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

KERSPLAT!

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Meh, I agree. It's not.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Beasty

robarmstrong wrote: »

Can any of you tell me what happens what you see when someone reports a post? Do you get a notification, a link to the post or what's the dealio? If you can't share in thread please feel free to PM me, if automating some of it would make moderation easier by all means I'd like to help out.

Mods are alerted via e-mail of the report. A thread is started in the "Reported Posts" section of the mods forum with the relevant post both quoted and linked. If you go back a few years there could often be extensive debate within such threads, often involving mods who had nothing to do with the forum. The rules were tightened up though, and usually you may see an acknowledgement from a mod in the form of a thanks, or a brief follow up to the reported post explaining action taken. Sometimes mods will discuss such actions within their forum-specific mods forum (which only they, relevant CMods, Admins and Office staff can see and contribute to). I always found such discussions in the mods or reported posts threads very useful when dealing with DRP threads

The site does employ full time development staff. However in terms of the legacy site, they are mainly focussed on fixing issues, as they are working extensively on the responsive site to hopefully be able to re-launch that in a much more user-friendly form, recognising feedback given when it was initially rolled out

On the wider topic of opening up any details of mod actions taken against certain posts or posters, I'm sure the majority of posters who have been sanctioned would prefer that not to be publicly available to everyone. Of course, they can initiate scrutiny of their actions if they go down the DRP route, although my experience is posters do tend to want to try and resolve issues directly with mods in private than open up their dispute for everyone to see in the DRP.

Autecher

Thanks for that Beasty. I have been curious about that for a while just never bothered asking. I am a Mod myself on a different forum (which probably only has about a tenth of the number of posts on Boards per day). Our report system sounds similar. I will say that our Reported Posts thread in the Mod forum is one of our busiest threads so I can only shudder when I think what this site's one must be like! :eek:

sdanseo

Quick bump to this because it's topical (I won't name the threads or mods concerned as that would be grossly unfair, they are doing their best) - the mods or at least admins will be able to see all of my reported posts. Do have a look in there for two very good examples in the last 48 hrs of where threads have been closed for absolutely no reason other than they were technically in the wrong place.

Moving or merging such discussions is the appropriate action and doesn't stifle debate for no reason.

If my eyes are rolling as this sort of thing, chances are many more are too, but instead of reporting the posts, they're simply losing faith.

Is there any progress on a site-wide code of practice of some kind for moderators?

end of the road

sdanseo wrote: »

Quick bump to this because it's topical (I won't name the threads or mods concerned as that would be grossly unfair, they are doing their best) - the mods or at least admins will be able to see all of my reported posts. Do have a look in there for two very good examples in the last 48 hrs of where threads have been closed for absolutely no reason other than they were technically in the wrong place.

Moving or merging such discussions is the appropriate action and doesn't stifle debate for no reason.

If my eyes are rolling as this sort of thing, chances are many more are too, but instead of reporting the posts, they're simply losing faith.

Is there any progress on a site-wide code of practice of some kind for moderators?

on a related note some political threads are suddenly being moved off to the politics cafe again. i thought it had been decided by the userbase that political threads can be posted in ah or has that changed again?

Beasty

end of the road wrote: »

on a related note some political threads are suddenly being moved off to the politics cafe again. i thought it had been decided by the userbase that political threads can be posted in ah or has that changed again?

Check out post 2370 onwards

There were differing opinions, but actually quite strong views expressed that political threads should be moved, as AH really is not set up for them, or more particularly their moderation

Equally there were strong views they should be allowed.

The mods felt quite strongly that it was better if they did not have to moderate such divisive topics, particularly as many of them have little interest in them, and acted on the feedback that earlier post initiated

sdanseo wrote: »

Is there any progress on a site-wide code of practice of some kind for moderators?

On the topic of the "mod handbook", we are currently seeking feedback from the mod community on a draft. I suspect, based on the feedback received to date, that there may be a few iterations before it is finalised.

I would add though that we are seeing mods engage on the topic, and indeed picking up the differing ways things may be treated across the site. Equally we are seeing comments that this is completely unnecessary and that by putting this forward we are bowing down to a relatively small number of posters who inevitably become quite vociferous in discussions like this

Having said that, as I've indicated I remain very firmly of the view that codifying moderation where appropriate, by updating some guidelines that were initially established many years ago, is appropriate bases on commentary both in this thread and other Feedback discussions

Discodog

end of the road wrote: »

on a related note some political threads are suddenly being moved off to the politics cafe again. i thought it had been decided by the userbase that political threads can be posted in ah or has that changed again?

I have to agree with this & I raised it in the Helpdesk. One significant & very popular thread was closed & then moved to PC 2. This has killed the thread as people have to ask for pre clearance.

