nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why is Boards so quiet?

Jobs OXO

Hi have been on the site with previous (now closed) accounts for a good number of years. I have never seen it so quiet. Sunday morning and looking at latest posts traffic seems so slow. Is no one posting anymore? AH doesn't seem to be much craic anymore. Anyone notice the same? Any ideas how to improve the situation ?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Colonialboy

Finally a thread where you can express an opinion and not get carded, banned, or shut down by some MOD whose personal agenda is causing them to shutdown any form of intense discussion.

Boards screwed up, you missed the boat and you have only your MODS to blame.
They shut down any discussion. If it didnt fit their agenda then they shut it down.
Threads have become one-dimensional circular discussions by people who are all like minded cos the MODs forced anyone else out of the debate. They either carded, reprimanded, banned or simpy didnt protect them from abuse.

Even now the MODS response on this thread is akin to the remainers after brexit, democrats after Trump, the French after MarieLePen...
The MODS seem surprised that people are pissed off with their moderation.
If you didnt get that people were pissed off with your over-moderation , actually it wasnt over-moderation, lets call it what it was, biased and agenda based moderation then you were either stupid or bigoted. Its one or the other, ye can figure out whihc one.

There might be good MODS out there, but tbh Ive not come across many.
In my expereince they have all been very childish, petty and downright biased

BOARDS could have been the leader, could have been the forefront of the discussion, could have been the first to the table. And now the MODS want all those posters back who could add colour to discussion after treating most of them like crap for years. I doubt you will ever recover to be honest.

MODS were more interested in shutting down views which were counter to their own personal opinions , than interested in keeping the discussion open and having all viewpoints getting a fair crack of the whip.

It became funny, all you had todo was wait for your card or reprimand from some MOD and then search the same thread for posts from that MOD and 10 times out of 10 you would find that MOD had the oppossite position to you and so they were simply shutting down a viewpoint they didnt agree with.

MODS were totally childish and snowflake in the sense of being delicate and not allowing people get into it in their discussions.
Best of luck with boards, I hope ye recover and succeed.
well done wibbs, and the OP for getting the ball rolling.

me_right_one

In my opinion, mods should be paid. There should be far less of them, they should be former professionals in their field, and it should be their full-time job to police their own area. NO AGENDA PUSHERS. Their sole function should be to cut out bad language and personal attacks (eg being called a paedo because you're a Catholic). Thats it. Everything else should be fair game.

This way, the mods emotion / bias would be lessened, and the pressure on them ("I only do this voluntarily, I have a life you know") would be eased. I would happily pay for such a service.

vkid

genuinegenius wrote:

1. Boards has that unique Irish feel Not true anymore. Lots of international discussion sites have Irish sections, the most famous being Reddit. Not to mention the other Irish owned sites like PeoplesRepublicofCork, Politics.ie and politicalirish.

Proc is not an example of a good discussion forum in any shape or form and hasn't been for years. Irish or not, it's standards have slipped massively and it's a bit of a joke of a forum. Most of the good posters stopped posting years ago and the topics and posts easily show that. It's not as busy a forum as it once was either..not by a long shot.

Politics.ie is nearly as bad, but still busy.

There is definitely an issue with the mods on this site, and it turns people off from contributing. You end up with little cliques of like minded people dominating discussions, and individual forums and quite often any real debate is killed because of it. The rugby forum is one example of that to my mind.

Yes there are trolls and wums, but the moderation is ott at times, often influenced by the mods own personal opinions. The "I'm right you're wrong" and " don't question my authority" form of moderation is killing the site. Some of the mods need to get off their high horse and a little bit of a reality check would do some of them no harm at all.

DEFTLEFTHAND

I would be conservative in my politics and I've never been silenced by mods on here.

I'm very fond of this site, and I hope that it continues for many more years.

