Forum Moderation on Boards.ie

Bertie Woot

Some forums have virtually zero moderation, where anything goes and you can exercise freedom of speech and expression without penalisation for expressing honest opinions. Of course there is a down side to unmoderated fora, with trolling and bullying being prevalent, but then some of this exists in even moderated fora.

Other forums are heavily moderated, some might even argue, over-moderated, and to the extent where a suppression of freedom of speech is taking place. Of course the site owners argue that it is their site, their private cyber-property, and that they can thus choose what is and what is not socially acceptable on their site.

I want to gauge opinion on the moderation of Boards.ie, and as a means of providing feedback to the moderation team on what they are doing right or wrong, thus providing an opportunity for some honest suggestions on how moderators can sustain, review, or perhaps improve their moderation, if a significant number of poster's feel that there is room for improvement.

So what do you think? Is Boards.ie under-moderated, over-moderated, or are Boards.ie moderators getting it just about right?

OldGoat

Thats very good of you and a huge task to boot. Luckly there is a forum on the site where just this kind of information is stored for all to read. You should have a look through the posts there and piece your information from it.
It's called Feedback.
Do you need a link?

nesf

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Of course the site owners argue that it is their site, their private cyber-property, and that they can thus choose what is and what is not socially acceptable on their site.

Well yeah. That's kind of how privately owned websites work the world over.

Zaph

Join date 10/02/2013. 3 forum bans, 6 infractions and 6 warnings. Hmmm, let me guess - you're on the over-moderated side,aren't you?

gowley

for what its worth i think its quite well moderated. i have had a couple of warnings from the mods and they were warranted. the only issue i would have with one or two is they are very biased and dont take kindly to being contradicted . its their opinion or no opinion.
overall i think its very well moderated on the forums i have visited

gowley

lol bertie. you are obviously a serial offender. a lot of 4 and 5 stars coming after you now. if your track record is what zaph says i would say youre probably lucky not to have a life ban. dont know what kind of carry on would get you that record.

OldGoat

gowley wrote: »

lol bertie. you are obviously a serial offender. a lot of 4 and 5 stars coming after you now. if your track record is what zaph says i would say youre probably lucky not to have a life ban. dont know what kind of carry on would get you that record.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not coming after the OP. I'm seriously in awe of the amount of work he's taking on. He's going to have to go into every forum, check how many mods are working there, guage the mood of the regular posters there, establish the number of mod actions to reported posts, allow for mod actions thatare carried out without reports being generated, find any disgruntled posters who no longer use that forum and then try (without access to any moderator tools) to gleen if the disgruntled poster has a case to answer.
Phew.
And that just the start of it.
He'll have to come to terms with logic loops where no matter what the level of moderation some posters will always act the dick.

Of course there is a down side to unmoderated fora, with trolling and bullying being prevalent, but then some of this exists in even moderated fora.

(Sorry for selective quoting that but I'm still trying to understand your point).

Perhaps the thread should have a poll.

Bertie Woot

OldGoat wrote: »

Thats very good of you and a huge task to boot. Luckly there is a forum on the site where just this kind of information is stored for all to read. You should have a look through the posts there and piece your information from it.
It's called Feedback.
Do you need a link?

I'm more interested in your feedback in this thread. If you don't want to provide any, have an issue with individual posters attempting to gauge opinion, or perhaps need some help with providing feedback as would seem to be the case, you have found a listening ear.

OldGoat wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I'm not coming after the OP. I'm seriously in awe of the amount of work he's taking on. He's going to have to go into every forum, check how many mods are working there, guage the mood of the regular posters there, establish the number of mod actions to reported posts, allow for mod actions thatare carried out without reports being generated, find any disgruntled posters who no longer use that forum and then try (without access to any moderator tools) to gleen if the disgruntled poster has a case to answer.
Phew.
And that just the start of it.
He'll have to come to terms with logic loops where no matter what the level of moderation some posters will always act the dick.
(Sorry for selective quoting that but I'm still trying to understand your point).

Perhaps the thread should have a poll.

Perhaps you should provide some feedback on moderation as is the purpose of this thread, instead of dictating what I should or should not do. Again, if you have issues with providing moderation feedback, positive or negative, there must be a reason for it.

My "point" is contained within the OP. If you do not wish to provide feedback on moderation, I see no point in hanging around and getting all upset and authoritarian, as would seem to be the case.