It's crazy that the number one news item for the last month can't be discussed on Boards. I hope that it isn't censorship but it really feels like something the Russian government would do - limit the discussion to pre approved people.

I really can't see why it couldn't be left where it was. If it had to be moved then give people notice to apply for PC 2. If they want politics out of AH then say so & move threads at the beginning - not when they are in full flow.

On a further point I have to wonder what is the point of feedback ? I have never raised issues before but decided to because of the encouragement here. Both threads have proved pretty pointless as there was one response from an Admin & then silence.

I fail to see the point unless other users can comment. If a poster raises an issue, relevant to a current thread, there should be a mention in the thread so that other posters can comment, make suggestions etc.

Zascar

Internet Communities Popularity on Google Trends

Fighting Tao

Wouldn't the fact that people aren't requesting access to the Politics Cafe be proof that many have no interest in politics, and just want to stir the pot rather than post constructively in After Hours?

tigerboon

sdanseo wrote: »

Do have a look in there for two very good examples in the last 48 hrs of where threads have been closed for absolutely no reason other than they were technically in the wrong place.

Moving or merging such discussions is the appropriate action and doesn't stifle debate for no reason.

But it does stifle debate. The proof is in the pudding as they say. There are a couple of threads which were fairly active over the last week, get moved from AH to Politics Cafe and there hasn't been a post in either since. You can argue that Politics is the right place but the restrictions and need for permissions effectively close the debate. Politics and whether people are allowed use their voice....mmm

thegreatgonzo

BowSideChamp wrote: »

After hours is now just full of **** threads just filling up space - what are you wearing, what are you eating etc.

Problem with After Hours is that it's supposed to be social and fun but hasn't been for the past few years. It's depressing more than anything else seeing yet another thread about rape created. I like a lot of the other forums, they do the job they are supposed to do. After Hours is unrecognisable from what it was a few years ago.

Discodog

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Wouldn't the fact that people aren't requesting access to the Politics Cafe be proof that many have no interest in politics, and just want to stir the pot rather than post constructively in After Hours?

Most people, including me, have no interest in politics. The Salisbury discussion isn't politics it's current affairs. Why the obsession to pigeon hole every topic ? What's the problem if a very popular thread is in the wrong place ?

Discodog

thegreatgonzo wrote: »

Problem with After Hours is that it's supposed to be social and fun but hasn't been for the past few years. It's depressing more than anything else seeing yet another thread about rape created. I like a lot of the other forums, they do the job they are supposed to do. After Hours is unrecognisable from what it was a few years ago.

Isn't a lot of this due to people migrating to the most popular fora as the overall numbers decline ? It can also be really difficult to categorise a story, news item, discussion etc especially as things change & develop.

Maybe have a new current affairs section of AH ?

thegreatgonzo

Discodog wrote: »

Isn't a lot of this due to people migrating to the most popular fora as the overall numbers decline ? It can also be really difficult to categorise a story, news item, discussion etc especially as things change & develop.

Maybe have a new current affairs section of AH ?

Yeah a current affairs section might tidy it up. Just looking down at the first page of After Hours today, there are 2 posts on rape, one on abortion, one about shoplifting mother avoiding jail and Louise O'Neill. After Hours just doesn't appeal to me anymore but if that's how other people like it let them at it.

Discodog

thegreatgonzo wrote: »

Yeah a current affairs section might tidy it up. Just looking down at the first page of After Hours today, there are 2 posts on rape, one on abortion, one about shoplifting mother avoiding jail and Louise O'Neill. After Hours just doesn't appeal to me anymore but if that's how other people like it let them at it.

I have suggested it

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106663210#post106663210

10000maniacs

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH I have to say and speaking as a not particularly "political animal", at least along any defined lines, that was long my impression of the main Politics forum. Any medium length foray into it did at times and more than should be in play, feel like a user base of self satisfied, oft to the point of smug posters broadly agreeing they were "right" and where any alternatives were summarily mocked, or ignored, or at times banned. Now the Politics Cafe could be a right sh1t show on so many levels and I don't envy either the mods or posters on that forum, but surely there's a balance to be struck. New mods maybe? Those who apply the "don't be a dick" rule while exercising the DGAF rule on the politics themselves?

Politics is a bear pit at the best of times. It makes Soccerball fan types look measured. But I say better to have a bear pit(to some degree) than an echo chamber of smug.

And I'm saying all this as someone who a chap like Fuaranach would find little enough common ground between us. Not such a stretch and IMHO it's not a "political side" problem.

The only problem with the "Don't be a dick" rule in Politics and Cafe is who says mods can't be dicks too? Even the term "dick" is immature and dick like. What qualifications do mods have that make them the custodians, judge and jury of who is a dick or not? So topics fast become mod talking shops and soapboxes once they have eliminated people with opposing opinions or in mod speak "dicks".

tigerboon

10000maniacs wrote: »

So topics fast become mod talking shops and soapboxes once they have eliminated people with opposing opinions or in mod speak "dicks".

