Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Moderation of boards as a whole.

  • #1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,024 ✭✭✭ Miike


    Before I start, I think I should preface this with the purpose I'm hoping this thread serves - A somewhat healthy discussion on moderation actions on threads that is seen across every forum on boards.ie. Noting that I am not going to seek out every thread that is subject to the conditions I highlight in this thread, I'm sure there are plenty of examples, both good and bad.

    Anyway, at what point does moderator action serve no real purpose other than to stifle or stop discussions on a discussion forum? I understand that threads going wildly off-topic is a thing and that sometimes some posters will make facetious, fallacious or just out right inaccurate claims in posts but instead of highlighting this and allowing open discussions on the posts - the threads end up locked. If threads serve to simply have a question answered and are locked when a moderator just deems it so, I feel as though it seriously hampers healthy discussions on the topic or peripheral ideas on the general topic being discussed. Conversation has a flow and often veers off-topic but is that not just natural? That people want tie other ideas together as part of the complex nature of discussion?

    I've seen this happen on countless threads over the years but generally it hasn't bothered me but the more I scratch beneath the surface of my observations, the less I feel enthused to engage on boards.

    Example thread (non-specific, but for the purpose of discussion): https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057984207&page=9

    I feel as though the above thread thread was of actual interest in hearing how other people would respond to or react to this situation but it's now just locked... 'because'.

    I sincerely hope there's a chance that people will want to discuss this as it seems 'over moderation' is often met with stone wall, brutish reactions in the appeals sections.

    Any thoughts?


«13456710

Comments



  • Miike wrote: »
    Any thoughts?

    After a week of radio silence from Boards, I guess not.




  • Thinking that the possibility of saying anything negative about mods on this forum could have one ended up banned

    Might explain the lack of input and replies !!




  • oholly121 wrote: »
    Thinking that the possibility of saying anything negative about mods on this forum could have one ended up banned

    I would sincerely hope not. I don't think there's need to target a specific mod or anything but just to have a plain and simple discussion on moderation rationale, which to be fair should stand up to logical scrutiny.


  • Boards.ie Employee


    Hi Miike,

    In this instance, from my reading, the OP asked for advice (rather than discussion) and got plenty of insight from users. The thread veered off topic as a Moderator warned and it was later locked by a different Mod with a specific and clear message that "the OP has gotten sufficient advice on how to deal with the situation they find themselves in". They also left it possible for the thread to be reopened if the OP wanted to hear anymore or was interested in a more general discussion.

    Generally speaking, Moderators do try to leave threads run and have taken previous feedback on board in relation to this. Sometimes, it's best to contact Mods individually when there are specific instances to get their take and to try to come to an understanding.




  • Most mods seem fine but a select few are truly awful.

    Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."



  • Advertisement


  • After Hours is a joke. Barely a **** given. There is a person posting "scum" over and over just to wind people up. It's surely a given that that nonsense is nipped in the bud, but nah...

    Threads get locked and moved for no reason all right though.

    Another "new" person whose username is (a misspelling of) that of the actor who played Charles Ingalls in Little House On The Prairie, and there's another account which is... Charles Ingles. Same avatar, same trolling... yet both still here. One account only I thought?

    And as for the woman hating... pity to see a poster Kiki Larue close her account because of it.


  • Boards.ie Community Manager


    That user has received a forum ban from AH for those posts (for the 'scum' comments). I'll have a look at the other accounts now.




  • After Hours is a joke. Barely a **** given. There is a person posting "scum" over and over just to wind people up. It's surely a given that that nonsense is nipped in the bud, but nah...

    Threads get locked and moved for no reason all right though.

    Another "new" person whose username is (a misspelling of) that of the actor who played Charles Ingalls in Little House On The Prairie, and there's another account which is... Charles Ingles. Same avatar, same trolling... yet both still here. One account only I thought?

    And as for the woman hating... pity to see a poster Kiki Larue close her account because of it.

    I know. There’s a post still up in a thread in AH that is openly attacking the poster and not the post. In a really hyperbolic way. It’s impossible to miss. There is no ambiguity. And it has not been infracted or anything. Nothing. I’m not going to post a link to it here or anything (don’t think that’s permitted and I’d probably receive a warning or infraction fairly sharpish. :rolleyes:) but I’ve reported it three times. The first two times, I just said “Attacking the post and not the poster”. The last report was along the lines of “Lads, seriously”.

