The slow death of forums *see OP for Admin warning and update 28/02/18*

.......

This post has been deleted.

dudara

Bambi wrote: »

This mod malarkey attracts some fruit loops and one of the signs is they want as much control as possible

I will listen to all feedback, positive and constructive (or criticism as you refer to it), but I do not want to hear Boards moderators being referred to as “fruit loops”. You are surely capable of delivering your feedback without making personal jibes.

GreeBo

Perhaps there should be a limited lifespan for mods, with an extended break required between shifts?

I know I was pretty burnt out with it at the end of my time and haven't posted or even spent a fraction of the same amount of time as I did before.

I think it would do everyone some good if mods were rotated in and out. Get them back thinking like posters and more users thinking like mods.

It doesn't need to be open season, you'd still select users, but if it's only for a year, more might get involved.

mirrorwall14

GreeBo wrote: »

Perhaps there should be a limited lifespan for mods, with an extended break required between shifts?

I know I was pretty burnt out with it at the end of my time and haven't posted or even spent a fraction of the same amount of time as I did before.

I think it would do everyone some good if mods were rotated in and out. Get them back thinking like posters and more users thinking like mods.

It doesn't need to be open season, you'd still select users, but if it's only for a year, more might get involved.

Totally agree. I needed out. And probably a little before I did actually leave. I was worn out with it.

dudara

dudara wrote: »

The Feedback format needed to change as the signal to noise ratio was not right. There was Feedback yes, but there were also a lot of grievances aired at any opportunity, which drowned out the good points.

It’s definitely right to say that we need to reconsider Feedback, but it has to be designed so that we get genuine feedback, positive and constructive alike, without getting dragged off-topic.

How about a limit of three posts on any given thread, and any further contributions pre-moderated? It would stop the constant re-iteration of gripes and reduce the likelihood of vexatious threads started.

It seems like a choice between the neutered and ineffective current feedback and a free-for-all, but there has to be a middle ground somewhere.

Vronsky

Beasty wrote: »

I've already addressed that point twice in the past couple of hours

If your are referring to the below quoted text as one of those posts you do not effectively explain why the thread has to close.

Beasty wrote: »

I cannot give a timescale. Many of the Admins have not been around and we need to discuss everything amongst ourselves as well as the wider mod team

What I would hope though is we could perhaps post an update within a month or so of closing this thread. Whether we re-open this one, or open a new one to avoid a lot of the "noise" that has circulated in this thread I am not sure. Equally there may be specific topics we would like to discuss in isolation. That's what the Open Feedback forum is designed for, but if we do start any threads there I would like us to post an announcement to that effect (although those are for the Office to sort out, and I've certainly not had chance to discuss that with them yet)

Let's be real here, on the basis of past experience there is zero chance of this thread being reopened.

A new thread won't to anything either because you have been given all the feedback you need to make changes, several times and over a long period.

And the idea of an admin/staff opening a thread to receive genuine honest feedback? Is that a joke?

Beasty

We try to have cover in every forum (some are so quiet not to need it though). As a CMod there were a few times I took a few weeks off, and mods are encouraged to do the same (although it's something I don't think we've reminded the wider mod community of recently). The same happens at Admin level (think I'm due a bit of a break after this thread:pac:))

It's only occasionally that mods actually step down when doing so - more often than not they simply inform their co-mods and CMods, but still appear on the mod list

gandalf

Beasty wrote: »

If it had stayed as it was it would, in my view, have been a much bigger disaster (but that is only a view, and none of us can claim anything as fact on that particular point)

Yes because the vast majority of issues came from reregs. The minimum time left for accounts along with minimum post counts would deal with the majority of those. The other change of restricting the thread to the OP and just the mods, admin and management to discuss is a complete and utter disaster and imho is more a discouragement to anyone giving feedback knowing it will be a very one sided conversation especially with the reputation (mainly undeserved) of the mods.

If there has been malice from the general user base in feedback in the past it is because of piss poor communication from the sites management amplified by a disastrous untested site redesign that was forced onto a lot of users.

Boards is a useful resource despite the community killing efforts from the managers of the site. If they change the way they interface with the user base then there is still hope.

Buford T. Justice XIX

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Full disclosure I've been a moderator in the past. A few things I've come to believe/realise over the last few years (and several accounts) though:

1. It is possible to be on this site with thousands and thousands of posts over long years and never get carded or have to interact with the penalty systems but I do appreciate that the removal of the feedback forum and the dispute resolution forum need to be addressed.

