Latest Talk To forum - Irish Water

_Kaiser_

Interesting choice lads...

With the amount of threads (and megathreads) on this particular agency, how it came to be, who was involved, how it's being run etc, Boards decides to take them on as a customer??

A quick scan through the posts already put up suggests that ye are going to have your hands full moderating this one, - not to mention the IMO questionable business decision to host such a forum in the first place given how split the country is on the whole idea anyway.

Given the tone of most of the threads on this topic, is this a case of business > the users that drive it again?

Genuine post btw.. whether someone pays or not is no concern of mine, but surely Boards should be thinking of the bigger picture when it comes to these things?

fussyonion

But why shouldn't they have a forum where customers can discuss their accounts with them?

I, who have an account with them and have paid my first water bill, am happy they're here on Boards so I can ask them questions regarding my account whenever I need to.

It's not their fault if there are people on Boards who don't agree with water meters.
Surely they're just here for us customers and people asking about water meters?

Bord Gais, Electric Ireland and Vodafone have forums here...why not Irish Water?

_Kaiser_

fussyonion wrote: »

But why shouldn't they have a forum where customers can discuss their accounts with them?

I, who have an account with them and have paid my first water bill, am happy they're here on Boards so I can ask them questions regarding my account whenever I need to.

It's not their fault if there are people on Boards who don't agree with water meters.
Surely they're just here for us customers and people asking about water meters?

Bord Gais, Electric Ireland and Vodafone have forums here...why not Irish Water?

Because, if you look through what's been posted already, it's turned into the same arguments and divisions that are repeated ad nauseam elsewhere on the site with the same pro-crowd "thanking" the IW reps and the others backing up their side.

In short this is too emotive an issue for it to be here at this point IMO and will only waste Mods time filtering out the same arguments, and damage both IW and Boards itself as a platform for such interaction.

The Backwards Man

Irish Water are a utility company just like any other, why shouldn't they be on boards? A casual reader of boards from another planet wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the disdain shown to IW and the likes of UPC, Vodafone, and Electric Ireland, yet no one questions the legitimacy of their presence here.

fussyonion

Kaiser, I get what you're saying and of course, we're all entitled to our opinions, but the customers of Irish Water who didn't protest and are happy to pay for water shouldn't suffer because some other people chose to protest and not pay their bills.

What I mean is; the issue might be emotive for some, but obviously it's only emotive for those who are against IW.

I certainly don't find the issue emotive and I'm glad IW are here should I need them.

You're implying that because there are people not happy with water meters, we, the customers, shouldn't have a forum dedicated to a service we're paying for, incase we upset others.

_Kaiser_

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Irish Water are a utility company just like any other, why shouldn't they be on boards? A casual reader of boards from another planet wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the disdain shown to IW and the likes of UPC, Vodafone, and Electric Ireland, yet no one questions the legitimacy of their presence here.

Because the reality is that IW is a very devisive issue at this point and comparisons with UPC, VF etc are meaningless until/unless they are accepted by the general population as the others are.

My point is really does it make good sense for Boards to be endorsing this agency over the opinions of most of its users who've expressed an opinion on the subject (and no, I've no interest in turning this into a debate on who has and who hasn't).

Just seems like a bad PR move to me at this point.

fussyonion

I doubt it was any type of PR move.
I would have thought it was a sensible move on their part, so they could interact with customers.

Like it or not, they do have paying customers and they probably feel it's only right that they should provide another (perhaps more accessible) outlet for customers to ask for help or assistance, just like Electric Ireland and Bord Gais have.

_Kaiser_

fussyonion wrote: »

I doubt it was any type of PR move.
I would have thought it was a sensible move on their part, so they could interact with customers.

Like it or not, they do have paying customers and they probably feel it's only right that they should provide another (perhaps more accessible) outlet for customers to ask for help or assistance, just like Electric Ireland and Bord Gais have.

Apologies.. I was referring to it being a bad move by Boards - not IW, who of course are going to be delighted at the opportunity.

