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

Beasty

mariaalice wrote: »

I, of course, am perfect!!.

Thank Christ I'm not on my own!!



:pac:

5rtytry56

Browsing casually across some forums, I have come across at least TWO threads with the OP resorting to "bumping" their thread along the lines of a "Anyone???" comment. In either case, this generates the opposite effect This could not be more indicative of the slow death happening here.

RandomName2

Beasty wrote: »

I am not going to discuss someone's personal gripes because they have been sanctioned elsewhere in this thread. They have been given an avenue to raise the point, but as of yet have only tried to find the highest profile thread they can to try and get support for their "cause".

Umm.... with all due respect is this an appropriate response? The poster had a number of points, you picked out one which was not appropriate to this thread, ignored the others, and said 'don't post in this thread again'.

It's hard to get a balance between loutish behavior and freedom of speech in the forums. I think a light approach, where possible, is the one that's appropriate.

Also, boards shouldn't delete posts unless boards can get sued for the content, or the content downright offensive. There's any number of banned posters for whom it is impossible to see why they got banned, as many of their final posts were deleted.

Many posters have said, on this thread, that moderation is too strict. In general I haven't found this to be the case, but I think it would be prudent to take on board this widespread view. On the other hand though, I'm not going to 'ask permission' to post in politics cafe.

_Kaiser_

The last few posts in the Open Feedback thread are disappointing too to be honest (after which it was locked up)

Now to be fair to Beasty, he's done a great job here trying to gather this latest round of feedback... but if there's no agreed/planned process for what to do with/action that feedback because there's no prior agreed buy-in from the other people who need to commit (Mods, staff and other Admins)... well then, it becomes a (well-intentioned) solo run, but what was the point?

Ultimately though we don't really need new/more feedback threads anyway... the issues have been very clearly communicated by the users in this and the several other very long threads on this topic over the last 2/3 years.

The REAL question is not "how do we improve Feedback?" at this stage... it's "what are we going to DO with it?"

McMurphy

I'm not going to 'ask permission' to post in politics cafe.

There is obviously a strong enough cohort of posters with similar views as yours, was looking in the cafe there this evening.

There was one post in the whole forum today after 9am.

There was a few more in the very hourly hours (00:00 - 0430) but its pretty much a wasteland. (Considering it was once upon a time one of the liveliest forums on the site)

Chalk it down as a failed experiment and either lock her up - permanently., or open the bloody thing up again lads.

It's an embarrassment as is.

Beasty

I'll just make one more comment on Feedback. The whole suggestion that you can put structure around it, treating it as some kind of democratic process where users can essentially determine the way the site evolves is flawed. To give the impression that this is possible would be wrong. Ultimately it remains a private site. There are limitations both on what can be done, and what the site, it's owners, the staff, Admins etc can and indeed will deliver. We are all committed to trying to help the site grow rather than decline, but there are many factors beyond our control. Equally there are resource issues and we need to have a site that works for both users and those tasked with trying to maintain healthy discussion.

I indicated the form that Feedback would return in, and there appeared to be some "support" for the degree we've moved on that. The only way I feel it can work in practice though is to look at Feedback received before determining whether, and if so how, suggestions may be implemented. I think it would be disingenuous of me to suggest we will always act on "Feedback". Also it simply cannot be something that is determined by popularity. However what I hope will happen (as I've tried to do in this thread) is we should be able to give a steer on whether something will be considered further, and at least an indication of when we could implement any changes that gain support, or when we would provide an update on progress

Just to add there remain resource constraints. I've tried to push along the things that I can, and I certainly felt getting a form of Feedback that was acceptable was one of the priorities. We've also been working on the Mod Handbook. I've recently turned my attention to trying to work through those mods who have not been online for some time. We then need to consider forum structure more.

Turning to Politics Café, I've already indicated this was an area to address, and I think the initiative taken by Discodog to request a "Current Affairs" forum to sit alongside AH is a good one. I would encourage posters to look at the relevant Forum request thread and if they see fit perhaps support that request

I closed that Feedback thread because we now need to turn to implementation. I could do the same with this thread, because TBH we've already got a bit on our plates. I'll leave it open, but simply request patience as some of these things are not straightforward, and we have quite a bit to work through

hatrickpatrick

mariaalice wrote: »

There is a difference between an opinion on immigration and a racist opinion.