2. Moderation is an often lonely, difficult job with very little support from anyone higher up in boards. I have every sympathy with moderators and would never do it again personally.

3. Being a moderator of a particular forum meant that I stopped being a prolific poster in it. I have never returned there to the extent that I did in the past. I wouldn't be surprised if this is replicated with other posters over the years and should be considered as a consequence of moderation particularly now that post counts are declining

4. Boards.ie has and continues to be an amazing resource for local knowledge and discussion. The moderation and basic rules has made it a phenomenal resource which continues to stand. Facebook groups etc cannot be properly google searched long after the original discussion. I know I can google "chipper in Mullingar" and I'll find a boards thread discussing it. Probably a few actually, dating back at least 10 years!

5. The forums need to be merged in a massive way. There is not enough traffic to support them properly in the current structure in my honest opinion. Any forum with less than 30 posts/replies a week should be part of a larger forum. This will piss some people off but faster moving forums is I believe needed considering what you are working against (facebook etc). There are certain large forums e.g. Acc&Property, Bargain Alerts etc which work as standalones but others need to be merged. For example a lot of the 3rd level forums would do a lot better under one big 3rd level banner. If something justifies splitting off again at a later date so be it but right now there is nothing happening which puts off new posters.

6. I'd love to see a "featured forum" added. Very simple addition to the front page weekly with some new discussion threads in the forum that week. I believe it could revitalise some of the quieter forums. Personally right now I do "my threads", "my forums", "latest posts" in that order which means I never hit the random quieter forums

7. The permanent banning of any prolific poster (with over 10k posts for example) needs to be very very carefully thought through. Yes they may have picked up "enough" bans along the way but considering the level of posting that they have done alternative sanctions should be considered particularly if the "final ban" has been picked up in a different forum to one where they are a resourceful poster. I'm thinking of a couple of particular posters who are now gone. Yes permanently ban them from that forum where they acted the maggot but try to avoid permanent site banning if at all possible. Actually I don't know why there is permanent site banning in the first place. 5 year ban for example if its absolutely necessary but most of us do a hell of a lot of growing up in 5 years, particularly if like me you join in college. We don't even have life in prison in Ireland!

Thats me for now I think. I'd love to see the featured forum in particular. There are areas of the site that I've only discovered due to a link in a random thread (like mustard!)

On the last section, I'd like to see a link return for post of the day and thread of the day. There has been some golden returns from those links, not least the adventures of Trent. I still follow lots of those random threads.

.......

This post has been deleted.

GreeBo

Beasty wrote: »

We try to have cover in every forum (some are so quiet not to need it though). As a CMod there were a few times I took a few weeks off, and mods are encouraged to do the same (although it's something I don't think we've reminded the wider mod community of recently). The same happens at Admin level (think I'm due a bit of a break after this thread:pac:))

It's only occasionally that mods actually step down when doing so - more often than not they simply inform their co-mods and CMods, but still appear on the mod list

In my opinion thats not enough.
They need to revert to regular users so that they can post and have their posts and opinions judged as regular users.

It frees the mod from acting inappropriately as they would no longer have the protection of status but also removes the "I can't disagree with you because you are a mod and will ban me" argument posters so frequently use.

Also, the more frequently mods change the less chance of building up any (perception of) inter mod/admin clique is.

It may be annoying that as a mod you have a limited term, but there is a reason that most positions of power have term limits, it's for the exact same reasons.

Beasty

GreeBo wrote: »

In my opinion thats not enough.
They need to revert to regular users so that they can post and have their posts and opinions judged as regular users.

It frees the mod from acting inappropriately as they would no longer have the protection of status but also removes the "I can't disagree with you because you are a mod and will ban me" argument posters so frequently use.

Also, the more frequently mods change the less chance of building up any (perception of) inter mod/admin clique is.

It may be annoying that as a mod you have a limited term, but there is a reason that most positions of power have term limits, it's for the exact same reasons.

I'm not saying we can't and I'm not saying we won't, but I will say it would be a fundamental change that I would struggle to support with the current site format

It may be different though if we managed to cut down the number of forums significantly, which was a suggestion I made earlier in the thread

Fr_Dougal

I think it’s a bad idea to have a set limit on the time a mod can serve. By all means have them take a break every so often, but good mods are hard to come by.

Might be an idea to de-mod mods who are passengers and not pulling their weight. Have seen instances where the workload is unevenly distributed, that will cause burnout and mods can get a bit jaded.