Oafley Jones

vkid wrote: »

Proc is not an example of a good discussion forum in any shape or form and hasn't been for years. Irish or not, it's standards have slipped massively and it's a bit of a joke of a forum. Most of the good posters stopped posting years ago and the topics and posts easily show that. It's not as busy a forum as it once was either..not by a long shot.

Politics.ie is nearly as bad, but still busy.

There is definitely an issue with the mods on this site, and it turns people off from contributing. You end up with little cliques of like minded people dominating discussions, and individual forums and quite often any real debate is killed because of it. The rugby forum is one example of that to my mind.

Yes there are trolls and wums, but the moderation is ott at times, often influenced by the mods own personal opinions. The "I'm right you're wrong" and " don't question my authority" form of moderation is killing the site. Some of the mods need to get off their high horse and a little bit of a reality check would do some of them no harm at all.

The PROC is a good example of how a lack of moderation can kill a forum. It used to be this funny, vibrant place than got consumed by a handful of spanners (with multiple accounts) all roaring incessantly with nobody listening. I'd check in the very odd time, but it honestly seems to get worse and worse.

ancapailldorcha

me_right_one wrote: »

In my opinion, mods should be paid. There should be far less of them, they should be former professionals in their field, and it should be their full-time job to police their own area. NO AGENDA PUSHERS. Their sole function should be to cut out bad language and personal attacks (eg being called a paedo because you're a Catholic). Thats it. Everything else should be fair game.

This way, the mods emotion / bias would be lessened, and the pressure on them ("I only do this voluntarily, I have a life you know") would be eased. I would happily pay for such a service.

It's an interesting idea but it comes with 2 problems:

This site is making a loss. Where would the money come from? Would you be willing to pay a monthly sum to use the site? If so, how much and would enough people be willing to do this to cover salaries?
I doubt that many "Former professionals in their field" would want this to be honest. Would you want go from being a professional journalist in sports or politics to deleted bad words from a forum 8+ hours a day? I doubt it.

Oafley Jones wrote: »

The PROC is a good example of how a lack of moderation can kill a forum. It used to be this funny, vibrant place than got consumed by a handful of spanners (with multiple accounts) all roaring incessantly with nobody listening. I'd check in the very odd time, but it honestly seems to get worse and worse.

Basically this. I doubt the Chess forum needs much mod input but a lot of topics like religion, politics and soccer involve beliefs which are often held on an emotional, not a rational level and so provoke an emotional response when questions. This is called the Backfire effect. You end up with name calling and worse forms of abuse. Look at any Facebook page when someone goes against the grain.

drugstore cowboy

Oafley Jones wrote: »

The PROC is a good example of how a lack of moderation can kill a forum. It used to be this funny, vibrant place than got consumed by a handful of spanners (with multiple accounts) all roaring incessantly with nobody listening. I'd check in the very odd time, but it honestly seems to get worse and worse.

The PROC is a wonderful forum and I for one enjoy it's survival of the fittest model.Being non snowflake the discussion flows far easier without ott moderation and nonsensical bans being dished out although admin over there do have to step in at times and dish out some short term bans if things really get out of control.

There's actually a pretty amusing boards.ie thread happening on the PROC at the minute. Boards would be much much better as a whole if they took inspiration from the PROC and let things flow a little bit better discussion wise.

Boards could and should be an outstanding discussion forum but the OTT moderation and snowflake mentality of some users is killing it which is a big shame.

Wibbs

drugstore cowboy wrote: »

Boards would be much much better as a whole if they let things flow a little bit better discussion wise.

I agree, but I suspect we're on a hiding to nothing there. The "culture" will make it very difficult and such engrained cultures are like supertankers, it takes a lot to have them change direction even if the will is there. The site always had a mods culture to a large extent, but nowadays IMH it's gotten worse not better and it makes things easier to be overbearing in moderating a forum. Big red buttons that need pressing for procedure's sake. Cards, too many automatic actions to reports etc.