Please, feel free to use this thread for its intended purpose.

dr.bollocko

Op grinds axe. Ridicule ensues. Thread dies with an OP and friends vs. regulars stalemate.

Gets bumped by somebody else with an agenda. Gets locked. Nobody learns anything and everybody wastes some time.

5 stars. Would moan pointlessly again.

OldGoat

/Ragequits the thread in a fit of upset and authoritarian pique.

Dades

The scope of the OP is a bit, well, grand.

There's hundreds of forums on Boards, loads of them have their own feedback threads and many more have had their affairs discussed in here already.

Bertie Woot

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Op grinds axe. Ridicule ensues. Thread dies with an OP and friends vs. regulars stalemate.

Gets bumped by somebody else with an agenda. Gets locked. Nobody learns anything and everybody wastes some time.

5 stars. Would moan pointlessly again.

It would seem that you have some issues with the provision of a thread which enables site users to provide some honest feedback on moderation.

"Axe grinding" and "agendas"; can you elaborate?

Nodin

Bertie Woot wrote: »

It would seem that you have some issues with the provision of a thread which enables site users to provide some honest feedback on moderation.

"Axe grinding" and "agendas"; can you elaborate?

Rather than drag the thread further down the road to Clusterfuck than it already is, why not expand on your original post with specific examples of fora and specific examples of moderation.

Bertie Woot

Nodin wrote: »

Rather than drag the thread further down the road to Clusterfuck than it already is, why not expand on your original post with specific examples of fora and specific examples of moderation.

It's very encouraging to witness your new found ability to desist from repeatedly asking the same question over and over again as a means of deflecting from an innate inability to provide a simple definition of a word.

But of course this is a different thread; a thread on moderator feedback. Can I ask why you have used the word "cluster****" in relation to this thread, and why you have failed to state your personal opinion on moderation?

I couldn't help notice that your repetitive posting style had the effect of obstructing the flow of my last thread. Is one about to embark upon another escapade of a similar nature?

Gordon

I think the mods are great.

They all have lovely bottoms.

Bertie Woot

Gordon wrote: »

I think the mods are great.

They all have lovely bottoms.

In your experience, might this be due to regular poster's attending to their "bottoms" with an appropriate level of hygiene?

Gordon

Are you talking figuratively?

Nodin

Bertie Woot wrote: »

It's very (.....) nature?

I'll try again

In your op you stated

Some forums have virtually zero moderation, where anything goes and you can exercise freedom of speech and expression without penalisation for expressing honest opinions. Of course there is a down side to unmoderated fora, with trolling and bullying being prevalent, but then some of this exists in even moderated fora.

Other forums are heavily moderated, some might even
argue, over-moderated, and to the extent where a suppression of freedom of speech is taking place. Of course the site owners argue that it is their site, their private cyber-property, and that they can thus choose what is and what is not socially acceptable on their site.

..so as to keep the thread on-topic, you might provide examples of those things you've listed above. It would greatly help as discussion of the issue is virtually impossible without specifics.

Steve

Gordon wrote: »

I think the mods are great.

They all have lovely bottoms.

You OK Gordon?

I told you that wine the prison inmates make in the toilets was dodgy

Bertie Woot

Nodin wrote: »

I'll try again

In your op you stated


..so as to keep the thread on-topic, you might provide examples of those things you've listed above. It would greatly help as discussion of the issue is virtually impossible without specifics.

Looks like you're about to embark upon another cleverly crafted roll.

Shall this be another white knuckle ride like your last?

And is there any specific reason why you are not leaving any feedback for the moderators and seem intent on taking the thread off-topic?

LizT

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Looks like you're about to embark upon another cleverly crafted roll.

Shall this be another white knuckle ride like your last?

And is there any specific reason why you are not leaving any feedback for the moderators?

Is there any reason you're not leaving specific feedback?

Nodin

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Looks like you're about to embark upon another cleverly crafted roll.

Shall this be another white knuckle ride like your last?

And is there any specific reason why you are not leaving any feedback for the moderators and seem intent on taking the thread off-topic?

So you've no interest in your own OP then?

I'm happy with the moderation.

P_1

Moderation for some, miniature [nationality of your choice] flags for others?

Bertie Woot

Nodin wrote: »

So you've no interest in your own OP then?