And how would you define that?

hatrickpatrick

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

There is obviously a strong enough cohort of posters with similar views as yours, was looking in the cafe there this evening.

There was one post in the whole forum today after 9am.

There was a few more in the very hourly hours (00:00 - 0430) but its pretty much a wasteland. (Considering it was once upon a time one of the liveliest forums on the site)

Chalk it down as a failed experiment and either lock her up - permanently., or open the bloody thing up again lads.

It's an embarrassment as is.

I used to be extremely active on the Cafe, posting numerous times a day on occasion, but I will not be part of an intolerant circlejerk which shuts out views outside the currently extremely limited Overton Window under the guise of "preventing spam / trolling". I suspect there are others who agree with this even if, like me, they're part of the tolerated political ideology as opposed to the censored one.

The Late Late Show and Boards.ie - as they say in After Hours on a new thread when they want to rub people up the wrong way- Discuss!

Well, maybe not discuss- what about compare and contrast?

TLLS:
Focused on local issues i.e. Ireland-
Increased popularity year on year for a time
Gained some notoriety through radical opinions (at the time of broadcast)
helped push certain agendas forward but in latter years, thought it was more important than it actually was.
Became middle of the road and out of touch with society over time and now doesn't know what it wants to be.

Boards.ie
Was set up for a purpose- QUAKE community forum I believe
Gained a following and diversified over time into other topics to meet demand of users.
Was a key player in the early days of the internet in Ireland and later, "social media" but got left behind with newer technologies such as Twitter etc

Hasn't really broke new barriers/ground etc in recent years in terms of thought or technology, but has provided a service that many still subscribe to.

It's still more relevant and useful in Ireland than The Late Late Show ever could be now.

Just some thoughts. Feel free to disagree.

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

Do not post in this thread again

If you wish to follow your point up, please do so as I outlined above

Thread ban lifted following discussion with user (robarmstrong)

hatrickpatrick

Beasty wrote: »

I'll just make one more comment on Feedback. The whole suggestion that you can put structure around it, treating it as some kind of democratic process where users can essentially determine the way the site evolves is flawed. To give the impression that this is possible would be wrong. Ultimately it remains a private site. There are limitations both on what can be done, and what the site, it's owners, the staff, Admins etc can and indeed will deliver. We are all committed to trying to help the site grow rather than decline, but there are many factors beyond our control. Equally there are resource issues and we need to have a site that works for both users and those tasked with trying to maintain healthy discussion.

I indicated the form that Feedback would return in, and there appeared to be some "support" for the degree we've moved on that. The only way I feel it can work in practice though is to look at Feedback received before determining whether, and if so how, suggestions may be implemented. I think it would be disingenuous of me to suggest we will always act on "Feedback". Also it simply cannot be something that is determined by popularity. However what I hope will happen (as I've tried to do in this thread) is we should be able to give a steer on whether something will be considered further, and at least an indication of when we could implement any changes that gain support, or when we would provide an update on progress

Just to add there remain resource constraints. I've tried to push along the things that I can, and I certainly felt getting a form of Feedback that was acceptable was one of the priorities. We've also been working on the Mod Handbook. I've recently turned my attention to trying to work through those mods who have not been online for some time. We then need to consider forum structure more.

Turning to Politics Café, I've already indicated this was an area to address, and I think the initiative taken by Discodog to request a "Current Affairs" forum to sit alongside AH is a good one. I would encourage posters to look at the relevant Forum request thread and if they see fit perhaps support that request

I closed that Feedback thread because we now need to turn to implementation. I could do the same with this thread, because TBH we've already got a bit on our plates. I'll leave it open, but simply request patience as some of these things are not straightforward, and we have quite a bit to work through

Why can't it be user led and based on what's popular among users? What catastrophe would befall Boards if it was? If the site is about generating traffic and revenue, then why not run it as the users want it to be run, within the limits of legality obviously, so that more users will use the site more often?