I am NOT suggesting anything goes(which is often the response when the suggestion is made, again part of the mod culture), I am suggesting leaving active threads open(hell, leave inactive threads alone. They don't need you closing them just cos, if they're inactive, well the clue is in the description) and let people discuss whatever. Attacks on posters/trolls/reregs(if they're being trouble) then do the job and moderate them, not the threads and certainly not direction of threads.

KERSPLAT!

Do you see that often W, inactive threads locked? IMH it's not something I remember ever seeing!

I do agree though, W, threads should be left open as much as possible.

Wibbs

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Do you see that often W, inactive threads locked? IMH it's not something I remember ever seeing!

I've noted a few, but as you say K it's not a big problem.

I do agree though, W, threads should be left open as much as possible.

I'd also add leave "zombie" threads alone if a new post/poster comes along. Closing them automatically and maybe suggesting the person starts a new thread is daft and old fashioned/cultural thinking at work. 9 times outa 10 they won't start a new thread and there's another possible discussion/source of information gone. Or a new poster. If my first post as a newbie on a thread that I likely found via google is immediately hopped on by some "overseer", I'd likely eff off and go elsewhere. So they didn't squint at the date(especially on a mobile device), so bloody what? Zombie thread netiquette is old hat, so leave it in the past and leave the threads alone.

People asking the same question in two forums? Unless it's spam/trolling/whatever(which are covered anyway), leave the threads alone. So what if it's in different forums. Maybe the person wants a balanced take to the question from two forums? Big deal. Let them.

"But that's how we've always handled things"? That is a thinking that nearly guarantees the culture behind it is out of date and out of touch. Oh and other than report post junkies and pedants mired in that same thinking will give a damn about the above two reasons for killing threads. The vast majority won't give a damn and will welcome more discussion going on.

KERSPLAT!

Well the point of closing zombie threads is so you don't have a poster now arguing with a poster from 2002 who's long gone. It would make more sense to move the new post to a new thread maybe and link to the old one? Again, I don't believe this is a huge issue but certainly something to be discussed. All these small changes can, and do, add up.

Wibbs

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Well the point of closing zombie threads is so you don't have a poster now arguing with a poster from 2002 who's long gone.

I've rarely seen that happen TBH K and so what if it does? No doubt someone will be along to engage anew. This goes double for old threads in the more information based forums. I saw an example today where a newbie dropped into an old thread with the same problem as the OP and closed.

It would make more sense to move the new post to a new thread maybe and link to the old one?

It would and I do that if they come up, but that's more overhead involved and let's face it a few mods won't bother, especially in fats moving forums.

Again, I don't believe this is a huge issue but certainly something to be discussed. All these small changes can, and do, add up.

Exactly K. And IMH that's what has been happening to Boards in general over the last few years. Outside of things that are, well outside members control, like more online options and the Office making changes, the community should try and take new thinking on board and implement some of it.

Though I do have my doubts there. Imagine for example if it was decided to get rid of cards. Never gonna happen, too many mods would have a kanipshin over the idea. You'd get similar if lesser by suggesting leaving zombie threads alone, or a general blanket change to leave threads open.

I have found people love structure, even not so great structure, especially in management of other people. It makes them feel safer and more secure in decisions they make. Now structure is great, but a large part of this corporate creep and especially the "middle management" stuff is down to too much bloody "structure" which is taking from the community. We need more leaders and fewer managers. That has most certainly declined here.

Insect Overlord

The easy solution with zombie threads getting bumped is to split the new post into a new thread with a similar title. Maybe respond to the OP with a link for context. It's a very minor issue though.

Moving on.

The problem with warnings and bans and locking threads can't be entirely placed at the feet of the moderators. Members (including plenty who just happen to be mods as well) have campaigned numerous times for things to be stamped out. Obvious stuff like misogyny, homophobia, racism, that makes sense.

