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

Radio Forum Feedback thread

Nody

Hello everyone,

We're launching this not only based on the rumbling in the Ray Darcy thread but it's been in the plans for a while now. This feedback thread is for us mods to get your feedback on what you'd like to see changed, see us continue doing and what may need to stop. Before you get to excited note that there are several restrictions in play that no matter how many people ask for will not change how things are done; these are based on boards policy and legal realities. For example no matter how many people wants it you'll never be allowed to name attack other users, call out presenters as paedophiles, so ugly their mothers would never kiss them etc. to name a few of the more common breaches of the rules today.

Having said that we specifically want feedback on the charter and what you'd like to see; we find the current charter being a tad cumbersome (for example the automatic 1 day ban for "Hi Presenter") and could most likely be simplified for example. However your feedback can cover other areas as well; for example mod warnings on thread, leaving up or deleting carded posts (note some posts will always be deleted due to the legal/boards limitations) etc.

Now to make it simple here's a few basic points to keep in mind:

This is not DRP - Hence if you post "My yellow card from 2001 is unfair" we'll simply ignore your post and move on. Argue what got you banned and why it should be removed / changed and not your specific card.
This is a feedback thread; that means we want things we can actually work with. Posting "All mods suck donkey balls" is feedback but we sort of have difficulty translating that into action; should we suck horse balls instead or simply stop sucking balls all together? Hence be specific in what type of change you're looking for.
If you like the general idea of what someone else posted please thank that post; it helps us with a rough gauge on what people like/don't like for prioritization.
Note the only Mod moderating this thread will be Me (with exception for the extreme posts that needs to be handled directly); that means any posts by the rest of the Mod team are to be considered as a normal Radio user's feedback and not as Mod of Radio feedback.
If you can't play nicely on this thread I will first warn you, then thread ban you and then give you a lengthy Radio forum ban instead if you ignore that; this is your only warning as we want feedback instead of another pissing contest on our hands.
There will be feedback you disagree with; you're welcome to argue why you disagree but argue the feedback and not the user.
Under no circumstances should feedback involve individual posters (yes, we know some people have problem with certain posters).

Preliminary we're looking at a ~2 week run before we lock this thread; this may be extended further if the debates/feedback is still ongoing. After that we'll take it away and try to translate your feedback into actionable points within the above mentioned limitations that are in line what we can do (i.e. if someone wants mods to fact check a thread or be there to moderate it live it's feedback but we can't commit to it). What we can promise upfront is that we will not be able to act on all your feedback (due to contradicting feedback, boards & legal limitations etc.) but that we'll do our best to translate as much of it into action points. We know some people will be disappointed that "their" specific feedback was not actioned on but the idea is not to try to fix everything in one go. We'll take the biggest changes, implement them, run them for 6 months to a year and then do a new feedback review etc.

And with that let the feedback begin.

Find more posts tagged with

radio

mods

feedback thread

Quick Links

Comments

limnam

I'm surprised to see this thread actually.

Mostly a lurker on the forum itself. But for the most part the forum seems to run with little to no fuss.

Great moderation and some great posters.

wnolan1992

My feedback is from both a moderator and a user perspective.

I think the 1-day ban for "Hi Presenter" needs to be removed. From a user perspective, it's an overly harsh punishment and from a moderator perspective it's counter-intuitive to what we're trying to achieve by having that rule in place.

The purpose of the role is to try and elevate discussions and to stop people who come to threads with contrary opinions to the regulars from being immediately attacked as "Oh, you must be one of the show team!". That sort of posting is very off putting to new users, makes the forum toxic and further reinforces this idea that only negative posts about shows are welcome.

However, I think a policy of auto 1-day banning people who fall foul of it is equally as off-putting. I think it comes across as overly draconian and maybe gives the impression that mods don't want the forum to be fun. Which isn't the case.

Personally, I'm for removing the ban aspect, and just have it revert to the standard Yellow Card -> Red Card -> Ban progression.

Skid X

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I think the 1-day ban for "Hi Presenter" needs to be removed. From a user perspective, it's an overly harsh punishment and from a moderator perspective it's counter-intuitive to what we're trying to achieve by having that rule in place.