This comes back to what I keep saying - clearly the admins have some lofty ideal of what Boards is supposed to be or what it's supposed to represent - but this is clearly at odds with (a) what it was in its prime, and (b) what its users want it to be. If that wasn't a big enough problem, the users aren't being told what this vision is or what the motivation behind it is.

If you want a polite, formal, serious and in my view thoroughly un-Irish discussion forum, then just come out and say so. Most of the users seem to want a return to the "no one gives a bollocks, nothing is sacred" banter of the mid-2000s. If there actually a reason why we can't do this, then why not just tell us what it is? There was a time when taking the piss (and blasting with it) was literally what AH was for, and if people came here asking serious questions about serious topics, it was fair game to take the absolute piss out of them until they got the idea and found a serious forum where they'd get proper responses. Now, the slightest hint of irreverency in this manner tends to get a bold-font post from a mod warning people to knock it off.

AH isn't and never was supposed to be a forum for serious discussion, so why is it being moderated as if it is?

Now that's purely on the AH stuff. I haven't even gotten into the Boards Overton Window (IE, the range of viewpoints and ideologies which is considered socially acceptable) but I think anyone with a brain stem can see that this Overton Window does not match either the Boards user base or even Irish society at large - in other words, what's the point of having a discussion forum where the kinds of views people regularly exchange over dinner or down the pub among friends and family aren't allowed to be expressed here because they're regarded as too right (or in the past, left) wing? Surely a discussion forum of this nature should be culturally aligned with the real-life society (in this case, Ireland) which it's supposed to cater to? In that context, not being allowed to either take the piss, or express political views overtly hostile to the current zeitgeist or mainstream, is literally the exact opposite of Irishness.

Seriously, what's the point? I've been a moderator of many discussions forums over the years and I've never seen one which behaves this way, and every time we ask for answers all we get is a vague "but we can't do it that way". What I think most of us want to know is, why? What's the actual reason for implementing a site management policy / strategy which is diametrically opposed to (a) what the site was when many of its current users first joined it, and more importantly (b) what the current users actually want it to be?

Dyr

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why can't it be user led and based on what's popular among users?

What the users want?

What kind of half assed bureaucracy do you think this is? :mad:

_Kaiser_

Beasty wrote: »

I'll just make one more comment on Feedback. The whole suggestion that you can put structure around it, treating it as some kind of democratic process where users can essentially determine the way the site evolves is flawed. To give the impression that this is possible would be wrong. Ultimately it remains a private site. There are limitations both on what can be done, and what the site, it's owners, the staff, Admins etc can and indeed will deliver. We are all committed to trying to help the site grow rather than decline, but there are many factors beyond our control. Equally there are resource issues and we need to have a site that works for both users and those tasked with trying to maintain healthy discussion.

I indicated the form that Feedback would return in, and there appeared to be some "support" for the degree we've moved on that. The only way I feel it can work in practice though is to look at Feedback received before determining whether, and if so how, suggestions may be implemented. I think it would be disingenuous of me to suggest we will always act on "Feedback". Also it simply cannot be something that is determined by popularity. However what I hope will happen (as I've tried to do in this thread) is we should be able to give a steer on whether something will be considered further, and at least an indication of when we could implement any changes that gain support, or when we would provide an update on progress

Just to add there remain resource constraints. I've tried to push along the things that I can, and I certainly felt getting a form of Feedback that was acceptable was one of the priorities. We've also been working on the Mod Handbook. I've recently turned my attention to trying to work through those mods who have not been online for some time. We then need to consider forum structure more.

Turning to Politics Café, I've already indicated this was an area to address, and I think the initiative taken by Discodog to request a "Current Affairs" forum to sit alongside AH is a good one. I would encourage posters to look at the relevant Forum request thread and if they see fit perhaps support that request

I closed that Feedback thread because we now need to turn to implementation. I could do the same with this thread, because TBH we've already got a bit on our plates. I'll leave it open, but simply request patience as some of these things are not straightforward, and we have quite a bit to work through

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why can't it be user led and based on what's popular among users? What catastrophe would befall Boards if it was? If the site is about generating traffic and revenue, then why not run it as the users want it to be run, within the limits of legality obviously, so that more users will use the site more often?

