Latest Talk To forum - Irish Water

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.

KomradeBishop

Zaph wrote: »

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

Just the special interests people work/volunteer for (e.g. think-tanks, business lobby groups), take money from, or whatever else connects them, that are relevant to a forum they're involved in - the same kind of conflicts of interest that a e.g. a journalist or judge ought to be disclosing.

Zaph wrote: »

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.

Well, those are personal mod opinions that you cite, that's not 'conflict of interest' territory - it would be a CoI if any of the situations I mention above were true.

I think actual conflicts of interest among mods/admins, are probably pretty rare, so I don't think it would be objectionable to most - so long as it's clearly understood what does and doesn't count as a CoI (so that people don't oppose the idea, on a misunderstanding of what it covers).

I agree though that on most forums it wouldn't matter - it's worth noting for those that it does matter on though; given the influence mods have though, they definitely aren't just another poster, they have the ability to subtly guide the narrative of entire forums (even if just unconsciously, through personal bias).

KomradeBishop

K-9 wrote: »

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.

I think people are mistaking what a conflict of interest is - it's not just a personal opinion:

A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests (financial, emotional, or otherwise), one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

It's exactly the problem with Conflicts of Interest, is that they can manifest in ways that don't stick out.

Zaph

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Just the special interests people work/volunteer for (e.g. think-tanks, business lobby groups), take money from, or whatever else connects them, that are relevant to a forum they're involved in - the same kind of conflicts of interest that a e.g. a journalist or judge ought to be disclosing.

Fair enough. But let's say I'm a mod of some Film, for example, but I work for a bank and consequently post regularly in the Banking/Insurance/Pensions forum due to my professional interest in the subject. Now it's fair to say that bankers aren't the most popular people in the country and I might not want to reveal where I work. Why should I, by virtue of having the word "moderator" under my username and even though it's unrelated to this forum, have to divulge that information when other posters in the forum don't?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Well, those are personal mod opinions that you cite, that's not 'conflict of interest' territory - it would be a CoI if any of the situations I mention above were true.

Fair enough, but in response to K-9 you defines a conflict of interest as:

KomradeBishop wrote: »

A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests (financial, emotional, or otherwise), one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

For the vast majority of people their position on social issues are emotional, not financial or being directly involved in an organisation. So, for instance, what would be the threshold beyond which my support for the recent same-sex referendum goes beyond support and becomes a conflict of interest?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I think actual conflicts of interest among mods/admins, are probably pretty rare, so I don't think it would be objectionable to most - so long as it's clearly understood what does and doesn't count as a CoI (so that people don't oppose the idea, on a misunderstanding of what it covers).

I agree that if we're talking strictly in terms of financial interests or someone being on a committee or something, then there probably wouldn't be a huge number. However we do then get to the issue of compelling mods to reveal those interests. As I said, there are over 600 mods, almost all using a pseudonym, so while we know some the vast majority would be personally unknown to the Boards office. How do we know that a) they have a conflict of interest; b) that they're telling the truth if they say they don't; and c) compel them to divulge the conflict if they'd rather not?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I agree though that on most forums it wouldn't matter - it's worth noting for those that it does matter on though; given the influence mods have though, they definitely aren't just another poster, they have the ability to subtly guide the narrative of entire forums (even if just unconsciously, through personal bias).

Just for clarity, what I meant about mods just being posters was when they are posting in forums other than those they mod. I agree that it is unlikely they'd be viewed as regular posters in their own forums, however that doesn't preclude them from holding, and posting their own opinions, although in such cases they should probably avoid modding any threads they're active participants in.

cmere lads I think my UPC is too expensive I think ye should reconsider having a forum for them too while we're at it.

Zaph

Deleted User wrote: »

cmere lads I think my UPC is too expensive I think ye should reconsider having a forum for them too while we're at it.

Well you could always see what deals they're doing on the Sky or Eircom forums. :pac:

Dyr

Zaph wrote: »

F
there are over 600 mods, almost all using a pseudonym, so while we know some the vast majority would be personally unknown to the Boards office. How do we know that a) they have a conflict of interest; b) that they're telling the truth if they say they don't; and c) compel them to divulge the conflict if they'd rather not?

If there was 600 mods on the politics forums you might have had a point chief

Zaph

Bambi wrote: »

If there was 600 mods on the politics forums you might have had a point chief

There's more to Boards than just the Politics forum.

KomradeBishop

Zaph wrote: »

Fair enough. But let's say I'm a mod of some Film, for example, but I work for a bank and consequently post regularly in the Banking/Insurance/Pensions forum due to my professional interest in the subject. Now it's fair to say that bankers aren't the most popular people in the country and I might not want to reveal where I work. Why should I, by virtue of having the word "moderator" under my username and even though it's unrelated to this forum, have to divulge that information when other posters in the forum don't?

Well, if I understand you correctly, in that situation you'd be the moderator of the Film forum, and not Banking/Insurance/Pensions - so if that was the case, you wouldn't have a conflict of interest on the B/I/P forum, so that'd be grand.

Admins/mods would only potentially have a conflict of interest, over forums they directly moderate.

Zaph wrote: »

Fair enough, but in response to K-9 you defines a conflict of interest as:

For the vast majority of people their position on social issues are emotional, not financial or being directly involved in an organisation. So, for instance, what would be the threshold beyond which my support for the recent same-sex referendum goes beyond support and becomes a conflict of interest?

You're right that the 'emotional' bit is unclear - unfortunately, that wiki article doesn't explain the 'emotional' part of a Conflict of Interest at all, but I found this decent guide:
http://cooperativegrocer.coop/articles/2009-01-20/handling-emotional-conflict-interest

So, an emotional conflict of interest in that case, would cover having direct personal relationships that can be a CoI (e.g. in the case of banking forum, being the partner of major bank executive, who has been jailed for fraud - if ever we see the day ), it wouldn't cover having a strong emotionally-invested opinion on a subject.

Zaph wrote: »

I agree that if we're talking strictly in terms of financial interests or someone being on a committee or something, then there probably wouldn't be a huge number. However we do then get to the issue of compelling mods to reveal those interests. As I said, there are over 600 mods, almost all using a pseudonym, so while we know some the vast majority would be personally unknown to the Boards office. How do we know that a) they have a conflict of interest; b) that they're telling the truth if they say they don't; and c) compel them to divulge the conflict if they'd rather not?

That's all true, good points, and I'd say that while it's easy to write a rule saying that conflicts of interest should be disclosed, it's not practical to force/compel people to do that - people who do not wish to disclose a conflict of interest, but who want to stay mod, would have to either step down or lie.

Then, if at any stage in the future, a mod slips up and is found out as having lied, they would be removed (mainly for lying, rather than having a CoI).
Note though: A conflict of interest wouldn't automatically make a mod unsuitable (that'd be up to admins to decide - it would make them unsuitable in many cases, and wouldn't in many others), it would just be something that is publicly disclosed.

I think an 'honour'-based system of self-disclosure like that, would be good and low-maintenance enough not perfect (lies could slip through), but it'd be something anyway.

Zaph wrote: »

Just for clarity, what I meant about mods just being posters was when they are posting in forums other than those they mod. I agree that it is unlikely they'd be viewed as regular posters in their own forums, however that doesn't preclude them from holding, and posting their own opinions, although in such cases they should probably avoid modding any threads they're active participants in.

Ah okey Ya I would definitely consider mods on forums they aren't involved with modding, as 'just another poster' as well.