They don't need to eliminate opposing opinion if the topic is moved to a section where restrictions are applied and even then permissions have to be given before you can post. Ask why 200 plus posts or 3 months history is required if the point you want to make in the current one is valid and within the rules.
Two recent threads, Gaza riots and Salisbury poisoning, were very popular over the last week. After a week they were suddenly moved from AH to Politics Cafe 2 where restrictions and permissions apply. Neither thread has had a comment posted since. Is this a cynical way of closing a thread when it's not going in the desired direction?

Discodog

tigerboon wrote: »

They don't need to eliminate opposing opinion if the topic is moved to a section where restrictions are applied and even then permissions have to be given before you can post. Ask why 200 plus posts or 3 months history is required if the point you want to make in the current one is valid and within the rules.
Two recent threads, Gaza riots and Salisbury poisoning, were very popular over the last week. After a week they were suddenly moved from AH to Politics Cafe 2 where restrictions and permissions apply. Neither thread has had a comment posted since. Is this a cynical way of closing a thread when it's not going in the desired direction?

Whatever the reasons the perception is censorship. The Salisbury Thread was originally closed with the comment that there are too many political threads in AH. So the Mods decide the content, not the customers.

Even more bizarre the thread has sort of continued in the main Politics forum where there is no pre clearance. How can you have to apply for one but post freely in the other ?

It paints a really bad image of a site that needs conversation to survive But then kills it. "Now ye're talkin" - Err no your not :rolleyes:

I fear that any of us, who care enough to want things to be better, will be labelled as trouble makers.

From Beasty's post above

Equally we are seeing comments (from Mods) that this is completely unnecessary and that by putting this forward we are bowing down to a relatively small number of posters who inevitably become quite vociferous in discussions like this

Skylinehead

Discodog wrote: »

It's crazy that the number one news item for the last month can't be discussed on Boards.

Don't be so melodramatic. What's stopping you from discussing it? Would you scream censorship if you couldn't discuss the Russian stuff in the Soccer forum? Go to politics if you want to discuss politics, it's what its for. Not AH.

Discodog

Skylinehead wrote: »

Don't be so melodramatic. What's stopping you from discussing it? Would you scream censorship if you couldn't discuss the Russian stuff in the Soccer forum? Go to politics if you want to discuss politics, it's what its for. Not AH.

With respect the melodrama is coming from you. I am not screaming censorship - I am pointing out how it appears. And not just to me.

The subject isn't politics. It's an active news item that had attracted a lot of discussion here.

I recall that you thanked the decision to close the thread. So why was it closed rather than just left to run it's course - what harm was it doing ?

Why delay & then move it to a forum that requires pre clearance & is a subject that many of the original posters have no interest in ? If you are going to do this then advise people on the thread & give them time to get pre cleared for PC 2 ?

Whilst you are being so negative I have made a positive suggestion. We should have a Current Affairs section of After Hours - moderated as AH not politics.

I am sorry if you & clearly other Mods see anyone, who wants the site to be better, as a nuisance. Many posted here & on the originator AH thread that lead to this. Maybe you see us all as just troublemakers.

I have been on Boards a long time. I have a pretty clean record. I had a dispute years ago & because of the way it was handled, decided not to bother again. Then the recent feedback threads came along & we were asked to comment.

My main objection the last time was that comments I made in a feedback thread were later used against me. So be warned people - your names are going in the book.

It seems clear from Beasty's comments that the Mods are divided. Some are willing to embrace change whilst others just want the rabble to shut up & get on with it. I wonder who will win ?

Skylinehead

Discodog wrote: »

With respect the melodrama is coming from you. I am not screaming censorship - I am pointing out how it appears. And not just to me.

The subject isn't politics. It's an active news item that had attracted a lot of discussion here.

I recall that you thanked the decision to close the thread. So why was it closed rather than just left to run it's course - what harm was it doing ?

Why delay & then move it to a forum that requires pre clearance & is a subject that many of the original posters have no interest in ? If you are going to do this then advise people on the thread & give them time to get pre cleared for PC 2 ?

Whilst you are being so negative I have made a positive suggestion. We should have a Current Affairs section of After Hours - moderated as AH not politics.

I am sorry if you & clearly other Mods see anyone, who wants the site to be better, as a nuisance. Many posted here & on the originator AH thread that lead to this. Maybe you see us all as just troublemakers.

I have been on Boards a long time. I have a pretty clean record. I had a dispute years ago & because of the way it was handled, decided not to bother again. Then the recent feedback threads came along & we were asked to comment.

My main objection the last time was that comments I made in a feedback thread were later used against me. So be warned people - your names are going in the book.