This comes back to what I keep saying - clearly the admins have some lofty ideal of what Boards is supposed to be or what it's supposed to represent - but this is clearly at odds with (a) what it was in its prime, and (b) what its users want it to be. If that wasn't a big enough problem, the users aren't being told what this vision is or what the motivation behind it is.

If you want a polite, formal, serious and in my view thoroughly un-Irish discussion forum, then just come out and say so. Most of the users seem to want a return to the "no one gives a bollocks, nothing is sacred" banter of the mid-2000s. If there actually a reason why we can't do this, then why not just tell us what it is? There was a time when taking the piss (and blasting with it) was literally what AH was for, and if people came here asking serious questions about serious topics, it was fair game to take the absolute piss out of them until they got the idea and found a serious forum where they'd get proper responses. Now, the slightest hint of irreverency in this manner tends to get a bold-font post from a mod warning people to knock it off.

AH isn't and never was supposed to be a forum for serious discussion, so why is it being moderated as if it is?

Now that's purely on the AH stuff. I haven't even gotten into the Boards Overton Window (IE, the range of viewpoints and ideologies which is considered socially acceptable) but I think anyone with a brain stem can see that this Overton Window does not match either the Boards user base or even Irish society at large - in other words, what's the point of having a discussion forum where the kinds of views people regularly exchange over dinner or down the pub among friends and family aren't allowed to be expressed here because they're regarded as too right (or in the past, left) wing? Surely a discussion forum of this nature should be culturally aligned with the real-life society (in this case, Ireland) which it's supposed to cater to? In that context, not being allowed to either take the piss, or express political views overtly hostile to the current zeitgeist or mainstream, is literally the exact opposite of Irishness.

Seriously, what's the point? I've been a moderator of many discussions forums over the years and I've never seen one which behaves this way, and every time we ask for answers all we get is a vague "but we can't do it that way". What I think most of us want to know is, why? What's the actual reason for implementing a site management policy / strategy which is diametrically opposed to (a) what the site was when many of its current users first joined it, and more importantly (b) what the current users actually want it to be?

These 2 posts perfectly sum up the disconnect between Boards.ie - it's staff, Mods and Admins - and the userbase

Beasty, I've already stated that I for one appreciate the efforts you personally seem to have undertaken here to try and get some of this feedback heard and I think most others here will agree..... BUT...... your reply above is part of the problem I'm sorry to say.

The whole suggestion that you can put structure around it, treating it as some kind of democratic process where users can essentially determine the way the site evolves is flawed. To give the impression that this is possible would be wrong. Ultimately it remains a private site. There are limitations both on what can be done, and what the site, it's owners, the staff, Admins etc can and indeed will deliver.

- WHY is it flawed? In whose opinion? Is that the opinion of the site?
- What are these limitations?
- What can and will be done? What can and will be delivered?

The only way I feel it can work in practice though is to look at Feedback received before determining whether, and if so how, suggestions may be implemented.

Again as I've said elsewhere, this is just not so... you don't need to wait for examples of individual issues to setup a structure of how to deal with it, and communicate that structure (and thus also set expectations) with the userbase
But as above.. do you speak for the site, or is just your opinion?


My point here, is that your entire reply is a great one if pitching to a boardroom where the underlying challenges, resources, objectives and strategy are understood and accepted by all.... BUT THIS IS A (user-driven and reliant) DISCUSSION FORUM, not a corporate multinational, and while it certainly has the "you are just a number" feel common to many of such places (I've worked in several), as Patrick outlines in his reply... that "communication style" or indeed lack thereof isn't working for the users here, where the rationale for most of the decisions made here are beyond those same users.

Maybe, rather than treating the appearance of the senior staff on the forum as a "celebrity guest star cameo", it might help to have them start and contribute to an open thread whereby the share their vision, ethos, objectives and short/medium term goals for the community side of this site - recognizing that the commercial aspects are somewhat different of course.