    Loud and clear, I guess, that it will not be subject to an infraction but then what are the charter guidelines for?

    I get the impression that the AH mods are overwhelmed. There is probably not enough hours in the day. That’s the only explanation I can think of for a blatantly insulting post going uninfracted or being otherwise not dealt with. But all solutions got summarily dismissed in the AH feedback thread. As Kiki pithily put it, there was a problem for every solution. I do admit that I’m finding it all quite fascinating at this point.




  • CMods and Admin really need to be stepping in in AH. I know they all have their own stuff to deal with but AH is being left to run like a circus because there’s simply too much for the mods there to deal with.

    For example, there’s still loads of posts about the complainant in the Belfast rape trial falsely accused them because they were found not guilty. That’s plain wrong.

    I’m all for opinions, but people shouldn’t be allowed to make up their own facts like above and leave boards open to a libel suit.

    The reason is because there’s so many threads that are complete fungal infections that need to be cleaned up.

    There’s no basis for people getting warned/infracted for posting fake news and alternative facts. They’re just allowed to under the premise of ‘views’.




  • Faugheen wrote: »
    CMods and Admin really need to be stepping in in AH. I know they all have their own stuff to deal with but AH is being left to run like a circus because there’s simply too much for the mods there to deal with.

    For example, there’s still loads of posts about the complainant in the Belfast rape trial falsely accused them because they were found not guilty. That’s plain wrong.

    I’m all for opinions, but people shouldn’t be allowed to make up their own facts like above and leave boards open to a libel suit.

    if there is anything that would leave boards open to a case, it would already be removed. i believe such matters are prioritised in terms of mod/cmod/admin action?
    Faugheen wrote: »
    The reason is because there’s so many threads that are complete fungal infections that need to be cleaned up.

    or it's because there isn't a lot there that does actually need mod action, rather people don't agree or like what is being said and want the mods to get rid of it, which is perfectly fine, but not liking something doesn't automatically make it against the rules.
    there is no reason the community can't deal with the idiots and debunk them so that the mods can actually moderate. that was how this forum operated.
    there are 10 mods with apparently a couple of more coming so there is plenty available if there is a serious problem. but the userbase are going to have to step up to the plate as well.
    Faugheen wrote: »
    There’s no basis for people getting warned/infracted for posting fake news and alternative facts. They’re just allowed to under the premise of ‘views’.

    the community can deal with that and other issues perfectly well. or at least we used to be able to do so.


  • Advertisement


  • I know. There’s a post still up in a thread in AH that is openly attacking the poster and not the post. In a really hyperbolic way. It’s impossible to miss. There is no ambiguity. And it has not been infracted or anything. Nothing. I’m not going to post a link to it here or anything (don’t think that’s permitted and I’d probably receive a warning or infraction fairly sharpish. :rolleyes:) but I’ve reported it three times. The first two times, I just said “Attacking the post and not the poster”. The last report was along the lines of “Lads, seriously”.

    Loud and clear, I guess, that it will not be subject to an infraction but then what are the charter guidelines for?

    I get the impression that the AH mods are overwhelmed. There is probably not enough hours in the day. That’s the only explanation I can think of for a blatantly insulting post going uninfracted or being otherwise not dealt with. But all solutions got summarily dismissed in the AH feedback thread. As Kiki pithily put it, there was a problem for every solution. I do admit that I’m finding it all quite fascinating at this point.

    theres a couple dozen posts matching this description

    be some squeals if the mods actioned them all





  • I get the impression that the AH mods are overwhelmed. There is probably not enough hours in the day. That’s the only explanation I can think of for a blatantly insulting post going uninfracted or being otherwise not dealt with. But all solutions got summarily dismissed in the AH feedback thread. As Kiki pithily put it, there was a problem for every solution. I do admit that I’m finding it all quite fascinating at this point.
    I've just had a look at the post you reported and would note the poster was permanently banned from AH later that day

    I appreciate there was no note left to that effect, but the mods did act based on a number of reports including your own




  • After Hours is a joke. Barely a **** given. There is a person posting "scum" over and over just to wind people up. It's surely a given that that nonsense is nipped in the bud, but nah...