But then the bar for what's "offensive" gets lowered and lowered. You can get the same punishment for abusive flaming as you would for using memes, posting "Let me Google that for you", using non-PC terminology (despite no intent to cause offense) or for pointing out atrocious use of the English language. People come along looking for more leeway and letting threads flow, but then run off and report other really petty stuff just to get others in trouble.

Between hypocrisy, over-sensitivity, questionable definitions of what exactly constitutes "abuse", and posters who cry obsessively about their own little pet hates, everything has to be clamped down on. Otherwise you get accusations of inconsistency or "You can't say that about X, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to say it about Y!"

After Hours, Soccer, Feedback, (and probably others too) they all have a subsection of wind-up merchants who just want to see other people get slapped on the wrist. Like the tell-tale brats in a classroom, running to teacher and revelling in some other kid's punishment. The mods are damned if they do react, and damned if they don't.

iguot

Wasting your time guys, Nothing said that wasn't ignored in the last thread.

Only thing picked up from last thread was quicker approval of new forums which shouldn't have been an issue to begin with.... saying that Im guessing they kept that up, maybe not....last time I was in there I suggested a forum but it was deleted cuz I wasn't on the site long enough!

Who comes up with this stuff????

Wibbs

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The problem with warnings and bans and locking threads can't be entirely placed at the feet of the moderators.

Oh very true IO, though the will to change has to come from that angle.

Members (including plenty who just happen to be mods as well) have campaigned numerous times for things to be stamped out. Obvious stuff like misogyny, homophobia, racism, that makes sense.

It does.

But then the bar for what's "offensive" gets lowered and lowered.

Oh Christ it has.

You can get the same punishment for abusive flaming as you would for using memes, posting "Let me Google that for you", using non-PC terminology (despite no intent to cause offense) or for pointing out atrocious use of the English language.

Yep and it puts people right off, if they're lumped in with some nasty prick, just because they made a joke, or whatever.

People come along looking for more leeway and letting threads flow, but then run off and report other really petty stuff just to get others in trouble.

After Hours, Soccer, Feedback, (and probably others too) they all have a subsection of wind-up merchants who just want to see other people get slapped on the wrist. Like the tell-tale brats in a classroom, running to teacher and revelling in some other kid's punishment.

Do not get me started on those IO. Tell tale school kids sums them up well and equally irritating. There are quite a few posters, inc a couple of mods, where my near automatic response to a reported post is to read it and then promptly dismiss it.

The mods are damned if they do react, and damned if they don't.

Aye, but TBH IO given the choice between the two I'd rather be damned for the latter. IMH the less mods are seen the better. Just like the old "closed account" tag showing up on the regular in threads was sending the wrong message, so do mod notes showing up on the regular.

tsue921i8wljb3

I don't post on Politics or even have any interest in discussing Politics online but I believe this overzealous moderation is not reserved for only those forums. Two examples that I have recently been involved in.

In Aviation and Aircraft the discussion of the tragic Rescue 116 case was, in my opinion, handled badly. Relatively early on in the thread there was a mod post made with a wall of black text basically stating that CFIT was wholly unlikely as a cause for the crash. This narrative then permeated the thread and those who questioned it, even professional pilots were silenced or banned. It has since transpired that CFIT was the most likely cause for the accident.

Then yesterday in the Satellite forum a discussion was started about Sky's clampdown on illegal card sharing services. No links were posted to such services, no guides were given about how to implement it, the most that was done was several people posted stating they thought Sky's fix might be broken in the future. I was posting from a position of questioning the morality of card sharing and saw no reason for the thread to be closed. The mod posted "We cannot allow advocacy of anything illegal here".

This head in the sand, if we don't acknowledge it, it will cease to exist mentality is driving discussion away from the site. In the previously mentioned R116 thread there were several occasions of moderators actively telling posters to go elsewhere to discuss the incident. This is fine if you don't want people here but I assume the site needs posters to stay viable.

pjohnson

Definitely quiet thanks to any disgreement being hilariously overmodded.