Q1: What IS boards.ie to you?

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

robarmstrong

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To be fair, lack of responses doesn't mean that there's nothing going on in the background. Whilst I'm sure Beasty could inform us of this, it may or may not be up to them to relay the background information onto us, there might be wheels set in motion to act on this feedback and slowly implement it, there might be.

I think we should ask ourselves are we going about this the right way, are we consolidating our feedback constructively? Is what we're offering as feedback being considered valuable and in turn, is it something that can be actively worked on/implemented? We may very well be asking all the right questions, just in the wrong place.

_Kaiser_

robarmstrong wrote: »

To be fair, lack of responses doesn't mean that there's nothing going on in the background. Whilst I'm sure Beasty could inform us of this, it may or may not be up to them to relay the background information onto us, there might be wheels set in motion to act on this feedback and slowly implement it, there might be.

I think we should ask ourselves are we going about this the right way, are we consolidating our feedback constructively? Is what we're offering as feedback being considered valuable and in turn, is it something that can be actively worked on/implemented? We may very well be asking all the right questions, just in the wrong place.

I'd agree with your first paragraph... not so much with your second.

The first can be helped though by setting out a timeline (even if it's a timeline of milestones) and communicating that to the users - as someone who's worked in tech support and escalation management for years previously, keeping your customers informed of the updates (even if it's that there IS no update but we haven't forgotten) goes a long way to building trust and patience.

The second point you make however... there have been several VERY long threads with well thought out and constructive feedback AND suggestions from many users, all of which were to be "looked into" before.
These issues are not new.. many of them are the same things that people have been saying on this site for years. It's the lack of PROGRESS that is frustrating people - even if that is a "no, sorry that's not possible because x"

As for where/how to do this.. well with Feedback neutered, although soon to be at least partially restored..finally, that would seem to me the logical place.. I know Beasty disagrees on that, but that's the other issue I called out above - too much focus on setting up elaborate corporate escalation paths to receive it.. not enough on actually actioning or deciding on the feedback

I keep saying this but IT'S A FORUM. It's not a global multinational that needs layers and layers of process. We all know what the issues are (or at least what the user's perceive as the issues) - just get on with deciding on what (if anything) to do about it.. or at least tell us if we're just wasting our time in the first place.

Beasty

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just to be clear there is support across all levels for change. Equally I think there will always be difficulty getting a consensus over what is required, be that at User, Mod, Admin or Office levels. Other Admins and office staff have chipped in, and there have been a number of Mods contributing to the discussion

I guess I found myself in the middle of this when it all blew up initially during the XMas break, and perhaps I've felt more comfortable putting my head above the parapet Equally though, this thread has been going on for quite a while, and keeping track of everything can be challenging to say the least. I may therefore have a better "feel" for the way things have evolved because I've been close to the discussion throughout

I will just add a couple of areas that have seen progression where I've been actively involved. You will see we ran the discussion on Feedback. Maybe what we've ended up with is not 100% in accordance with what everyone wants, but that would be impossible anyway. I'm also currently looking at inactive mods, with a view to de-modding a number of them unless I hear back from them shortly. I know others have been looking at the Hosted forums. Others have been active looking dealing with the Re-reg trolls as well as picking up on things that may blow up across the site. Mark's been working on the Mod Handbook with support from quite a few Admins. The Development Team continue to work on the Responsive site (and are currently testing a new layout - I've not volunteered to get involved in that because I do feel as if I've got quite a bit on my plate at present)

In an ideal world we would have more of the Admins currently active here, particularly given the amount of feedback we have received in this thread. However i can assure you this is definitely not any kind of solo run, and others are beavering away in the background.