Dyr

dudara wrote: »

I will listen to all feedback, positive and constructive (or criticism as you refer to it), but I do not want to hear Boards moderators being referred to as “fruit loops”. You are surely capable of delivering your feedback without making personal jibes.

See there's your problem again, ignore the actual content and look for anything you can lay a reprimand on. Circle the wagons

no one called boards moderators fruit loops, I said it attracted fruit loops, important difference being ignored.

gandalf

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

When I was a mod I was called a Nazi on numerous occasions. This was in a number of forums I modded. It was rarely justified, on the whole if I took action against someone it was deserved. The one area that did influence me for borderline posters was their history on other forums on the site so that they had racked up a negative history elsewhere it would have normally tipped me into action against them. So I can see how one or two mods taking action unnecessarily against a user can cause a knock on effect with other mods.

Now I don't post that much on boards anymore and especially on the forums I used to frequent like politics and I haven't noticed any dodgy moderation bar overzealous thread closures but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The times I have been carded and banned with the exception of one ban have been justified by my behaviour.

Also the vast majority of the issues I see with boards today emanates from the shareholders and the salaried who work on this site and not the volunteers.

GreeBo

Beasty wrote: »

I'm not saying we can't and I'm not saying we won't, but I will say it would be a fundamental change that I would struggle to support with the current site format

It may be different though if we managed to cut down the number of forums significantly, which was a suggestion I made earlier in the thread

It's without doubt a fundamental change but I think that's where we are.
The site seems stale, which is what happens when nothing changes.

It's perfectly normal that mods will become friends with each other and admins over years (& beers!) But I think "you" need to accept that this becomes painfully obvious to everyone else.

It's very difficult to moderate your friends, so that issue needs to be addressed as it is clearly an issue that irks a lot of posters.
You can't and wouldn't want to stop people being friends, so remove the status or share it around.

That's the arguably one good thing about reddit, everyone is a moderator, junk gets voted out of existence.

If modship moves around posters are less likely to be dicks as you effectively have more mods, no one will put up with them.

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

See there's your problem again, ignore the actual content and look for anything you can lay a reprimand on. Circle the wagons

no one called boards moderators fruit loops, I said it attracted fruit loops, important difference being ignored.

Ah now. Surely by saying it attracts fruit loops implies a belief that the mods are fruit loops?

...__...

I've been on Boards since 2007 this is my 3rd reg now (last usernames were linked to an old job so best leave that name die) I've only ever had a few infractions over that time over being baited into attacking the poster not the post.

I haven't really posted as much in the past 3 years due to the rise in the Shin Bot element on Boards.
Just because my views differentiated from the left stream me and others at the time were rounded on with the help of a mod who is no longer there now and any complaints about him at the time were ignored by other mods.
I've haven't even gone into the politics forum to even have a look in 2 years. for me that rounding on the few attitude killed discussion for me.

Just because my politics doesn't agree with your politics doesn't mean I need the resources of the republican movement shoved down my neck!
the idea was to bombard the poster with so many questions / insults you couldn't possibly even engage in dialogue.
It shows that a mod shouldn't be able to take sides or even participate in a forum where they cant be impartial

There needs to be a better way of selecting a mod that's not in with the in crowd, and only senior/long-term mods should be in AH where there's a more broad spectrum of topics.
I think the process of selecting them should be made more open, i.e. reasons we chose this person or a vote process that was taken. make it more transparent to the users as to why this person should be our peer.

I've really limited myself to posting in very few forums now but would be browsing boards for half the day.
In terms of a resource it is a wealth of information and would be a shame if the site died off.

Peregrine

Bambi wrote: »

See there's your problem again, ignore the actual content and look for anything you can lay a reprimand on. Circle the wagons

no one called boards moderators fruit loops, I said it attracted fruit loops, important difference being ignored.

That's not as much of an important difference as you think it is.

Vronsky

Beasty wrote: »

I'm not saying we can't and I'm not saying we won't, but I will say it would be a fundamental change that I would struggle to support with the current site format

It may be different though if we managed to cut down the number of forums significantly, which was a suggestion I made earlier in the thread

To be honest, the only way of making moderation work in a fair way is to get rid of all volunteers from the site and replace them with paid staff who can be given specific direction and training and a correction of needs be. Depending on volunteers brings a specific set of issues with lack of consistency/quality being the main one. Volunteers, in any role are generally above criticism, especially when they are vital - be too harsh with them and they will walk.

In a way I can understand why threads like this end up getting killed of. It would be extremely bad for business if the unpaid labour walked off the job in the morning, therefore it is in Management's interest to keep the volunteers from being harshly criticised - even if the criticism is valid.