The purpose of the role is to try and elevate discussions and to stop people who come to threads with contrary opinions to the regulars from being immediately attacked as "Oh, you must be one of the show team!". That sort of posting is very off putting to new users, makes the forum toxic and further reinforces this idea that only negative posts about shows are welcome.

However, I think a policy of auto 1-day banning people who fall foul of it is equally as off-putting. I think it comes across as overly draconian and maybe gives the impression that mods don't want the forum to be fun. Which isn't the case.

Personally, I'm for removing the ban aspect, and just have it revert to the standard Yellow Card -> Red Card -> Ban progression.

I agree with that.

I can see why you need some kind of sanction - people coming in to defend a presenter should be able to do so without being accused of being that presenter (or someone connected to them or their show)

But the current automatic ban is over the top (and ties the hands of Mods where some discretion would be preferable). Nobody should be getting banned for this unless they are doing it repeatedly.

Even a Yellow Card isn't necessarily always warranted IMO, a thread warning might be sufficient.

Owryan

The forum seems to be modded well. Most of the threads seem to be about bashing that show/presenter, but most of it is done in a humorous matter.

The only issue I've ever come across was a new poster, coming in, starting a bunch of threads about rte and then shutting down their account very quickly. Always seemed suspicious to me.

But, to the mods, keep up the good work.

tsue921i8wljb3

A horrible forum that seems to be fuelled by bile alone. Abuse of presenters is tolerated in many threads, Joe Duffy being the prime example. Lots of the more reasonable voices seem to have deserted the forum leaving the perpetually outraged who display masochistic tendencies in their avoidance of the off button.

It seems like my opinion may be in the minority though so let them at it. I won't be partaking though.

SEPT 23 1989

If it ain't broke don't fix it

Brendan Bendar

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If it ain't broke don't fix it

Agree with that sentiment,personally I like to be objective but feel that presenters in the public eye should be criticised where people see fit.

I feel the Radio thread is very well run and wouldn't make any major changes.

I think by and large everybody plays ball and that is the reason there aren't too many 'casualties' amongst the most prolific posters.

ballsymchugh

agree with wnolan above, the 'hi presenter' messages are usually funny.

the eh... newer mods are doing fine. previously there was a lot of differing opinions and made the place a bit shyte. take the old newstalk megathread that was closed by one mod, before a new one was opened by another.
it's better when you actually recognise the mods from their usual posts, instead of getting a card out of the blue from someone you've never seen before. should mods not be encouraged to post regularly, or pass the baton on to someone who does?

Brendan Bendar

ballsymchugh wrote: »

agree with wnolan above, the 'hi presenter' messages are usually funny.

the eh... newer mods are doing fine. previously there was a lot of differing opinions and made the place a bit shyte. take the old newstalk megathread that was closed by one mod, before a new one was opened by another.
it's better when you actually recognise the mods from their usual posts, instead of getting a card out of the blue from someone you've never seen before. should mods not be encouraged to post regularly, or pass the baton on to someone who does?

That’s one thing I wouldn’t encourage ballsy,now absolutely no probs with the radio mods whatsoever, but, and I have seen it,a mod who might be new and who might have some agenda to push,as we all might have on some issues, could, and I emphasize, could, be a problem.

If you want to take a very active part in a forum, may I suggest you don’t mod it.

I have seen it and it usually doesn’t end up well.

Just my opinion though.

Nody

ballsymchugh wrote: »

agree with wnolan above, the 'hi presenter' messages are usually funny.

the eh... newer mods are doing fine. previously there was a lot of differing opinions and made the place a bit shyte. take the old newstalk megathread that was closed by one mod, before a new one was opened by another.
it's better when you actually recognise the mods from their usual posts, instead of getting a card out of the blue from someone you've never seen before. should mods not be encouraged to post regularly, or pass the baton on to someone who does?

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

That’s one thing I wouldn’t encourage ballsy,now absolutely no probs with the radio mods whatsoever, but, and I have seen it,a mod who might be new and who might have some agenda to push,as we all might have on some issues, could, and I emphasize, could, be a problem.

If you want to take a very active part in a forum, may I suggest you don’t mod it.

I have seen it and it usually doesn’t end up well.

Just my opinion though.

