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

Boom_Bap · 02-01-2018 11:38AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

:pac:

banned

Del.Monte · 02-01-2018 11:45AM

Beasty wrote: »

I've seen it tried with a number of different forums. In some cases they do burst to life only then to slowly decline again. In other cases those who do attempt to bring some life back to a forum end up feeling like they are banging their heads against a brick wall

I think it is one of the issues of having such a wide variety of forums. Posters tend to stick to a relatively small number. I do think we are long overdue a cull of the dead forums, and a wider tidy up of structure. Those are personal views though. Yes we touch upon these points amongst the Admins, and some progress has been made but there is, in my view, a very long way to go.

Again it is a personal view but I would see the site condensing to perhaps 10% of the current numbers of forums, although some may survive as quiet sub-forums

In that case Boards can start by giving up any pretence of being an 'all Ireland' forum and remove all NI Regional forums - all are dead or in an advanced state of decay. You could follow that up with a cull of forums killed by their moderators - Sustainability & Environmental being a good example.

GreeBo · 02-01-2018 01:01PM

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I genuinely cannot see how anything at all in my reply to you fits any logical definition of the term "abuse".

How about "attack the post and not the poster"?

Tbh if you cannot see how your post is exactly the problem then there really is no hope.

If the plan is to save boards by reducing users, well then congratulations are in order.

Mind you, it didnt work out that great for Skynet, Joshua, Ultron, HAL...but you guys are probably like *way* smarter than they are were.

Wibbs · 02-01-2018 01:51PM

Beasty wrote: »

I do think we are long overdue a cull of the dead forums, and a wider tidy up of structure. Those are personal views though. Yes we touch upon these points amongst the Admins, and some progress has been made but there is, in my view, a very long way to go.

Again it is a personal view but I would see the site condensing to perhaps 10% of the current numbers of forums, although some may survive as quiet sub-forums

+1000.

Red_Wake · 02-01-2018 01:58PM

Whoever suggested culling forums is correct. On other forums I read much more variety of threads because I stumble upon interesting threads in a topic which I wouldn't be interested enough to find the forum for here.

Also the mods are biased lunatics who ban people for disagreeing with them.

Insect Overlord · 02-01-2018 02:06PM

GreeBo wrote: »

How about "attack the post and not the poster"?

Tbh if you cannot see how your post is exactly the problem then there really is no hope.

This is the issue when it comes to people who want robotic, automated modding. Context and history are important and often need to be taken into account when taking certain actions.

It's easy to just respond to "the post" the first few times. You can point out why an argument is flawed, or highlight that there's inaccurate information in it, or ask for more information if a post is lacking in useful content.

However, you eventually see a pattern with some people. They post the same things over and over again and insist that they are always right. They don't take on board the responses they get. Instead they just post "But what about X?" or shift the goalposts every time their argument is invalidated. A post that looks innocent at a first glance (or to people who haven't it all before) is, in reality, just the latest little chip of antagonism from a wind-up merchant or a troll.

Trolls should not be entertained. I'm sure you, as a former mod yourself, could agree with that.

GreeBo · 02-01-2018 02:08PM

Wibbs wrote: »

+1000.

But are fewer forums going to do anything to increase the sites overall postcount?

Sure, removing the dead or dying ones is a good thing to do, but I don't see how that is going to help the general problem of fewer people making fewer posts.

Even, consistent moderation at least across a single forum would help, but I think we are passed the point of no return there.

Boards needs to offer something that the other channels don't.
It used to be (and indeed still is in some places) a place to go to get information from friendly, like-minded people, now its often plagued with trolls, snowflakes and SJWs.

These people should just be removed, not tolerated.

Its a privately owned site, if people are damaging it, just remove them.
Don't keep them but apply a different level of moderation to them; that just damages everyone. If someone is trolling or disrupting threads without adding any value (disagreeing is not disrupting) then just remove them.

Giving multiple infractions and then talking to them as Insect Overlord did earlier in this thread is damaging to the site, damaging to mods and damaging to posters.

Remove them and keep boards for contributors and maybe, just maybe those who are still here will remain and even encourage others to join. With enough useful content Google will bring people here anyway, but they wont sign up if they have to wade through pages of historical personal comments & jibes between posters & those running the site.

GreeBo · 02-01-2018 02:17PM

Insect Overlord wrote: »

This is the issue when it comes to people who want robotic, automated modding.

You call it robotic & automated, I call it consistent.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Context and history are important and often need to be taken into account when taking certain actions.

Maybe to you the mod it is, its not to the rest of the posters.
History of mod action is of course vital in dealing moderating posters.
What you are doing in the examples in this thread is *not* moderating. Its effectively trolling another (albeit it possibly trollishly annoying) poster.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

It's easy to just respond to "the post" the first few times. You can point out why an argument is flawed, or highlight that there's inaccurate information in it, or ask for more information if a post is lacking in useful content.