It just seems a bit early for Boards to be (whether it realises it or not) setting out it's stall on the issue while it's still the subject of almost daily news, investigations, and protests... especially when a lot of those are conducted/shared on this very site.

kneemos

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Because the reality is that IW is a very devisive issue at this point and comparisons with UPC, VF etc are meaningless until/unless they are accepted by the general population as the others are.

My point is really does it make good sense for Boards to be endorsing this agency over the opinions of most of its users who've expressed an opinion on the subject (and no, I've no interest in turning this into a debate on who has and who hasn't).

Just seems like a bad PR move to me at this point.

Not really endorsing it in fairness,just another TTM Forum.
You can still slag it off to your hearts content.

Zaph

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

My point is really does it make good sense for Boards to be endorsing this agency over the opinions of most of its users who've expressed an opinion on the subject (and no, I've no interest in turning this into a debate on who has and who hasn't).

Just seems like a bad PR move to me at this point.

How are Boards endorsing IW? They're another paying customer using a Talk to forum as an additional means of communication with the public, just like all the other Talk To customers. I understand where you're coming from in saying that the whole IW thing is emotive for some people, but their presence, or up to now lack of presence on Boards does not constitute a position taken by Boards regarding IW.

_Kaiser_

kneemos wrote: »

Not really endorsing it in fairness,just another TTM Forum.
You can still slag it off to your hearts content.

For now... and for what it's worth some of the posts (from both sides) are over "the line" IMO and fair play to the Mods for trying to let the actual discussions continue as uninterrupted as possible.

But, by accepting IW as a TTM customer (which they presumably are paying for), Boards is validating and endorsing this agency.. and if I was a paying customer of this site, I certainly wouldn't be happy seeing my company being slated at every turn.. how long before the discussions above are treated with more hard line moderation?

Yes I can see the benefits for IW and those who have actually registered/paid, but - depending on who you believe - these are a minority and even if they aren't, a significant portion of the population are against IW (for varying reasons - some legitimate, some not) but it seems odd that Boards would take a stance at this point for no other benefit than whatever fee they're charging them.

As I say, depending on how the IW story eventually turns out, this could end up damaging the validity of Boards as a portal for interaction with other companies.

A wiser move (IMO) would possibly have been to sit tight and wait to see what the payment rates are like and the next moves in this saga before "committing" either way.

_Kaiser_

Zaph wrote: »

How are Boards endorsing IW? They're another paying customer using a Talk to forum as an additional means of communication with the public, just like all the other Talk To customers. I understand where you're coming from in saying that the whole IW thing is emotive for some people, but their presence, or up to now lack of presence on Boards does not constitute a position taken by Boards regarding IW.

If I have an online shop and stick PayPal for example up as a payment option, am I just making life easier for my customers or am I also indirectly saying that PayPal is a legitimate useful service that you should be confident using? I'd say both myself.

My point is that IW is still very much a emotive political issue (for both sides) and saying nothing - or in this context not having a TTM presence - until the end game becomes clearer my have been the wiser choice for Boards as a company as well as saving the mods, reps and actual customers the hassle of that debate as has already started.

duffman13

Seriously Boards is an independent discussion site. IW have as much right to avail of the services offered by boards as ant other company. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant but there are enough threads on boards discussing IW and customers issues or queries are being swallowed up.

How you see this as an endorsement by boards is beyond me. If your not a customer of IW by your choice then you've no reason to engage in the thread just like you wouldn't be on the UPC forum if you didn't use one of there services.

Zaph

As it stands, and whether people like it or not, IW is a registered utility company with bill paying customers. That's the reality of it now, and for the foreseeable future. If they're happy to part with their money for a Talk To forum why should Boards wait around to see if IW is dissolved or turns into something more palatable for many people? As someone already pointed out, IW have a customer base and this is another means for them to communicate with the company. It's a purely commercial transaction for Boards and tbh I think you're reading more into it than there actually is.

duffman13

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

If I have an online shop and stick PayPal for example up as a payment option, am I just making life easier for my customers or am I also indirectly saying that PayPal is a legitimate useful service that you should be confident using? I'd say both myself.