It seems clear from Beasty's comments that the Mods are divided. Some are willing to embrace change whilst others just want the rabble to shut up & get on with it. I wonder who will win ?

I've posted two sentences and I'm being dramatic, come on man. You can do better than just saying "no u".

Why did we not just let it run its course? Because it wasn't doing that any time soon, it was politics, and we were moving anything else political too. Would be very odd to just leave one be.

PC is supposed to be what you want. AH for politics. I have problems with the silly access system too, but really it's not my problem. AH is, and AH is not for politics. Them creeping back in off the back of a failed PC experiment doesn't really change that.

looksee

It just occurs to me (possibly incorrectly) that if conversations were taken to an appropriate feed back forum - most of this to AH, some to PC etc, it might give less of an impression that the whole of Boards has stuff that needs to be sorted, and focus on areas where there are perceived issues.

What we have is the 'United States of Boards' - Washington should be dealing with technical and legal stuff, the overall basic requirements of civilised existence. The individual states have to a large extent their own rules and ethos, and this should be regarded as a Good Thing, creating variety and vibrancy. And if the rules in one are a bit different to the rules in another, its up to the residents and visitors to figure that out, with a bit of guidance from the state police mods.

It should be possible to recognise the difference between 'back seat modding' and creating a social environment by people being able occasionally to say (politely) 'you'll find that doing x in here is a bit frowned on'. Yes some people will abuse this by creating their own rule book and carping, the mods can deal with them. And its the mods' decision where that line is.

As it is the mods seem be be losing confidence in what and how they can mod, the low grade carping rabble are getting too much attention, and the fact that the average user is in fact mostly getting on with the chat that the site was intended for is ignored.

There is plenty of room for keeping an eye on/ encouraging mods too, those who are never on the forums they mod should be nudged elsewhere, those who are abrasive or aggressive or missing the point should be given a bit of help. And there should be a clearly defined facility for both mods and users to be able to privately say 'this mod is creating problems / doing a great job / whatever'. The admins have enough cop-on to sift the serious comments from the personal gripes and stirrers, and it might focus issues a bit rather than take swipes at the entire mod team.

tigerboon

Skylinehead wrote: »

Don't be so melodramatic. What's stopping you from discussing it? Would you scream censorship if you couldn't discuss the Russian stuff in the Soccer forum? Go to politics if you want to discuss politics, it's what its for. Not AH.

The problem is that restrictions and permissions apply to certain forums. This discourages involvement, gives mods and certain posters the power to steer the direction of a discussion and results in debate being shut down by simply closing people out. The people given permissions can simply close the thread by non involvement (simply don't post)

Dyr

Skylinehead wrote: »

Don't be so melodramatic. What's stopping you from discussing it? Would you scream censorship if you couldn't discuss the Russian stuff in the Soccer forum? Go to politics if you want to discuss politics, it's what its for. Not AH.

Hows that perpetual shinner bashing thread in AH coming along now? Must be a few hundred pages at this stage.

Funny old set of rules eh?

Discodog

Skylinehead wrote: »

I've posted two sentences and I'm being dramatic, come on man. You can do better than just saying "no u".

Why did we not just let it run its course? Because it wasn't doing that any time soon, it was politics, and we were moving anything else political too. Would be very odd to just leave one be.

PC is supposed to be what you want. AH for politics. I have problems with the silly access system too, but really it's not my problem. AH is, and AH is not for politics. Them creeping back in off the back of a failed PC experiment doesn't really change that.

So just move it to the main politics forum where anyone can post without pre clearance.

end of the road

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Wouldn't the fact that people aren't requesting access to the Politics Cafe be proof that many have no interest in politics, and just want to stir the pot rather than post constructively in After Hours?

in some cases i'd agree, in most i think it's simply a case of not wanting to look for access to a forum that was previously open on a point of principal. it needs to be opened up again. that way political threads can be moved away to the cafe and the userbase can seamlessly transfer over and the threads may likely remain active and people probably won't have an issue with such threads being moved from ah altogether.

JohnnyFlash

Bambi wrote: »

Hows that perpetual shinner bashing thread in AH coming along now? Must be a few hundred pages at this stage.

Funny old set of rules eh?

That would have been dead months ago if it weren’t for a particular SF supporter’s insistence on having the last word in the thread. I’d recommend he be decommissioned if you want it to go away.

Skylinehead

Bambi wrote: »

Hows that perpetual shinner bashing thread in AH coming along now? Must be a few hundred pages at this stage.

Funny old set of rules eh?

Fire me a link and I'll move it (or close it if it exists elsewhere), I can't think of what you mean. There are many shinner bashing threads on boards

end of the road

Discodog wrote: »

So just move it to the main politics forum where anyone can post without pre clearance.

it would probably end up being moved to the cafe from politics though.