JCX BXC

I unfollowed early on as the thread in question as it had gone completely ridiculous.

Nice to see nothing changed.

KERSPLAT!

pjohnson wrote: »

Says the child spouting random nonsense with no basis in reality. What an excellent life you lead.

pjohnson wrote: »

No sure keep going. Showing off your stupidity is your own right. Dont want to oppress you.

pjohnson wrote: »

How much do you earn? No just a time waster? Good job.
take your nonsense elsewhere.

The above were your latest contributions to a thread in AH. Disagreement, no. Painful to read, absolutely. You have an issue with that particular poster, put them on ignore and stop ****ting all over the forum with your squabble. You're both ruining what is a decent discussion.

pjohnson wrote: »

Definitepy quiet thanks to any disgreement being hilariously overmodded.

pjohnson

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

The above were your latest contributions to a thread in AH. Disagreement, no. Painful to read, absolutely. You have an issue with that particular poster, put them on ignore and stop ****ting all over the forum with your squabble. You're both ruining what is a decent discussion.

I was involved in what you call decent discussion. Then after reading the most recent page you decided to ban instantly. I would have thought a bit more thought went into a moderator decision. Just simply to understand context and maybe see how one person has been involved in the decent discussion and only one came in with the intent to ruin it. Now I know they are quicker and less thought out decisions. Its my first time experiencing the mod "process" so now I know.

Thanks.

iguot

Henrik Ancient Fox wrote: »

I don't post on Politics or even have any interest in discussing Politics online but I believe this overzealous moderation is not reserved for only those forums. Two examples that I have recently been involved in.

In Aviation and Aircraft the discussion of the tragic Rescue 116 case was, in my opinion, handled badly. Relatively early on in the thread there was a mod post made with a wall of black text basically stating that CFIT was wholly unlikely as a cause for the crash. This narrative then permeated the thread and those who questioned it, even professional pilots were silenced or banned. It has since transpired that CFIT was the most likely cause for the accident.

Then yesterday in the Satellite forum a discussion was started about Sky's clampdown on illegal card sharing services. No links were posted to such services, no guides were given about how to implement it, the most that was done was several people posted stating they thought Sky's fix might be broken in the future. I was posting from a position of questioning the morality of card sharing and saw no reason for the thread to be closed. The mod posted "We cannot allow advocacy of anything illegal here".

This head in the sand, if we don't acknowledge it, it will cease to exist mentality is driving discussion away from the site. In the previously mentioned R116 thread there were several occasions of moderators actively telling posters to go elsewhere to discuss the incident. This is fine if you don't want people here but I assume the site needs posters to stay viable.

Oh god, 116 thread, what a disaster, terms of reference on a bloody thread, they hit a new low with that thread, what you could and couldn't use as a source, oh my god, Someone who knows them might read this thread so their'll be none of this this this or this. And the new stand in mod (cuz the regular lads didn't have time to try and enforce the daily changing termsofref) sticking a stupid smiley face at the end of every post where he banned someone for nothing, just stupid. I think the thread died in the end as everyone was banned.

No surprise with the sky thread, the lazy mods over there locked the Amiko Alien thread aswell rather than just delete a few posts. Not a clue.

Tom Mann Centuria

Henrik Ancient Fox wrote: »

..................

Then yesterday in the Satellite forum a discussion was started about Sky's clampdown on illegal card sharing services. No links were posted to such services, no guides were given about how to implement it, the most that was done was several people posted stating they thought Sky's fix might be broken in the future. I was posting from a position of questioning the morality of card sharing and saw no reason for the thread to be closed. The mod posted "We cannot allow advocacy of anything illegal here".

Have to agree with you on this one, locked because of possibility in the future, of someone, possibly, discussing something, that might be illegal, possibly.

mikeybrennan

I was posting on the sky card thread

Seemed to be a decent discussion on the technicalities of card sharing

Pelvis Parsley

The A&A forum was set up on foot of a request to Gerry, by myself. It was created in the hope of inviting and inciting discussion around aviation related matters in an Irish context, and was subsequently subdivided into a virtual flying forum to include flight sim aficionados as well as would be pilots.