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

Beasty

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just on this point, certainly from my personal perspective I use Boards to interact with others. I started off heavily in Cycling and also contributing to a lot of local threads. I had initially thought of this site as a place to discuss all things Soccer, but although I've been a bit more involved over there, I have never felt part of a "community" in the way I have for Cycling. Equally during my time as CMod I interacted a great deal with Sports mods and got involved in a number of areas I would probably never have ventured into. Sometimes hopefully for the good, perhaps on the odd occasion things backfired. I think though that the "community spirit" within Boards is now more focussed in particular areas of discussion. Now I don't find that surprising as, despite the thread title, this site has definitely grown over the past decade or so, and if you look back say 15 years I think (from memory), it's about 5 times more active now. Yes that's still a lot less than the "heyday" of perhaps 2010 to 2012

Even if I look at registered users, I'm at something just over 250K, when the total 9 years later is approaching 900k. Yes a lot more throwaway accounts nowadays, but unfortunately we can't do much about that

The other side of this though is the site does have a small number of full-time employees. Of course it's in their interests that the site is "commercial". Indeed I'm sure some of those staff have, to protect their own jobs, got to focus on the revenue side of the business. So they get involved in Talk To, with Admins rarely venturing into that space. Equally though those full time staff understand that without a userbase the Talk To forums are redundant.

The key is getting the balance right. I think we are heading in the right direction, but will acknowledge there is some way to go. Yes I work in the head office of a major global company, and perhaps feel as if I have an understanding of the commercial pressures. Equally though I'm here to get personal enjoyment out of the site. No-one likes having to deal with complaints. One thing I do like though is trying to solve problems, and if we can find ways to get the site to flourish without completely losing it's identity I would get some satisfaction out of that. If I don't I'll get back to talking Cycling and interacting either face to face or online with the (literally hundreds) of people I've got to know via this site, and the many close friends I've gained from it

hatrickpatrick

Beasty wrote: »

One thing I do like though is trying to solve problems, and if we can find ways to get the site to flourish without completely losing it's identity I would get some satisfaction out of that.

So again, what, in your view, is its identity? Because the crux of this entire problem seems to be that those in charge have a completely different conception of this than the mass of Boards' actual day to day users. And there's no question that the identity forced upon Boards by those in charge is literally nothing like the identity it had in its prime, which is when most of us joined.

I for one don't understand why this question keeps being ignored. What is the lofty vision for Boards which seems to be privately held by the admins and which also seems to be diametrically at odds with Irish culture, humour, and political discourse?

Insect Overlord

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What is the lofty vision for Boards which seems to be privately held by the admins and which also seems to be diametrically at odds with Irish culture, humour, and political discourse?

I would suggest that it has nothing to do with the Admins and more to do with some very vocal posters who sanitised the forums over the last 7 or 8 years. Constant reporting of "objectionable" posts meant that some very witty and funny posters got lumped in with the characters who really were just posting offensive stuff. Some people really have absolutely no sense of humour when it comes to particular issues close to their own hearts. Everything is -phobic to them.

Beasty

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So again, what, in your view, is its identity?

I have no doubt different people have very different views on this, partially because of the diversity of topics, and partially because there are independent "communities" across the site, with others contributing to a very wide range of topics perhaps feeling they are part of a wider community

I also think something Dav used to say is very valid here. This site tends to "capture" what is happening around Ireland resulting in a unique perspective/record of events as they happen. In my time around here we've seen the growth of the site during the recession, and the resultant dissatisfaction shown by many around here either over their personal circumstances, or the hole the country had dug for itself.

Now we can plot how the debate on the 8th is panning out in the same way the site documented a lot of the feelings around same sex marriage. There is without doubt an "Irishness" to the site, and I'm sure we get many people who have left the country using it as a resource to see what's going on in Ireland. Equally we see a very wide cross section of Irish society posting on diverse topics. In my view this sort of thing can work in Ireland far better than it can in larger countries, and there is nothing comparable with Boards in, for example, the UK.

And yes we get spikes of interest around major political events, and even when we see disruption due to the weather. From my time is Sports I recall how some forums come to life at times coinciding with major events (for example there are some great threads documenting how Ireland has done on the international cricket front, as well as more popular sports such as football). The breadth of discussion and the relevance across the island stand out to me.

Beasty

I've deleted the off-topic post & follow-ups

I posted a little thread the other day - The Death Machine.

It was the sort of thread where it was easy to post some humor in response. It didn’t last long- only a few pages. But it was enjoyable when it lasted. I hope it raised a chuckle for people.