Only going to comment on this from a Mod and CMod perspective; this is a debate that's as old as Boards basically. On the one hand you want people who knows the forum and care about it obviously but on the other they are to be neutral when modding (which is bloody difficult!). As mods are humans that is by definition asking for the impossible and there are always going to be some bias one way or the other. In the end the selection comes down to finding the right person, ideally from the forum, but if not possible (or if wanting to change a direction/tone/guidance) another Mod may be sought out instead. For example boards would never give a forum 3 brand new mods and ask them to go at it but would look to add an experienced mod to support them while they get settled in. Mods are also expected to be relatively neutral but one reason we want multiple mods is to allow thoughts to be bounced around and allow a mod to take a step back if they think they might be biased to let their fellow mods deal with it. Not claiming that's how it always plays out but that's the overall general direction and thought of it all and yes mods are allowed to post in a thread and mod it as well (but if they think they might be biased due to it they are recommended to ask a fellow mod to deal with it to avoid potential bias).

This is not to say one way or the other but simply to provide a bit of mod information to how the overall process looks like to enable further feedback.

Brendan Bendar

Nody wrote: »

Only going to comment on this from a Mod and CMod perspective; this is a debate that's as old as Boards basically. On the one hand you want people who knows the forum and care about it obviously but on the other they are to be neutral when modding (which is bloody difficult!). As mods are humans that is by definition asking for the impossible and there are always going to be some bias one way or the other. In the end the selection comes down to finding the right person, ideally from the forum, but if not possible (or if wanting to change a direction/tone/guidance) another Mod may be sought out instead. For example boards would never give a forum 3 brand new mods and ask them to go at it but would look to add an experienced mod to support them while they get settled in. Mods are also expected to be relatively neutral but one reason we want multiple mods is to allow thoughts to be bounced around and allow a mod to take a step back if they think they might be biased to let their fellow mods deal with it. Not claiming that's how it always plays out but that's the overall general direction and thought of it all and yes mods are allowed to post in a thread and mod it as well (but if they think they might be biased due to it they are recommended to ask a fellow mod to deal with it to avoid potential bias).

This is not to say one way or the other but simply to provide a bit of mod information to how the overall process looks like to enable further feedback.

Indeed Nody, indeed, however be that as it may, when one takes the field as a referee it behoves one to be totally neutral, likewise a broadcaster ,whatever you personal views you have have to be suppressed.

Difficult but that’s the choice a mod has to make.

I have seen a forum ruined by a mod who got too involved, was too biased, too opinionated-all fine if you are an ordinary poster, but in my opinion out of bounds for a mod.

That forum eventually had to be closed down and re worked as the moderation just fell apart due to this.

I’m sure you can guess what I am referring to.

Great that this kind of stuff seems to have been pushed out of Boards.ie and I for one commend the moderation and time given to make the site enjoyable and user friendly.

Nody

Thank you to all who participated or read the thread; in essence most people seem to be relatively happy and there does not appear to be any drastic change in modding on the table for now. The "Hi Presenter" rule will be changed; expect a slightly updated charter to that effect to come soon(tm). And with that I'll close the feedback thread for now; I'll leave it up for another week or so for people to get a chance to read it before I'll unstick it and let it sink away until next time.

dxhound2005

On the Liveline threads Joe Duffy is regularly referred to as Fateen. Is this OK?

https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?thread=2057846596&sort=best&date_to=&date_from=&query=fateen&page=1

Faugheen

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If it ain't broke don't fix it

Agree with that sentiment,personally I like to be objective but feel that presenters in the public eye should be criticised where people see fit.

I feel the Radio thread is very well run and wouldn't make any major changes.

I think by and large everybody plays ball and that is the reason there aren't too many 'casualties' amongst the most prolific posters.

It's all well and good criticising presenters, but some of the name-calling that is aimed towards them is completely unnecessary and needs to be stamped out.

hullaballoo

The rule against presenter abuse is enforced by mods as best they can. Name-calling is explicitly not allowed and cards and bans are given for it all the time. Occasionally, posts are missed, which is why it's important (to the mods) that posts breaking the rules are reported.

On the other hand, robust criticism is allowed on the forum. Provided it's not abusive (or defamatory), there's no problem with speaking your mind.