I'm happy with the moderation.

Please, be specific.

vicwatson

Gordon wrote: »

I think the mods are great.

They all have lovely bottoms.

And some have nice bewbs, even some of the men* :P


*I have no personal experience of seeing Mods bewbs, womens or mens

Bertie Woot

LizT wrote: »

Is there any reason you're not leaving specific feedback?

Good things come to those who wait, sweetheart.

I'm just warming the herd, sorry, crowd.

Nodin

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Please, be specific.

In the forums that I visit and post on (visible via a glance at where I post) I'm happy with the way the moderators run the place.

Reamer Fanny

In regards to censorship in think the OP is somewhat right, some moderators will <snip> your <snip> if you talk about <snip>

nesf

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Please, be specific.

This precise kind of crap is what has you near a permaban from Politics. You cannot make a point and refuse to define it and then demand others to define it. Here you're refusing to be specific and being evasive and yet have the gall to demand other users be specific.

This kind of posting will get you banned from Politics and most likely the rest of the forums you frequent. This is the final warning you will get about this kind of behaviour from me, next time I see it in Soc it will be a ban.

gowley

Nodin wrote: »

In the forums that I visit and post on (visible via a glance at where I post) I'm happy with the way the moderators run the place.

are you aspiring to be a moderator nodin.

Overheal

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Please, be specific.

Thats what you've been asked to do, yes.

Bertie Woot

Nodin wrote: »

In the forums that I visit and post on (visible via a glance at where I post) I'm happy with the way the moderators run the place.

Great! Positive feedback for the mods!

Now that wasn't difficult.

Steve

justryan wrote: »

In regards to censorship in think the OP is somewhat right, some moderators will <snip> your <snip> if you talk about <snip>

Mostly, we're given guidelines on what has to be snipped. Most of it is for legal reasons and I'd say that covers 90% of snips. The other 10% is common sense.

Vicxas

Is this some sort of game to see how many mods we can get into this thread?

I like it.

Bertie Woot

nesf wrote: »

This precise kind of crap is what has you near a permaban from Politics. You cannot make a point and refuse to define it and then demand others to define it. Here you're refusing to be specific and being evasive and yet have the gall to demand other users be specific.

This kind of posting will get you banned from Politics and most likely the rest of the forums you frequent. This is the final warning you will get about this kind of behaviour from me, next time I see it in Soc it will be a ban.

Like most moderators, you strike me as an intelligent, tolerant, light-hearted, good natured and discerning fellow, with a terrific sense of humour and impeccable judgement.

Five stars.

That's positive feedback!

gowley

they dont seem to like bertie. but it seems he has previous.

Overheal

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Good things come to those who wait, sweetheart.

Talking down to someone,

I'm just warming the herd, sorry, crowd.

admission of flame-baiting,

smart. if a bit daft.

Reamer Fanny

Steve wrote: »

Mostly, we're given guidelines on what has to be snipped. Most of it is for legal reasons and I'd say that covers 90% of snips. The other 10% is common sense.

Oh I don't blame moderators for snipping where necessary, just sometimes it borders on censorship. I'd say it is tough call to make partcularly where moderators have formed friendships with regulars users who post something controversial.

nesf

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Like most moderators, you strike me as an intelligent, tolerant, light-hearted, good natured and discerning fellow, with a terrific sense of humour and impeccable judgement.

Five stars.

That's positive feedback!

Look, I don't care, I just want peace on the forums I've some responsibility for. The only time you will find me breathing down your neck is if you're causing hassle, which is what you've been doing. Cut out the behaviour you're getting warnings and bans for and magically you'll find mods are no longer giving you hassle.

Steve

justryan wrote: »

Oh I don't blame moderators for snipping where necessary, just sometimes it borders on censorship. I'd say it is tough call to make partcularly where moderators have formed friendships with regulars users who post something controversial.

Yep, it's even tougher when we have to ban them

Bertie Woot

Overheal wrote: »

Talking down to someone,

Not at all, just being friendly.

admission of flame-baiting,

smart. if a bit daft.

That's just your interpretation.

Why so serious-minded?

Overheal

Why so Sesame Street?

Steve

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Why so serious-minded?

Why so troll?

seriously?

Why not say what's on your mind and be done with it - at least then there could
be some discussion on it - as opposed to the suicide by trolling approach?

gowley

you are fighting a losing battle bertie. all the mods and want to be mods have got yuo in their sights.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

I think bertie would secretly love to be a mod and this is his way of appearing on the radar.

