread.



Excellent post.

A poisonous mix perhaps,tet one which accurately reflects the reality of Public Transport "Life" itself.

It's not some sanitized sterile gleaming pearly-white world out here,but rather a gritty,lurching,and often quite bizzarre place,and long may it continue that way !

Without this Poisonous Mix,we would have no Boards.Ie at all ?

Con Logue

dfx- wrote: »

This is the one forum that I would dread to moderate, it seems an impossible job. So full credit has to go to those who do.

There are far too many vested interests, a poisonous mix of employees, commuters, outside observers, enthusiasts, preservationists amongst others who are coming from several different angles who never seem to agree, who get annoyed with each other over the simplest things or especially suspect agendas - it has even happened in this thread.



Excellent post.

In my view the one thing that this board must guard itself against is opinion masquerading as fact.

There are indeed several strongly held views on this board but one would want to be very brave or stupid to cross certain lines. Poking a cross dog with a big stick would be more productive and just as enjoyable.

corktina

Con Logue wrote: »

In my view the one thing that this board must guard itself against is opinion masquerading as fact.

There are indeed several strongly held views on this board but one would want to be very brave or stupid to cross certain lines. Poking a cross dog with a big stick would be more productive and just as enjoyable.

yes Con but supporting railways (for instance )come what may because you love them and irrespective of the economic realities is much the same as opinion masquerading as facts.

I often think (and this may not be possible ) that getting rid of the LIKE button would maybe stop or reduce the taking sides and gang warfare that seems to occur.

If the vested interests thread is a gonna, how about a C&T introduce yourself thread where you can mybe give a quick CV of yourself?

monument

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I havent given any exact examples ive only asked question based on the thread.

This is part of the problem Monument that needs to be addressed. On several occasions across the threads including this one, you have told someone not to do something and yet you go and do it yourself.
I wont give exact examples as that would go against your ruling in your opening post.

I addressed other people's exact examples because there seemed to be an overriding need to do so.

You're welcome to give vague examples without going into too much detail.

Con Logue

corktina wrote: »

yes Con but supporting railways (for instance )come what may because you love them and irrespective of the economic realities is much the same as opinion masquerading as facts.

I often think (and this may not be possible ) that getting rid of the LIKE button would maybe stop or reduce the taking sides and gang warfare that seems to occur.

If the vested interests thread is a gonna, how about a C&T introduce yourself thread where you can mybe give a quick CV of yourself?

I can only speak for myself here but I think it would be a parody of my position to think I support railways "come what may". I'm not certain what posters do either.

I wouldn't be supportive for example of pruning services or rail freight to benefit commercial interests and share a lot of An Taisce's perspective on sustainable development but perhaps this is for another thread.

corktina

"you" not referring to you personally...it's a "for instance" and says so

Con Logue

corktina wrote: »

"you" not referring to you personally...it's a "for instance" and says so

Thanks for the clarification.

corktina

no problem.

It does bring to mind though some of the crackpot threads that have been posted and argued so fiercely in favour of despite them being total pie-in-the-sky. What does one do about them? If you get a poster like this, surely the Mods should call an early end to such threads before frustration gets the better of of us all.... I'm thinking Bridges and Tunnels here but I'm sure there are more examples

Conway635

As a very long time reader, and occasional poster, I have generally had very few problems here.

Monument hasn't been around long enough to really interact with me, but I've found Victor to be very helpful in the past, notably stepping forward to offer help on a couple of occasions by PM when I had some technical difficulties.

I can sympathise with the tasks faced by the moderators to a large degree. Those who know me will be aware that for many years I ran a very large bus enthusiast forum (Garaiste) which I semi-archived a couple of years ago (it no longer allows discussion of current topics, and confines itself to history). I had to take the decision to do this because of the sheer amount of trolling, conflict and open-warfare which sections of the enthusiast community insisted on playing out on the boards, and the fact that as the Admin, they were all expecting me to be firm on THEIR side. It came to a point where I couldn't even go away for a long weekend without getting phonecalls about some latest outbreak, and having to log on to sort it out. This totally removed any any joy I used to get from the hobby, and was impacting on my quality of life.

It's a joy for me to be able to dip in here and read and occasionally interact, without the responsibility of having to keep everything in line.

I tend to post mostly when I feel I can provide some information to illuminate a situation (I have a good working knowledge of how the bus system works both here and in London, having worked for a London operator for a number of years in the 80s/90s, and reported on Ireland for a trade magazine from 2004-2009).

Generally I find the forum here enjoyable, the moderation light touch, and the opinions interesting.

The pro/anti rail stuff can be a bit intense at times, and also a degree of slurring of individual members along the lines of "you must have a vested interest".

To give you one example, I know one of the posters here in the real world. This man does not work in anything related to transport, but has a virtually encyclopedic knowledge of timetable, rotas, and operational practice. He frequently posts here explaining how things work, and because of his level of detail and knowledge he is often accused of being a CIE insider.