    Threads get locked and moved for no reason all right though.

    Another "new" person whose username is (a misspelling of) that of the actor who played Charles Ingalls in Little House On The Prairie, and there's another account which is... Charles Ingles. Same avatar, same trolling... yet both still here. One account only I thought?

    And as for the woman hating... pity to see a poster Kiki Larue close her account because of it.

    Kiki Larue gone? Good luck to her, off to bang her man hating drum elsewhere. I thought she was a wind up.




  • Hoboo wrote: »
    Kiki Larue gone? Good luck to her, off to bang her man hating drum elsewhere. I thought she was a wind up.

    The Boards Terms of Use state that you must not “treat others with disrespect”.

    This is the feedback forum, please try to give relevant Feedback rather than get in pot shots at posters who have closed their accounts.




  • That user has received a forum ban from AH for those posts (for the 'scum' comments). I'll have a look at the other accounts now.
    Apologies Niamh - that took place before my post above.
    Beasty wrote: »
    I've just had a look at the post you reported and would note the poster was permanently banned from AH later that day

    I appreciate there was no note left to that effect, but the mods did act based on a number of reports including your own
    Thanks Beasty. Maybe if it was noted on thread, as these actions are being missed and sometimes it's necessary (in lots of things) to be seen to be doing something.




  • Hoboo wrote: »
    Kiki Larue gone? Good luck to her, off to bang her man hating drum elsewhere. I thought she was a wind up.
    To me she just seemed to be complaining about hostility towards women rather than being hostile to men. You can have one without the other.

    Two fathers' day threads were started, not to celebrate fathers but to have a go at women. That's how some of the posters are, and it's what Kiki meant. Looks like actioning occurred re a fathers' day thread anyway - fair play.




  • To me she just seemed to be complaining about hostility towards women rather than being hostile to men. You can have one without the other.

    Two fathers' day threads were started, not to celebrate fathers but to have a go at women. That's how some of the posters are, and it's what Kiki meant. Looks like actioning occurred re a fathers' day thread anyway - fair play.

    Aye, she was vocal but articulate. Her posts made a lot of sense to me!




  • dudara wrote: »
    The Boards Terms of Use state that you must not “treat others with disrespect”.

    This is the feedback forum, please try to give relevant Feedback rather than get in pot shots at posters who have closed their accounts.

    The hypocrisy of some mods is the problem. I see it in the most engaging threads on this forum(AH). Even the rules are gendered in nature, "Don't be a dick", what is the female equivalent of this? Would it be bad to call someone this word?

    As another poster alluded to, the infractions are STILL all there for all to see, go back over any popular thread and you can see. Seeing what is banned and what is left up reveals massive political bias.

    I've had shots leveled at me in this thread as well, no one was jumping to my defence like you were with kiklarue(No mods anyway). I posted in my feedback thread about KiKilaRue, because she decided to post there about me first.

    Its understandable if some people close their accounts, because they're not getting what they want, but what about those whose opinions are being stifled?




  • Beasty wrote: »
    I've just had a look at the post you reported and would note the poster was permanently banned from AH later that day

    I appreciate there was no note left to that effect, but the mods did act based on a number of reports including your own

    There should be some kind of note, just so we know we’re not reporting in vain. The times I checked, the poster hadn’t been banned even. That must have happened afterwards but I’d stopped checking by then.




  • Kimsang wrote: »
    The hypocrisy of some mods is the problem. I see it in the most engaging threads on this forum(AH). Even the rules are gendered in nature, "Don't be a dick", what is the female equivalent of this? Would it be bad to call someone this word?

    As another poster alluded to, the infractions are STILL all there for all to see, go back over any popular thread and you can see. Seeing what is banned and what is left up reveals massive political bias.

    I've had shots leveled at me in this thread as well, no one was jumping to my defence like you were with kiklarue(No mods anyway). I posted in my feedback thread about KiKilaRue, because she decided to post there about me first.

    Its understandable if some people close their accounts, because they're not getting what they want, but what about those whose opinions are being stifled?

    Yeah, infractions always remain next to a post. That’s always been the way. I’m glad they do, it saves people from wondering if an egregious post was ever actioned.