K-9

We've a permanent feedback thread on the politics forum and there's tumbleweed running through it for months, that's not a definitive measure, but the vast majority of posters seem to have no major problem with the rules or moderation. Of the small percentage that do get into bother, many accept they over stepped the mark, learn from it and get on with it.

Then we have a tiny percentage that cause bother on the forum, ignoring rules and moderation that the vast majority accept, and they cause bother not just for mods, but far more importantly for the vast majority of posters and readers on the forum.

Personally, I don't accept a individuals freedom of speech which often includes their perceived right to insult, troll, soap box and ignore other peoples point of view, is equal to the vast majority of users rights to have discussion and debate, but they can still do it relatively respectfully and civilly.

With rights come responsibility, and I never see much talk of "what behaviour should I do to help freedom of speech on the internet?", just I'll say what I want, when I want, your problem if you find it offensive and fight the powa!

Scofflaw

Johnny Electricity wrote: »

I think bertie would secretly love to be a mod and this is his way of appearing on the radar.

So criminals would secretly like to be Garda, and that's their way of appearing on the radar?

slightly sceptical,
Scofflaw

Bertie Woot

nesf wrote: »

Look, I don't care, I just want peace on the forums I've some responsibility for. The only time you will find me breathing down your neck is if you're causing hassle, which is what you've been doing. Cut out the behaviour you're getting warnings and bans for and magically you'll find mods are no longer giving you hassle.

Well, at least you've acknowledged that I've been receiving "hassle", and that's to your credit. The way I see it, receiving warnings, infractions and bans for petty things like pointing out a posters poor grammar, talking about Irish history in a thread on a united Ireland, making a less than complimentary comment on Margaret Thatcher's demise, recognising a troll and calling aforementioned troll "a troll", making a non-offensive, humorous and lighthearted comment on homosexuality, requesting a poster to post an intelligent comment instead of the utter guff he has been posting, pointing out a poster's consistent inability to provide a simple definition of a word to enable me to answer his question, and then being accused of trolling for making a humorous remark in relation to a poster's Irish Republican ancestry ...all of this simply shouts "WE ARE OVER-MODERATING, WE HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOUR, WE ARE PETTY-MINDED, WE ARE MISINTERPRETING INNOCENT COMMENTS AND TAKING LIFE TOO SERIOUSLY, WE ARE ACTING LIKE MEGALOMANIACS, CONTROL FREAKS AND FASCISTS".

I have now provided my moderator feedback, unlike most other forum posters, who strike me as a herd of sheep who are in the business of kissing moderator ass .

Thanks for listening, and enjoy your Friday morning.

nesf

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Well, at least you've acknowledged that I've been receiving "hassle", and that's to your credit. The way I see it, receiving warnings, infractions and bans for petty things like pointing out a posters poor grammar, talking about Irish history in a thread on a united Ireland, making a less than complimentary comment on Margaret Thatcher's demise, recognising a troll and calling aforementioned troll "a troll", making a non-offensive, humorous and lighthearted comment on homosexuality, requesting a poster to post an intelligent comment instead of the utter guff he has been posting, pointing out a poster's consistent inability to provide a simple definition of a word to enable me to answer his question, and then being accused of trolling for making a humorous remark in relation to a poster's Irish Republican ancestry ...all of this simply shouts "WE ARE OVER-MODERATING, WE HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOUR, WE ARE PETTY-MINDED, WE ARE MISINTERPRETING INNOCENT COMMENTS AND TAKING LIFE TOO SERIOUSLY, WE ARE ACTING LIKE MEGALOMANIACS, CONTROL FREAKS AND FASCISTS".

I have now provided my moderator feedback, unlike most other forum posters, who strike me as a herd of sheep who are in the business of kissing moderator ass .

Thanks for listening, and enjoy your Friday morning.

So that's a no to quitting the crap you've been doing? Because I can just ban you now and save all of us time and trouble.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Scofflaw wrote: »

So criminals would secretly like to be Garda, and that's their way of appearing on the radar?

slightly sceptical,
Scofflaw

Nah. Criminals do it for financial gain, mainly.

K-9

I didn't know you were a grammar nazi, that changes everything, all your sins are forgiven.