The moderation of that thread was a disgrace. While volunteers can never be expected to have professional insight, it seemed to me to be editorialised by the flight simmer brigade.

Be that as it may. It points to a key deficiency in volunteer moderation on this site. If a mod, who cannot be expected to know everything gets it wrong, there's no recourse. They're right, and that's it. No collective opportunities for the body of users to say, "hang on, this guy is wrong",you can't question it on thread. You can't raise a discussion within the forum. You can't say, this lad is talking through his arse and we need to revisit the topic. There is no accountability or pushback (pardon the pun) available on the forum or thread. And there should be.

Extreme circumstances aside, why can't people question decisions in the avenue in which they arise? Why revert to endless loops of bureaucracy when there's no need for it, in most circumstances? When many disputes can be resolved through discussion, hands off, as it were?

It's a joke.

Jurgen Klopp

Pelvis Parsley wrote: »

If a mod, who cannot be expected to know everything gets it wrong, there's no recourse. They're right, and that's it. No collective opportunities for the body of users to say, "hang on, this guy is wrong",you can't question it on thread. You can't raise a discussion within the forum. You can't say, this lad is talking through his arse and we need to revisit the topic. There is no accountability or pushback (pardon the pun) available on the forum or thread. And there should be.

Extreme circumstances aside, why can't people question decisions in the avenue in which they arise? Why revert to endless loops of bureaucracy when there's no need for it, in most circumstances? When many disputes can be resolved through discussion, hands off, as it were?

It's a joke.

I actually raised this very point on a feedback thread over in the politics cafe, they wanted user feedback about what could be done to prevent what users would deem mod bias and mind you they seemed shocked users think there is a bias :rolleyes:

I said posters at this stage need to be able to question a mods decision, not just the OP in a dispute resolution.

I suggested maybe if 3 posters bar the OP raised a "hold on the mod is taking the piss with this decision" it should be up for discussion IMO

Just got a hand waving "it would be too much work, a more defined charter will suffice" essential answer.

Yeah, ye're frigging charters have not been of any use to date and usually are updated with stifling in thread rules to make sure mods chosen side can restrict a dissenting opinion

Yes, it would be work but ffs your at the end of the road at this stage, serious remodeling work needs to be done on the mods, their attitudes and elements of holding them accountable or these " volunteers" or unpaid workers as I call em are only going to be modding themselves and their cahort of arselickers within a year or two

dfx-

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I would be conservative in my politics and I've never been silenced by mods on here.

I'm very fond of this site, and I hope that it continues for many more years.

Arguably the stand out post on the thread here so far with not enough attention paid to it.

Erik Shin

dfx- wrote: »

Arguably the stand out post on the thread here so far with not enough attention paid to it.

Stand out because it's in a tiny minority ?

Jobs OXO

dfx- wrote: »

Arguably the stand out post on the thread here so far with not enough attention paid to it.

Because it's a pro-mod stance? It's only standout to you because of that tbf - hence little attention.....

Jurgen Klopp

dfx- wrote: »

Arguably the stand out post on the thread here so far with not enough attention paid to it.

Yeah you see just because one poster says it doesn't mean others feel that way

No disrespect to DLH and it's good he feels he hasn't been stifled but I wouldn't call it stand out and perhaps the reason it hasn't got the attention you think it deserves is due to the fact plenty don't feel way

More a case of a mod looking for confirmation bias IMO

sparrowcar

Not sure if this has been mentioned already but could it be that unemployment rates have significantly reduced since 2012 and those who continued in employment during the tough years are under more pressure during their working day. I basically suggesting there are less idol hands to populate boards.ie.

In addition it's become much more common for companies to block forum sites like boards.ie etc as they are generally counter productive in the workplace?