You mean just like every other poster is expected to do?
Why should we not expect the same standards of behaviour from you as you expect from us?

You see now its descended into a "them and us" because "they" are treated differently than "us".

Insect Overlord wrote: »

However, you eventually see a pattern with some people. They post the same things over and over again and insist that they are always right. They don't take on board the responses they get. Instead they just post "But what about X?" or shift the goalposts every time their argument is invalidated. A post that looks innocent at a first glance (or to people who haven't it all before) is, in reality, just the latest little chip of antagonism from a wind-up merchant or a troll.

Yep you do.
So ignore them and dont engage them.
If they break rules, infract them.
If they continue to get infractions then you ban them.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Trolls should not be entertained. I'm sure you, as a former mod yourself, could agree with that.

100% agree they shouldn't be, thats why you should be removing them once they are identified.
What you are doing *is* entertaining them and while you might get something out of it as you keep doing it, that type of entertainment is driving actual contributors away.

GreeBo · 02-01-2018 02:19PM

Red_Wake wrote: »

Whoever suggested culling forums is correct. On other forums I read much more variety of threads because I stumble upon interesting threads in a topic which I wouldn't be interested enough to find the forum for here.

Also the mods are biased lunatics who ban people for disagreeing with them.

Well that escalated quickly!:eek:

Chorus_suck · 02-01-2018 02:28PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 02-01-2018 02:33PM

This post has been deleted.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 02-01-2018 03:10PM

Kyra Whining Sailfish wrote: »

Just speaking from my own experience as I moderated the Dublin City Forum, the MMA, Self Defence & Martial Arts and the Military forum.

Moderators mostly set the policy/rules in their respective forum, some things like rules regarding advertising, trolls, abusive posters etc are common place in most internet discussion forum.

The task of moderating is hard and largely thankless, and it can be stressful too plus it intrudes upon your own personal time.

I've never met anyone who owns this forum, they're faceless to me and after some time I came to the realization that I was giving my own time and commitment free of charge to someone probably making a lot of money (at one time) from my labors.

A lot of moderating done here is unfair, esp in After Hours. If someone feels their warning/infraction or banning is unwarranted then dispute it ever single time. There is no worse nightmare for a moderator than a dispute resolution process, it can tie up hours if not days of the moderators time. The 'job' is a complete pain in the hole.

I think the site is in a death spiral, but some forum almost run themselves and it there's a good little community still, like (for example) the motorcycle forum ~ but there's also biker.ie to use for us, which is bigger but more cliques so I stay here. I also enjoy some of the discussion in the cycling forum, there's a lot of useful information there for cyclists.

But overall, those discussions are also happening on facebook without moderators and dispute resolutions. And mostly there's real faces of real people you know chatting away, discussion and helping each other.

A few years ago if I had an issue concerning a motorbike, or I wanted to discuss martial arts my first port of call would have been boards.ie ~ these days its a post to whatever group on facebook.

I'm not longer letting some faceless, annon username from boards.ie screw around with my time & energy, not a chance ~ and this would be my advice to both users and moderators a like.

Tbh, that wouldn't bother me in the least. I try to deal with posters as I find them and generally succeed, I hope.

But if I felt a poster was wasting my time and not dealing in any meaningful way with the infraction, I would in turn return the favour. I value my time and allocate it accordingly. If a poster was trying to troll me in this way, and lets be honest here, that's trolling, I would slow down the whole process too.

I would delay responses and generally return the respect I was in receipt of.

I hope I would return the respect I was dealt with with interest, both positive and negative.

pleas advice · 02-01-2018 03:16PM

Lets dance

Oldtree · 02-01-2018 03:25PM

pleas advice wrote: »

Lets dance

love that Bowie tune

Let's dance
Put on your red shoes and dance the blues
Let's dance
To the song they're playin' on the radio.......

blackwhite · 02-01-2018 04:34PM

Beasty wrote: »

Absolutely not. A poster's history should be considered when looking at borderline cases in particular. Like it or not, but a lot of modding is subjective

Is that not just giving a nice easy ready-made excuse for mods who decide to go easy on posters they agree with, and jump all over the slightest mos-step from those they disagree with?

And of course - the posters who continually get the benefit of the doubt because of their “clean” record. Very easy to keep a clean record if you’ve a like-minded mod who continually lets you off.

A posters history should certainly be a factor in determining how long a ban, etc, and also when considering appeals. For the level of being carded, then it shouldn’t be a factor - otherwise it just becomes a handy way for a few mods to keep their “buddies” noses clean for them

Kivaro · 02-01-2018 06:16PM

56 pages later and this 'controversial' topic is still going.
Constructive discourse with interesting points being aired by both sides.