I also know AlekSmart in the real world. He is of course an insider, but I feel gives fascinating accounts here of the kerbside view of life. While there are some things that he and I would heartily disagree on, I welcome the time and effort he puts into sharing his views here, even those I disagree with.

So overall, I would say there is not a huge amount wrong here, but we should try to make it a little less intense and threatening for casual posters and passers by.

And that is more a task for ALL of us posters, rather than just the moderators.

Gabriel Conway
aka Conway635

Con Logue

corktina wrote: »

no problem.

It does bring to mind though some of the crackpot threads that have been posted and argued so fiercely in favour of despite them being total pie-in-the-sky. What does one do about them? If you get a poster like this, surely the Mods should call an early end to such threads before frustration gets the better of of us all.... I'm thinking Bridges and Tunnels here but I'm sure there are more examples

I sympathise but unless you became a mod or caused the charter to be rewritten defining the parameters of the board closer to the discourse you want, there will always be posts that you would rather not see. I see absolutely no harm in the threads you cite, and decisions about anything will never be influenced by what is said here, but as individuals our mileage may vary.

HivemindXX

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.

Bringing up the same issues over and over again however is.

AngryLips

monument wrote: »

We're also thinking of an off-topic / banter thread that many other parts of boards have -- relaxed in that it's not following one topic, but rules on personal abuse etc would still apply... Any thoughts?

The entire forum should just be declared an off-topic zone or maybe we should just have one massive off-topic thread without any other thread postings permitted so that we can all do what we love doing best; going off-topic

bk

Excellent post there by Conway635.

Personally I find the moderation of this forum to be fine for the most part and it is an interesting forum to post on.

Yes sometimes the discussion can get a little heated, but that is true of absolutely every single forum here on boards. As long as it doesn't get personal, then that is usually fine.

I think some posters here don't understand this, because this is one of the only forums they visit on boards, but there really isn't anything unusual about this forum.

If you simply don't like a particular poster or their views, then that is what the ignore button is for. No one is forcing you to read their posts.

I think the only issue here is that one large group of posters with a particular belief here feel that if some one doesn't hold their belief and challenges it, that they are trolling.

As a mod of 10 forums!! I see very little here on this forum that I would consider trolling.

This is actually a really good and interesting forum and long may it last. Also thanks to the mods for doing a job that I know is very difficult.

Esoteric_

I read the forum every day, but don't post much. The only issue that I've noticed is the one issue that stops me from posting -

Threads that are more than a page or two long always seem to descend into off-topic arguing. It's pretty difficult to get the answers you may be looking for when you have to wade through pages of bickering to find an answer to something!

That said, fair play to the mods. It's a tough task moderating in here, and I don't envy them.

BuffyBot

Not to crash the party but:

I think a few people on this forum need to take a large step back and look at the general standard of behaviour they engage in. The mods here have an enormously tough job - and guess why? It's because some folks think they can pretty much tackle everyone who opposes their viewpoint to the ground and mercilessly badger the bejesus out of them. And this goes for all sides of the debate: I've read this forum for quite a while and I don't think some of the participants realise how appalingly petty they have come across with their obessive behaviour, abusive postings, "pet" names for those who disagree with whatever viewpoint they hold, and continual dragging topics into multi-page hair pulling.

Let me point this out: the Mods here have been patient to a fault. Much more than I would have been. Had I been modding this forum, some of you probably wouldn't be reading this right now. So see this as not a chance to rake over the past, but time to get with the future. If you don't engage constructively (and I emphasise that word) you will get left behind, and rightly so.

This forum has been extremely useful in the past, and remains so. We're determined to make it even better again. And if that means (and I sincerely hope it doesn't come to this) excluding some folk, that will happen too.

/and now back to our regular programming.

schemingbohemia

I think generally the modding has been good, I think recently it has deteriorated but I think that might be down to some of the regulars, myself included, getting a bit het-up about perceived inconstitencies.

I do think recently there have been far too many threads that have descended into (not sure they ever ascended) a train vs bus argument that I think could have just been closed once the OP's question has been answered and we were just going around in circles.

I'll make no bones about calling someone out on a fine avoidance thread as I don't like thiefs, simple as, if that's regarded as attacking the poster well, I'll have to become more imaginative in my choice of language or take my ban. I'm not sure on what other fora it's okay to tell people how to cheat or get away with robbing their fellow citizens.

corktina

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I think generally the modding has been good, I think recently it has deteriorated but I think that might be down to some of the regulars, myself included, getting a bit het-up about perceived inconstitencies.

I do think recently there have been far too many threads that have descended into (not sure they ever ascended) a train vs bus argument that I think could have just been closed once the OP's question has been answered and we were just going around in circles.

I'll make no bones about calling someone out on a fine avoidance thread as I don't like thiefs, simple as, if that's regarded as attacking the poster well, I'll have to become more imaginative in my choice of language or take my ban. I'm not sure on what other fora it's okay to tell people how to cheat or get away with robbing their fellow citizens.

thats a good point , a lot of circular arguements would be avoided if threads were shut when the original point was satisfied.... more/better moderation I guess, never thought I'd advocate that!