My point is that IW is still very much a emotive political issue (for both sides) and saying nothing - or in this context not having a TTM presence - until the end game becomes clearer my have been the wiser choice for Boards as a company as well as saving the mods, reps and actual customers the hassle of that debate as has already started.

PayPal don't pay you to be your payment provider. IW are paying to use a service. If a pop up ad comes up on your site are you endorsing that product or service? No.

If your product is content and a platform that's open to everyone well then you are hardly endorsing someone because you allow them to post. Which bank does Boards endorse? I don't like the banks, they shouldn't be allowed on the Talk To forums. It's a ridiculous objection.

Tom Dunne

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

and if I was a paying customer of this site, I certainly wouldn't be happy seeing my company being slated at every turn.. how long before the discussions above are treated with more hard line moderation?

So are you suggesting that Boards.ie will crack down on negative comments on Irish Water in other forums due to the fact that the company has a TTM forum?

Red Alert

I've no issue with the Irish Water forum, per se. It's probably going to be as useful as many of the others, depending on how Irish Water interact with it.

My main concern is that like the other forums, Boards.ie is not interested in the quality (or lack of) in terms of interaction. I have made my case here before about that and have been plainly told where to go.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Red Alert

Red Alert wrote: »

I've no issue with the Irish Water forum, per se. It's probably going to be as useful as many of the others, depending on how Irish Water interact with it.

My main concern is that like the other forums, Boards.ie is not interested in the quality (or lack of) in terms of interaction. I have made my case here before about that and have been plainly told where to go.

Haven't there been instances where boards.ie got involved when forums hosted by companies were showing poor reply rates or poor replies in general? I can't remember any off the top of my head, but I'm sure I can recall some vaguely.

KomradeBishop

Boards is a social media outlet with a political/public-opinion influence that is probably comparable to small/moderately-sized newspaper (and it's been put to good use to that effect recently, by publicizing Catherine Murphy's dail speech, when newspapers self-censored, due to the chilling-effect of potential legal action) - with the difference being that its content is user-contributed.

This means that the public aught to hold it to similar standards as a newspaper, regarding potential conflicts of interest (particularly financial) that could bias the running of the site - the same way potential conflicts of interest with advertisers/investors in newspapers, is considered as a potential bias, advertisers/customers with Boards are too.

So that's a good reason to take note of this as a potential conflict of interest, especially given how politically controversial a topic IW is.

Personally though, even though the above is an uncomfortable fact that should be noted - it objectively is a conflict of interest, regardless of whether anyone decides to take offence at that fact - I think it's unlikely that it actually will have a biased affect on the site.

Dav

Red Alert wrote: »

My main concern is that like the other forums, Boards.ie is not interested in the quality (or lack of) in terms of interaction. I have made my case here before about that and have been plainly told where to go.

To be fair, you made a case, for something we have zero ability to control. The whole point of the visibility of these forums for people to be able to see what sort of customer service a company offers and decide if they want to be or continue to be their customer. I genuinely don't know what it is you think we can do to make one of our clients do *anything* besides stick to our rules - we can't make them stop being bad at customer service or whatever specific issues it is you have - I *WISH* we had that sort of power You were specifically mentioning BoI and reps not answering what you called "generic" queries. There are a LOT of legal regulations about what members of staff of a bank can or can't do or advise on. Mortgage and loan queries, for example, can only be dealt with by specially qualified staff and with the disasters that befell this country when we cut banks any kind of slack, I for one would much rather things were done by the book.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Boards is a social media outlet with a political/public-opinion influence that is probably comparable to small/moderately-sized newspaper (and it's been put to good use to that effect recently, by publicizing Catherine Murphy's dail speech, when newspapers self-censored, due to the chilling-effect of potential legal action) - with the difference being that its content is user-contributed.....

I have no idea where you came up with this stuff. We're a service provider - that service is we a platform to build and maintain online communities. We have rules that exist to keep the place civil, free from spammers and shills and to keep us out of court. Beyond those 3 criteria, we have ZERO editorial policy or control over the content of the site - the members decide and control that.

We run ads on the platform to pay for it and we invite major service providers who want to engage with their customers to join at a cost. We're as independent as any other private limited company can be. The only time we've ever taken a stance on anything was the disastrous Sean Sherlock SI several years ago, which didn't help and which lead to the very thing that the Minister promised us would not happen. Let us all remember that come election time - people of the Cork East constituency, we're all looking at you

What it is that suggests to you that there's some conflict of interest? We've had Talk To forums for a number of major service providers in this country whilst at the same time hosting discussions that tear these companies and their business practices to shreds. We have three Banks on the Talk To site, 2 of which were part of the reason our economy collapsed and who are now publicly owned. Did we shut down any conversations about bank bailouts or the economy? Did we shut down conversations about the numerous times Eircom lost laptops with customer data? Did we shut down conversations about how shambolic the National Broadband Plan is because Three are a client?

I take no small exception to you even suggesting the hint of corruption or potential for corruption in taking on one in another long list of service providers in this country. Your comments and ideas of what this site is and isn't are WAY off the mark and your insinuations unwelcome and unfounded and I'd thank you to keep them to yourself in future.

KomradeBishop

Dav wrote: »

I have no idea where you came up with this stuff. We're a service provider - that service is we a platform to build and maintain online communities. We have rules that exist to keep the place civil, free from spammers and shills and to keep us out of court. Beyond those 3 criteria, we have ZERO editorial policy or control over the content of the site - the members decide and control that.

We run ads on the platform to pay for it and we invite major service providers who want to engage with their customers to join at a cost. We're as independent as any other private limited company can be. The only time we've ever taken a stance on anything was the disastrous Sean Sherlock SI several years ago, which didn't help and which lead to the very thing that the Minister promised us would not happen. Let us all remember that come election time - people of the Cork East constituency, we're all looking at you

What it is that suggests to you that there's some conflict of interest? We've had Talk To forums for a number of major service providers in this country whilst at the same time hosting discussions that tear these companies and their business practices to shreds. We have three Banks on the Talk To site, 2 of which were part of the reason our economy collapsed and who are now publicly owned. Did we shut down any conversations about bank bailouts or the economy? Did we shut down conversations about the numerous times Eircom lost laptops with customer data? Did we shut down conversations about how shambolic the National Broadband Plan is because Three are a client?

I take no small exception to you even suggesting the hint of corruption or potential for corruption in taking on one in another long list of service providers in this country. Your comments and ideas of what this site is and isn't are WAY off the mark and your insinuations unwelcome and unfounded and I'd thank you to keep them to yourself in future.

Well I'd definitely credit Boards with (overall) striking a good balance and doing their best to be visibly accountable and such - I don't agree that Boards is just a neutral service provider though, as while Boards of course has no editorial control over site content, it does have other more subtle control over site content through how it is moderated/run and such; but does a good job keeping that away from any potential conflicts of interest (particularly financial), since it's almost all volunteer based.

So, while conflicts of interest like this can exist, I think it's unlikely for them to affect the site (I'd actually say, that conflicts of interest with individual mods is more likely to)

Just to note - a conflict of interest only refers to something that could potentially affect the motivation of an organization (which is why I'd class this as a conflict of interest for Boards) - it doesn't mean anything improper is actually happening (and I think that'd be very unlikely with Boards), which I made sure to point out in my post.

So it doesn't make sense to take offence at conflicts of interest being pointed out (it doesn't suggest anything bad is happening or is likely to), Boards should welcome it just as a matter of full disclosure - which is actually a good thing as it holds the site up to (and shows it meets) a high standard.

K-9

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Interesting choice lads...

With the amount of threads (and megathreads) on this particular agency, how it came to be, who was involved, how it's being run etc, Boards decides to take them on as a customer??

A quick scan through the posts already put up suggests that ye are going to have your hands full moderating this one, - not to mention the IMO questionable business decision to host such a forum in the first place given how split the country is on the whole idea anyway.

Given the tone of most of the threads on this topic, is this a case of business > the users that drive it again?

Genuine post btw.. whether someone pays or not is no concern of mine, but surely Boards should be thinking of the bigger picture when it comes to these things?

There's probably about 50 or 60 regular posters on IW threads, half pro and half against. I don't think 30 or so odd posters should dictate whether boards hosts a talk to forum or not. It doesn't bother the vast majority of users one way or the other IMO and reactions are as likely to be positive as negative.

spaceHopper

Zaph wrote: »

As it stands, and whether people like it or not, IW is a registered utility company with bill paying customers. That's the reality of it now, and for the foreseeable future. If they're happy to part with their money for a Talk To forum why should Boards wait around to see if IW is dissolved or turns into something more palatable for many people? As someone already pointed out, IW have a customer base and this is another means for them to communicate with the company. It's a purely commercial transaction for Boards and tbh I think you're reading more into it than there actually is.

IW is not like any othe utility comoany, I can do without all of the others, I can switch elecrticty, or gasor get rid of upc my mobile.... where as i cannot live with out affordable clean water. Boards is free to take money from where ever it like but its real value is its users with out them its wortheless. I'm sorry to say but i expected better

spaceHopper

K-9 wrote: »

There's probably about 50 or 60 regular posters on IW threads, half pro and half against. I don't think 30 or so odd posters should dictate whether boards hosts a talk to forum or not. It doesn't bother the vast majority of users one way or the other IMO and reactions are as likely to be positive as negative.

Then let all the users deciede stick up a poll

kneemos

Is the real issue here some peoples objection to anything even mildly positive concerning Irish Water?

Overheal

God forbid someone should wish to engage a public forum!



right I've exhausted my Greek knowledge I am out.

wnolan1992

I fail to see how it's a conflict of interest.

The Talk To forum is a customer care outlet. If you take your political bullsh*t about IW there, you'll rightly be told to piss off. It's not what IW are paying for. It's not what the Talk To forums are for.

If you post in AH or Politics or whatever with your political bullsh*t about IW, the people who moderate those forums are volunteers who are not receiving a penny from IW.

IF (and this is a huge IF) Boards staff were to suddenly shut down anti-IW threads, then yeah, that's a conflict of interest. But have they shut down negative comments about other companies who have TT forums? Not that I'm aware of. And if my bitching about how godawful a company <MOD SNIP> is over the past number of years is any indication, they're not going to. Until they do, I'm more than happy to have them milk IW for as much money as they can. I'd rather Boards has a regular, dependable stream of income in IW than to see them putting in even more ad-spaces in an attempt to cover costs.




It's Three btw, I was making an high-larious joke

Lovely Bloke

At least you know your water-tax is going to the pockets of the Boards Staff, at least a part of it anyway.

Beasty

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

At least you know your water-tax is going to the pockets of the Boards Staff, at least a part of it anyway.

So you are now suggesting Boards staff are getting some kind of bonus out of this.

Incredible!!!!

KomradeBishop

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I fail to see how it's a conflict of interest.

The Talk To forum is a customer care outlet. If you take your political bullsh*t about IW there, you'll rightly be told to piss off. It's not what IW are paying for. It's not what the Talk To forums are for.

If you post in AH or Politics or whatever with your political bullsh*t about IW, the people who moderate those forums are volunteers who are not receiving a penny from IW.

IF (and this is a huge IF) Boards staff were to suddenly shut down anti-IW threads, then yeah, that's a conflict of interest. But have they shut down negative comments about other companies who have TT forums? Not that I'm aware of. And if my bitching about how godawful a company <MOD SNIP> is over the past number of years is any indication, they're not going to. Until they do, I'm more than happy to have them milk IW for as much money as they can. I'd rather Boards has a regular, dependable stream of income in IW than to see them putting in even more ad-spaces in an attempt to cover costs.




It's Three btw, I was making an high-larious joke

It's the financial conflict of interest, of Boards running a site hosting political discussion, involving one of the companies it does business with; a conflict of interest is something that can potentially affect an organization (which is why it's applicable here), it's not defined as something that does affect an organization.

To avoid rehashing my previous post: I explain in both my previous posts, how I think this COI is unlikely to affect Boards (as you mention, the system of volunteer moderators helps prevent it becoming an issue), and so - while it is worth pointing out - it's not likely to be a problem.

Penn

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

At least you know your water-tax is going to the pockets of the Boards Staff, at least a part of it anyway.

I'm sure when you break down the costs of what Irish Water spend, what Boards charged them, and the likely water tax per person annually, the percentage of our individual water tax going to Boards is probably somewhere in the region of 0.00001%

Someone tell the Government not to get rid of the 1c coins just yet! I demand that after 1864 years, Boards.ie pays me back that 1c!

Lovely Bloke

Beasty wrote: »

So you are now suggesting Boards staff are getting some kind of bonus out of this.

Incredible!!!!

lolwut?

IW pays for the forum, the money they pay goes towards the staff wages, as we are often told in threads like this.

Who the hell mentioned bonus?

Cabaal

K-9 wrote: »

There's probably about 50 or 60 regular posters on IW threads, half pro and half against. I don't think 30 or so odd posters should dictate whether boards hosts a talk to forum or not. It doesn't bother the vast majority of users one way or the other IMO and reactions are as likely to be positive as negative.

Spot on, if you look at the broadband forum there is a huge thread about three. For years three was seriously hated. But that doesn't mean three shouldn't be on boards.

I personally hate Eircom, I've had nothing but awful experiences with them for 15 years now. But I still think it's good they offer twitter support etc

efb

Boards, like Irish Water, is a business.

Good idea imho

Buona Fortuna

efb wrote: »

Boards, like Irish Water, is a business.

Good idea imho

And it is a very busy forum.

I always think what's wrong with a dialogue?

You say something untrue or inaccurate there are enough people around to shoot you down.

Talk is good

Red Alert

Dav wrote: »

To be fair, you made a case, for something we have zero ability to control. The whole point of the visibility of these forums for people to be able to see what sort of customer service a company offers and decide if they want to be or continue to be their customer. I genuinely don't know what it is you think we can do to make one of our clients do *anything* besides stick to our rules - we can't make them stop being bad at customer service or whatever specific issues it is you have - I *WISH* we had that sort of power

You can't control them, and I never insinuated that you could. However, a question marked as solved could then invite the user to issue a rating which then is aggregated and shown on the main forum page. It would let people see overall how well their fellow customers feel that the business answers queries. Niamh seemed to be adamantly against any system like this this when I suggested it before.

You were specifically mentioning BoI and reps not answering what you called "generic" queries. There are a LOT of legal regulations about what members of staff of a bank can or can't do or advise on. Mortgage and loan queries, for example, can only be dealt with by specially qualified staff and with the disasters that befell this country when we cut banks any kind of slack, I for one would much rather things were done by the book.

By generic I meant basic stuff like for example what rules are on specific things, which in theory are codified in some T&C's somewhere and are therefore not private information. A query about a non-account or personal-specific fact that automatically results in a "please call us" is a waste of time for the poster.

ThisRegard

People complaining about this is just so outlandishly funny.

padd b1975

I'm coming up on six days waiting for a response/acknowledgment of what I thought was a fairly straightforward question.

Is this the norm for the Talk To forums??

The reps have been on several times since I posted my question.

Lovely Bloke

Probably "slipped through the cracks", a nice catch-all excuse for bad service, bump the thread.

The Boards staff have zero to do with wait times, response times or general efficiency of the Talk To... forums once they are bought and paid for, the running of them is left largely to the entities themselves.

Are you surprised that IW is acting like this though?

Do Boards care?

Nody

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Do Boards care?

I'd say so yes if nothing else because poor performance = poor service = chances they pull the plug on the forum "as it's not working". Having said that I'd guess Dav probably has a more personal interest in making it work beyond crass economical reasons (i.e. making sure boards users gets good service) but at the end of the day all boards is doing is renting out a store area and how people run the store is beyond their control.

Buona Fortuna

padd b1975 wrote: »

I'm coming up on six days waiting for a response/acknowledgment of what I thought was a fairly straightforward question.

Is this the norm for the Talk To forums??

The reps have been on several times since I posted my question.

padd b - couldn't find your thread - just running through the first couple of pages reading the OP (could be me ) - got a link.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

http://www.boards.ie/ttfthread/2057451446/1#post96185774

theres the post^
probably got overlooked as it wasn't a seperate thread

Lovely Bloke

a genuine crack fall, no way.

padd b1975

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

padd b - couldn't find your thread - just running through the first couple of pages reading the OP (could be me ) - got a link.

Apologies, only seeing this now (as they say:o)

That was my first time posting in the Talk To forums, and to be honest I didn't realise every query needed its own thread:cool:

For the record, It's under the 'Appartment Metering' thread.

Buona Fortuna

padd b1975 wrote: »

Apologies, only seeing this now (as they say:o)

That was my first time posting in the Talk To forums, and to be honest I didn't realise every query needed its own thread:cool:

For the record, It's under the 'Appartment Metering' thread.

Found it now, thanks.

As you say above, you're pobably better off starting your own thread.

Dyr

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's the financial conflict of interest, of Boards running a site hosting political discussion, involving one of the companies it does business with; a conflict of interest is something that can potentially affect an organization (which is why it's applicable here), it's not defined as something that does affect an organization.

To avoid rehashing my previous post: I explain in both my previous posts, how I think this COI is unlikely to affect Boards (as you mention, the system of volunteer moderators helps prevent it becoming an issue), and so - while it is worth pointing out - it's not likely to be a problem.

tbh if boards was at all worried about conflicts of interests in their political forums theyd be asking mods very probing questions about their political affiliations to avoid another one being outed. I doubt they do. Its no accident that an unmoderated, abandoned political forum is still the top cat for political discussion in Ireland.


I would imagine boards were offered a sizable amount of coin by IW to sign up for their PR campaign and decided that they could control any potential backlash. Their real problem is if it puts them in the sights of anti water protestors outside of the boards, quite an active bunch

KomradeBishop

Bambi wrote: »

tbh if boards was at all worried about conflicts of interests in their political forums theyd be asking mods very probing questions about their political affiliations to avoid another one being outed. I doubt they do. Its no accident that an unmoderated, abandoned political forum is still the top cat for political discussion in Ireland.


I would imagine boards were offered a sizable amount of coin by IW to sign up for their PR campaign and decided that they could control any potential backlash. Their real problem is if it puts them in the sights of anti water protestors outside of the boards, quite an active bunch

Well, I've to be careful about the former, as I can't comment on all of that I will say though, that I think it is a good idea to have a public statement of potential conflicts of interest of mods/admins across all forums though (not talking about any specific forum) - just as a matter of full disclosure (definitely something I've thought about many times before, in the last year or two...).

That's something that I think admins/mods could probably agree to, without it being seen as controversial?


On the latter - I think (despite its faults) that Boards volunteer moderation works well enough to avoid any overt/direct influence like that (so long as there aren't any actual conflicts of interest), so that's not something I'd worry about - and admin/mod disclosure of CoI would help make covert/indirect influence (or even just plain cognitive bias having an influence) much less of a potential issue, which for forum members, would be good to know.

Zaph

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Well, I've to be careful about the former, as I can't comment on all of that I will say though, that I think it is a good idea to have a public statement of potential conflicts of interest of mods/admins across all forums though (not talking about any specific forum) -just as a matter of full disclosure (definitely something I've thought about many times before, in the last year or two...).

Just out of curiosity, what would constitute "full disclosure"?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's something that I think admins/mods could probably agree to, without it being seen as controversial?

I beg to differ on this as I would see mandatory disclosure by mods as being hugely controversial. There are 600+ mods on the site and I would imagine that a significant number would tell us where to go if we insisted on them publicly announcing their political affiliations, sexuality, religion, position on abortion, etc. As we always say, a mod is just another poster outside of their own forum, and tbh in the vast majority of forums none of those things matter anyway.

K-9

I don't have a clue what that's about tbh, but I'd have thought us mods post regularly enough as ordinary users, so political leanings would be obvious enough. It isn't as if we are faceless robots on the site!

I must be modding 4 years or so and I don't recall it ever being an issue in the mods forum. It would stick out to other mods and admins.

K-9

Ps. I mean politics mods forum above.