Maybe it should be used as a template for other thread topics that are deemed controversial.

....... · 02-01-2018 06:27PM

This post has been deleted.

KERSPLAT! · 02-01-2018 06:37PM

I'd agree on Feedback, absolute disaster IMO. Imagine threads in AH with only the OP and certain posters allowed to contribute. Boards works on the basis that posters join in the conversation or debate. Having only the OP up against, and that's exactly what it is, multiple admin is ridiculous. It definitely needed to change. This definitely wasn't the change needed.

GreeBo · 02-01-2018 08:05PM

Insect Overlord wrote: »

This is the issue when it comes to people who want robotic, automated modding. Context and history are important and often need to be taken into account when taking certain actions.

It's easy to just respond to "the post" the first few times. You can point out why an argument is flawed, or highlight that there's inaccurate information in it, or ask for more information if a post is lacking in useful content.

However, you eventually see a pattern with some people. They post the same things over and over again and insist that they are always right. They don't take on board the responses they get. Instead they just post "But what about X?" or shift the goalposts every time their argument is invalidated. A post that looks innocent at a first glance (or to people who haven't it all before) is, in reality, just the latest little chip of antagonism from a wind-up merchant or a troll.

Trolls should not be entertained. I'm sure you, as a former mod yourself, could agree with that.

Also, without trying to be a Dick myself...

I don't see anything about you denying you attacked this poster, just reasons why you think they are fair game.

Do you acknowledge that you did attack them and that this is wrong or do you think it's acceptable because, in your mind at least, the poster is being an annoying Dick?

02-01-2018 08:45PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Also, without trying to be a Dick myself...

I don't see anything about you denying you attacked this poster, just reasons why you think they are fair game.

Do you acknowledge that you did attack them and that this is wrong or do you think it's acceptable because, in your mind at least, the poster is being an annoying Dick?

It's this back and forth stuff that drives a thread in to the ground. Why can't people just move on?

Insect Overlord · 02-01-2018 08:54PM

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't see anything about you denying you attacked this poster, just reasons why you think they are fair game.

I disagree with the use of such emotive language ("abuse", "attack") in relation to something quite obviously tongue-in-cheek. I would suggest that it's also impossible for a community to operate functionally when posters cannot refer to each other directly. This is After Hours, after all, in the Social & Fun category.

KERSPLAT! · 02-01-2018 08:55PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's this back and forth stuff that drives a thread in to the ground. Why can't people just move on?

You understand how discussion works, no? It is back and forth. Posters making points and rebuttals.

GreeBo · 02-01-2018 09:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's this back and forth stuff that drives a thread in to the ground. Why can't people just move on?

Move on to what exactly?

Perhaps a quick "we are done here" and lock the thread so?

That's the darn problem we are all talking about here!

weldoninhio · 02-01-2018 09:07PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's this back and forth stuff that drives a thread in to the ground. Why can't people just move on?

It’s the one rule for some, another rule for others that kills threads.

Chorus_suck · 02-01-2018 09:13PM

This post has been deleted.

weldoninhio · 02-01-2018 09:14PM

Chorus_suck wrote: »

So, let me get this straight ... it’s ok to attack, bully, demean, troll, insult and/or attack another poster as long as it’s “tongue-in-cheek”?

Wow. Just wow.

Straight out of the “Do as I say, not as I do” handbook.

GreeBo · 02-01-2018 09:15PM

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I disagree with the use of such emotive language ("abuse", "attack") in relation to something quite obviously tongue-in-cheek. I would suggest that it's also impossible for a community to operate functionally when posters cannot refer to each other directly. This is After Hours, after all, in the Social & Fun category.

Fine.
Did you play the ball or the man?

Labelling it tongue in cheek after your previous post where you basically call that same poster a troll or WUM is just disingenuous. Are you and that poster great mates who joke with each other frequently?

Of course you can refer to someone directly, but along with "don't be a Dick", attacking the points in the post and not the person behind the post is or at least was a foundation of this site.

02-01-2018 09:16PM

Move on from;

Person A "You attacked me the poster not the post"
Person B "No I didn't"
Person A "Yes you did"
Person B "No I didn't"

And on we go around in circles.

Chorus_suck · 02-01-2018 09:16PM

This post has been deleted.

Arghus · 02-01-2018 09:19PM

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

You understand how discussion works, no? It is back and forth. Posters making points and rebuttals.

Internet discussion a lot of the time - "allow me to argue you down, to the point of splitting hairs."

Thankfully most of the ones I have in real-life aren't quite as attritional.

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

Comments

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