GreeBo

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

I think it’s a bad idea to have a set limit on the time a mod can serve. By all means have them take a break every so often, but good mods are hard to come by.

Might be an idea to de-mod mods who are passengers and not pulling their weight. Have seen instances where the workload is unevenly distributed, that will cause burnout and mods can get a bit jaded.

If the people running the site don't change, nothing changes. Again, that's why you can't be president forever for example.

You absolutely need new blood and fresh ideas.

I agree a good mod is hard to find (take that Fergal Sharkey!) But very few people are given the opportunity also.

If everyone had been a mod at some stage I bet overall posting quality would increase, bar the usual idiots.

blackwhite

GreeBo wrote: »

Perhaps there should be a limited lifespan for mods, with an extended break required between shifts?

I know I was pretty burnt out with it at the end of my time and haven't posted or even spent a fraction of the same amount of time as I did before.

I think it would do everyone some good if mods were rotated in and out. Get them back thinking like posters and more users thinking like mods.

It doesn't need to be open season, you'd still select users, but if it's only for a year, more might get involved.

I, for one, miss being told to whip out a PW and lay-up on every par 3 over 150m

There are mods here in After Hours who never post. I don't understand that. I think it's important to show a bit of interest in the community you moderate so maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to have the role for a limited time only.

um7y1h83ge06nx

My biggest annoyance is the censorship. Too many posts lately not only get locked but get deleted completely. I've refreshed my browser sometimes only to get a 404.

So it's getting to the stage where I mainly just use boards for "safe" topics like video games.

Any matters related to Irish society etc. I would prefer to go to r/Ireland on Reddit.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

There are mods here in After Hours who never post. I don't understand that. I think it's important to show a bit of interest in the community you moderate so maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to have the role for a limited time only.

I see that as a plus as they can remain Uber objective . A lot of mods don’t post regularly in the forums they moderate. They leave the people who are interested in that forum topic to get on with their enjoyment.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I see that as a plus as they can remain Uber objective . A lot of mods don’t post regularly in the forums they moderate. They leave the people who are interested in that forum topic to get on with their enjoyment.

I get where you're coming from alright but I see mods as being chosen because of their interest in a forum and think it's important to continue to be a part of that community.

Vronsky

Deleted User wrote: »

I see that as a plus as they can remain Uber objective . A lot of mods don’t post regularly in the forums they moderate. They leave the people who are interested in that forum topic to get on with their enjoyment.

One AH moderator hasn't posted on AH for 5 months, and when you look at anothers post count you you can see that they are not really interested in the forum at all.

Insect Overlord

Deleted User wrote: »

I see that as a plus as they can remain Uber objective . A lot of mods don’t post regularly in the forums they moderate. They leave the people who are interested in that forum topic to get on with their enjoyment.

Does that not contradict the thesis of the opening post? People should be concerned about valuable contributors no longer getting involved on a regular basis, not celebrating it.

Beasty

Londyn Shapely Gauche wrote: »

My biggest annoyance is the censorship. Too many posts lately not only get locked but get deleted completely. I've refreshed my browser sometimes only to get a 404.

The deleted ones in AH are typically the ones started by a re-reg troll. That's usually down to us as Admins trying to deprive them of oxygen, and I think that has to continue where they use offensive usernames. However it's one of the points we will discuss at Admin level. It adds a bit more to do when trying to tidy up some of the crap they leave, and it may be something where local mods could perhaps undelete threads they consider relevant, or when they get a valid request to do so

As I say though, it's already on our list following comments earlier in the thread

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I get where you're coming from alright but I see mods as being chosen because of their interest in a forum and think it's important to continue to be a part of that community.

For a small forum it’s probably a good thing that they do.for a forum such as AH, with so many moderators, I think good moderating becomes more important than posting.

Vronsky wrote: »

One AH moderator hasn't posted on AH for 5 months, and when you look at anothers post count you you can see that they are not really interested in the forum at all.

As above, for small forums with less traffic, yes I’d see that as an issue but not for a large multi- modded forum

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Does that not contradict the thesis of the opening post? People should be concerned about valuable contributors no longer getting involved on a regular basis, not celebrating it.

Certainly the loss of any one good respected poster can account for the loss of many other now disinterested posters. And in AH, a respected, regular posting member is a great positive contribution and can show others how to behave- but AH also needs good modding and as a contributor, I’d prefer the mod prioritised that work over their need/want to contribute as a poster.