I’d like to see more threads like that in AH as it’s getting a lot of very serious topics which can drag everyone down.

disposable humor, lasts a few pages, generates a bit of a laugh and we all move on. Is that difficult to achieve?

robarmstrong

Deleted User wrote: »

I posted a little thread the other day - The Death Machine.

It was the sort of thread where it was easy to post some humor in response. It didn’t last long- only a few pages. But it was enjoyable when it lasted. I hope it raised a chuckle for people.

I’d like to see more threads like that in AH as it’s getting a lot of very serious topics which can drag everyone down.

disposable humor, lasts a few pages, generates a bit of a laugh and we all move on. Is that difficult to achieve?

Hopefully the idea that someone mentioned of having a Current Affairs forum can remove some of the very serious topics from AH and restore the kind of threads you yourself posted.

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

I'm proposing leaving this thread open for a few more days to allow posters to follow up on some of the points I've made, but again would look to provide an update a little further down the line, perhaps around the end of April.

Just following up with a summary of progress we've seen to date

1. Feedback has returned to being an Open forum with some posting restrictions, as discussed in the Open Feedback thread
2. We're having a healthy debate with mods over the mod handbook and where it makes sense to standardise things a bit more
3. There's an ongoing request for a "Current Affairs" forum, which I hope may provide an avenue for political and other news discussions in a less formal way than the Politics Café while freeing AH of some of the issues that political threads have created
4. We're currently working on a list of inactive mods, and I expect a number to be de-modded over the next few days. Further reviews will follow and this is an area I would expect us to keep more on top of going forward
5. We're working on the Hosted forums with a view to migrating them over to the main forum area, which would leave the "Talk To" section as primarily an avenue to discuss site issues and interact within commercially sponsored forums

I think we still need to consider forum and category structure, with some inactive forums to be closed. I anticipate that exercise will be undertaken once we sort out the mod situation. The reason for that is some may find their areas of responsibility are closed but equally we may need extra pairs of hand to fill some of the gaps after we deal with inactive mods

I'm not suggesting everything is rosy or that we're acting on all feedback, but I would like to think things are heading in the right direction

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

J
3. There's an ongoing request for a "Current Affairs" forum, which I hope may provide an avenue for political and other news discussions in a less formal way than the Politics Café while freeing AH of some of the issues that political threads have created

I'm not suggesting everything is rosy or that we're acting on all feedback, but I would like to think things are heading in the right direction

I think opening a new "Current Affairs" forum will leave AH feel naked for a while. But that's not a bad thing. It will have to find its feet and settle into a new sort of category and pace.

I really like the idea of a "Current Affairs" forum and look forward to seeing it in action. AH will need less mods as a result but that new forum will need a lot of modding.

Beasty

There will be some adjustment in AH, but it will remain a place for the sort of banter it initially grew out of. Most of the threads currently on the front page of AH would remain valid, and I don't think it necessary to remove all "serious" discussion from the forum. I do think though that it should and would make modding AH a bit easier, even if it's spreading the load and diverting some of it elsewhere

I do though think that this particular thread would probably/hopefully not be repeated in AH!

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

Most of the threads currently on the front page of AH would remain valid, !

If so, then really you're spreading yourself thin and not being definitive around what the forum does. Forums survive and die on their charter.

You can't have a new AH as "a place for banter" and "for serious discussion". That's what it is right now.

A lot of the most popular threads of the front page on AH over the last few weeks were "serious discussion":

8th Amendment
Rape
Louise O' Neill
Missing person
More rape
Religion
More Religion
USA Politics
Irish Politics


I would have thought all of the above would go to the new "Current Affairs" forum?
None of those threads, while popular, couldn't be classed as "a place for banter".

Beasty

I think I'm looking at a different front page.

The first 20 threads currently have:
the 8th
Is Islam right - not sure that's "current affairs"
this thread (better suited to Feedback)
Starbucks - don't see any issue with that one)

Having said that I've no idea who Ms Whitmore is

Only the thread on the 8th has gained significant traction