    I’ve been infracted myself. You just have to accept that if you’re infracted, that card will remain next to the post.


  • Advertisement


  • Yeah, infractions always remain next to a post. .


    I mean infractions that have been made, that haven't been identified by moderators or have been ignored.
    Seeing what is banned and what is left up reveals massive political bias.




  • Yeah, infractions always remain next to a post. That’s always been the way. I’m glad they do, it saves people from wondering if an egregious post was ever actioned.

    I’ve been infracted myself. You just have to accept that if you’re infracted, that card will remain next to the post.

    Not always the case, you can be infracted, and the post can subsequently be deleted.




  • Kimsang wrote: »
    I mean infractions that have been made, that haven't been identified by moderators or have been ignored.

    I have no idea what this means.
    Not always the case, you can be infracted, and the post can subsequently be deleted.

    Well of course if the post is deleted, the infraction card goes with it. I meant posts that are infracted and aren’t deleted. I didn’t think I’d have to specify that.




  • I have no idea what this means.

    I mean to say some people commit offences, crimes, infractions, misdemeanours or whatever you'd like to call them, that are not deemed as such by moderators. There is bias in the policing.

    If two people are fighting, and an arbiter arrives to settle the dispute, but only punishes one person. Both parties have made an infraction, but only one party's infraction has been punished.




  • Kimsang wrote: »
    I mean to say some people commit offences, crimes, infractions, misdemeanours or whatever you'd like to call them, that are not deemed as such by moderators. There is bias in the policing.

    If two people are fighting, and an arbiter arrives to settle the dispute, but only punishes one person. Both parties have made an infraction, but only one party's infraction has been punished.

    Not necessarily. Two people can be arguing but only one might cross the line into personal attacks or whatever else gets one over the line. Just because there is back-and-forth between two users, doesn’t mean they’re as bad as each other.




  • Genuine question, is blatant trolling a breach of the site rules??? Or is it only a problem if they're a re-reg and have been banned for it previously?

    Thanks.




  • The ToU don’t explicitly definite trolling, but it does ask people not to...
    post irrelevant Material, repeatedly post the same or similar Material or otherwise impose an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the boards.ie servers or infrastructure

    IMO, and when combined with other aspects of the ToU, this constitutes trolling.




  • Not necessarily. Two people can be arguing but only one might cross the line into personal attacks or whatever else gets one over the line. Just because there is back-and-forth between two users, doesn’t mean they’re as bad as each other.

    I don't believe we're talking in generalities here

    infractions and warnings are following politicised lines in my experience

    in many peoples experience, i think

    opinions are being moderated and if you are on the right side of an issue you appear to have licence to attack man not post again and again across multiple threads

    if you are the wrong side of an issue you get zero leeway (and we have all seen dispute threads where its clear enough from the offence that a mod was waiting to pounce)

    and thats just the infractions people appeal and bring public, and honestly why would you bother?

    report the post. see zero effect. see the same type of behaviour from posters on the other side of the debate get actioned in the meantime.

    see the posters who get away with constant breaches untouched screaming that after hours is a cesspit and how horrible everyone else is.

    its a problem, and i mean i try to be an upbeat type of chap who gives the mods the benefit of the doubt in whats a tough job.




  • Dial Hard wrote: »
    Genuine question, is blatant trolling a breach of the site rules??? Or is it only a problem if they're a re-reg and have been banned for it previously?

    Thanks.

    The fundamental problem is that trolling is virtually indistinguishable from idiocy, and we don't have any rules against being an idiot. A further problem is that many of these people are both at once.

    So at times, it's a judgement call. Innocuous idiocy could potentially be mitigated by a few mod notes, warnings and/or infractions, insofar as the person involved would then be aware that their posting style was not in line with board rules and could act to avoid future warnings, whereas trolls will deliberately continue with the same obnoxious behaviour.

    TL;DR:
    Sometimes the banhammer is needed, and sometimes the best course of action is to hand out a rope and see how good they are at noose-tying.


  • Advertisement


  • I would just add that sometimes it may be appropriate to warn either in-thread or via PM that if a poster continues in a particular vein they may be banned. Then if and when the ban hammer does come down they really have little excuse

    In cases of blatant trolling though it's easier to warn/infract/ban without having given any advance warning


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement