Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Moderation of boards as a whole.

2456

Comments

  • #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    fair enough!


  • #53
    Tokyo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,655 ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    Kimsang wrote: »
    I appreciate that you will speak to the mod team about this in the future. That's all I ever wanted. But something still doesn't sit right with me.

    It seems you have taken two stances here, one that the moderators have indeed stopped a heated ideological debate.

    The other that it was in fact "posters not arguing in good faith" who are 'ridiculously stupid' and 'how could any reasonable person agree with them'

    Now it was either an heated ideological discussion with people arguing in good faith, or not. Which was it? Lets specifically talk about what I posted. What I posted about Nobelium and I, was this arguing in good faith? Was this 'ridiculously stupid' and would 'every reasonable person disagree with us'? (<edit> because my comments after nobeliums banning received a bit of thanks from very reasonable people </edit>)

    Okay, I'm not going to continue debating the intent of another poster's posts beyond this (that's what DRP is for), but I have read the exchange in question, and here's how it boiled down to me:

    Posters in thread: Some useful discussion, some pointless whataboutery.
    Nobelium: Pointless whataboutery.
    Posters in thread: Stop the pointless whataboutery, everyone, or take it elsewhere.
    Nobelium: Pointless whataboutery.
    Skylinehead [modding]: Lets move it along. Back up your pointless whataboutery, or let it go.
    Nobelium: nuh uh. More pointless whataboutery
    Skylinehead [modding]: Okie dokie then.
    Nobelium: Help, I'm being oppressed!!

    Now, also bear in mind that this had been their sole response to any discussion of this topic, which went on for about half a day from what I can see. But that aside, if a poster has a genuine perspective from people outside of the "mainstream" feedback loops that's fine. However, it's worth considering that when your world view is outside of the mainstream, when you offer your views you're going to need to provide us with something more than just you saying it. Try providing us with cites for these unorthodox views that are being posted.

    Now, I didn't mod the thread, and am just reading through it now, so this is my personal opinion as a poster on this site (which I'm sure will be jumped on as an example of bias), it was clear he wasn’t interested in meaningful participation, so we're gone well beyond ideological discussion, and well into the realm of deliberate provocation designed for maximum impact with minimum effort. In other words, ****posting - "posts that are meant to be awkward and irrelevant, aggravating and distracting social media communities from discussing their topic at hand".

    In the ideal world, posters wouldn't get caught up in trying to debate said posts ad infinitum. In the real world however, ideals of 'heated ideological debate' or no, a mod sometimes needs to step in and try and kick the conversation out of this endless feedback loop. Which the mod did in this case. And I believe it was the right call to make.

    I'm calling an end to the discussion on that particular incident - if the poster themselves wants to discuss it, he or she can do so in DRP. But I will sum up with this. Mods and admin don't always get it right, sure. But sometimes, just sometimes, that thumping sound posters hear is not heavy mod jackboots coming down the hall to kick their door in, it's the countless other Boards posters banging their heads against the wall that they wasted their time arguing with them.


  • #54
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    Well, it's not the answer I wanted, but it is very telling. Thank you for taking time in this matter. Personally I think that the collective should have to work harder to make their arguments rather than just mass reporting to authority.


  • #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    respecting your decision that we shouldnt discuss that specific incident any further, the modding on that thread is a fairly clear example of a controversial topic causing heated debate without reaching a consensus (spinning into further heat, tbh)

    presumably because of the number of posts reported, mods felt action was warranted

    the action was to identify the minority view and moderate it as stringently as possible, finding breaches where possible and (from what *can be seen as a user*) ignoring other clear examples from the majority of precisely the same (frankly, worse) behaviour.

    whether its prompted by the balance of reports or from a decision from an individual or group of moderators is little or no difference, the effect is the same.

    minority argument, while behaving the same as the majority, is moderated differently in order to maintain the mod workload or minimise disagreement

    i resent having to say it but i see the value and requirement for explicitly doing so- this minority opinion is not necessarily the type of (genuine) hatespeech that should be actionable. its disagreeing on terms and definitions very relevant to the discussions on emergent topics of important social interest.

    that thread is a very useful case in point which is why the conversation was frenetic and why a person with an opinion either way would see the other side as merely involved in whataboutery (or a rush to summary judgement in what is always going to be a subjective matter). a mod(s) who is minded to treat one entite side of this kind of tedious but sincere conversation as being in the wrong is, i suggest, modding badly.

    not for me to say thats a bad way to run a message board. it depends on the type of message board you want, really.


  • #56
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    Deleted User wrote: »
    minority argument, while behaving the same as the majority, is moderated differently in order to maintain the mod workload or minimise disagreement

    i resent having to say it but i see the value and requirement for explicitly doing so- this minority opinion is not necessarily the type of (genuine) hatespeech that should be actionable. its disagreeing on terms and definitions very relevant to the discussions on emergent topics of important social interest.

    I would honestly say boards is just reflecting society in this respect. Society hasn't always been this way. Its a scary time.


  • #57
    Tokyo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,655 ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    respecting your decision that we shouldnt discuss that specific incident any further, the modding on that thread is a fairly clear example of a controversial topic causing heated debate without reaching a consensus (spinning into further heat, tbh)

    presumably because of the number of posts reported, mods felt action was warranted

    the action was to identify the minority view and moderate it as stringently as possible, finding breaches where possible and (from what *can be seen as a user*) ignoring other clear examples from the majority of precisely the same (frankly, worse) behaviour.

    whether its prompted by the balance of reports or from a decision from an individual or group of moderators is little or no difference, the effect is the same.

    minority argument, while behaving the same as the majority, is moderated differently in order to maintain the mod workload or minimise disagreement

    i resent having to say it but i see the value and requirement for explicitly doing so- this minority opinion is not necessarily the type of (genuine) hatespeech that should be actionable. its disagreeing on terms and definitions very relevant to the discussions on emergent topics of important social interest.

    that thread is a very useful case in point which is why the conversation was frenetic and why a person with an opinion either way would see the other side as merely involved in whataboutery (or a rush to summary judgement in what is always going to be a subjective matter). a mod(s) who is minded to treat one entite side of this kind of tedious but sincere conversation as being in the wrong is, i suggest, modding badly.

    not for me to say thats a bad way to run a message board. it depends on the type of message board you want, really.


    I think there is merit to what you say, though I don't believe to the extent you describe the situation.

    Unpopular opinions are, by definition, unpopular. Therefore, posters who express unpopular opinions get called out at a much higher rate than those whose opinions are popular. And it's quite probable that posts of that nature generate more reported posts - it's simple maths - there are more people of the opposing opinion to report them.

    What I don't agree with though, is that (a) mod simply react to the number of reported posts on a particular post, or (b) the constantly thrown out accusation of mods using (abusing) their position to steer a thread towards a particular point of view. I know I have the luxury of having a broader viewpoint (access to reported posts, mod and CMod forums, posters histories etc.) as admin, but what I see is discussion for both points of view behind the scenes, and mods trying to get the discussion back on track toward being a discussion, and not just a series of foot stomps. To the letter of the word, it's steering the debate, yes, but in the sense of trying to improve it and I think that's a fair use of the mod hat.

    There is the plain reality that posters 'throwing out one-liners and [not] actually participating' (on both sides) is exceptionally common. You and I both would like a world where everyone is rational and well researched and post substantively. In real life that doesn't happen here any more than it happens in real life. So what should be done? In many cases, the members themselves do a more than adequate job of exposing weak arguments. But when that is not enough, part of the moderator's role is to step in and keep some forward momentum in the thread.

    This isn't about unpopular ideas. This is about someone coming to a site specifically because they know that their unpopular ideas will cause conflict, and then specifically refraining from doing anything other than ranting in a manner that can reasonably be expected to do nothing but piss off their targets while not providing a scrap of support for their position and flaming their targets. Frankly, I would love to see more intellectual debate and less whataboutery, more reason and less rhetoric. I bet I'm not alone in that.

    But I do take your point, though I would consider it more of a tangential issue than a one of intent. That is that moderation, particularly when it's not straight boards rules stuff, can give one side of a debate undue weight if not done correctly. I'd say that this can be inadvertent though, rather than a mod deliberately trying to sway an argument in their particular favour, and I don't believe it's as regular an occurrence as people seem to think.

    I would ask for mods to read this and just keep it in the backs of their minds though - it never hurts to be reminded of these things from time to time. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that most already do - posts in mod forums asking for a second opinion to ensure objectivity, and other conversations that regular posters don't get to see.


  • #58
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ill digest that mike, but want to acknowledge the considered and courteous reponse as always.


  • #59
    Tokyo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,655 ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    ill digest that mike, but want to acknowledge the considered and courteous reponse as always.

    I appreciate that. I think we are working towards the same goal here, albeit from slightly different perspectives.


  • #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ”mike_ie;110558498&#8221 wrote:
    I think there is merit to what you say, though I don't believe to the extent you describe the situation.


    Unpopular opinions are, by definition, unpopular. Therefore, posters who express unpopular opinions get called out at a much higher rate than those whose opinions are popular. And it's quite probable that posts of that nature generate more reported posts - it's simple maths - there are more people of the opposing opinion to report them.


    What I don't agree with though, is that (a) mod simply react to the number of reported posts on a particular post, or (b) the constantly thrown out accusation of mods using (abusing) their position to steer a thread towards a particular point of view. I know I have the luxury of having a broader viewpoint (access to reported posts, mod and CMod forums, posters histories etc.) as admin, but what I see is discussion for both points of view behind the scenes, and mods trying to get the discussion back on track toward being a discussion, and not just a series of foot stomps. To the letter of the word, it's steering the debate, yes, but in the sense of trying to improve it and I think that's a fair use of the mod hat.


    Taking the above as a start (and apologies if I’ve managed to destroy the quotes) there’s a few things I think worth pointing out:



    - Agreed that the unpopular side of a debate (no ‘right and wrong’ unless clearly over what ought to be fairly defined lines is, I think, our agreed/common aim) will generate through human nature more reports and that mods shouldn’t be swayed by this. But I think there’s a case building to ask that the wider view of modding do keep an eye on this as opposed to reactively defending against it, as it is also human nature for the mods to react to sheer numbers, and I’m phrasing that as passively as I can.



    - I’ve raised a thread on visibility of reported posts and actions, and I think this is of a piece with your point that mods/admin are seeing *and using* a different context that we as posters are permitted/able to in making some calls. I don’t doubt you that mods are doing behind the scenes work on every call, but it’s a black box to users and it’s a point of friction that everyone feels when the action occurs- and never more so than the actions that aren’t taken. If modding occurs in context, then a poster who appeals an infraction should have the same right to bring in the same context to their appeal, and I think (speaking only for myself) that time and again when this is denied it’s the kind of selective hard enforcement of rules that does begin to look exactly like the accusation you note as being constantly thrown out- moderation of views and not behaviours.



    - The mods steering a debate towards discussion cannot but be an imperfect/inconsistent judgement call. When posters feel that it has been imperfectly carried out (in any given debate we all feel there’s a ‘fair way’ for the debate to occur and no two posters will agree, certainly no two sides will at any rate) the above friction surfaces, and it’s not going to stop. I can accept is as a fact of life as a poster and no doubt it’s the mod’s burden in life, but that’s not to say that things are where they need to be to allow a debate that isn’t being modded to a pre-determined wind-down.






    ”mike_ie;110558498&#8221 wrote:
    There is the plain reality that posters 'throwing out one-liners and [not] actually participating' (on both sides) is exceptionally common. You and I both would like a world where everyone is rational and well researched and post substantively. In real life that doesn't happen here any more than it happens in real life. So what should be done? In many cases, the members themselves do a more than adequate job of exposing weak arguments. But when that is not enough, part of the moderator's role is to step in and keep some forward momentum in the thread.



    - I think this is really interesting (yeah look I can’t help how I’m built). I don’t actually want a world/board where every post is rational and well-researched! This is where I’d take it back to my (rapidly building thesis) comparison to the pub or the lecture hall. There are many ways to debate and converse, many levels on which to do so. I think Irish people have an innate/ingrained understanding of this and it’s totally inherent to our culture as a whole. A one-line zing can expose an opposing view in a way that a green paper often cannot. There has to be space- within the one thread- to allow for both and all the other approaches. Many *topics* are worthy of serious consideration while many *elements and viewpoints within those topics* should be open to a robust volley of ridicule, hostility, contempt. Attack the post/argument and not the poster is a very good rule (if applied rigidly and fairly, of course) and it’s enough.



    - The idea that a new current affairs forum means that serious topics must be addressed seriously here has the potential to gut debates of a huge amount of valid (imo utterly necessary) commentary style. In particular, the idea that all serious topics go to this forum and are subject to the new/blossoming rules of debate implied hasn’t, imo, been fully explored just yet. Can a serious topic be discussed non-seriously in AH? Or will it be moved to CA to be discussed in the proper way? I think this is a big question in terms of a new approach.



    - ‘forward momentum’ is not a value-free concept. It implies a desirable pace of progress, it implies a given vector. This is murky enough ground. Some debates reflect reality in that they don’t lead towards consensus, they don’t see a move towards resolution, they certainly don’t lend themselves to posters coolly engaging and shaking hands afterwards. They reflect the current positions and conflicts in our wider society and I don’t know that moderation should see its role as advancing that artificially (even if an end-point could be identified as a goal). Better a monthly thread with the same people genuinely banging heads than a resolution imposed from above!



    - Personally speaking, nothing kills a debate more than the quote marathons we commonly see between three or four very well-established posters (I realise the irony given this current rather dry litany). Nothing keeps a debate going better than concise and zippy posts that hit their mark (even if they might leave a bruise). These are preferences and again I don’t know that we should put a value judgement on style, once a standard is in place covering behaviour.






    ”mike_ie;110558498&#8221 wrote:
    ]This isn't about unpopular ideas. This is about someone coming to a site specifically because they know that their unpopular ideas will cause conflict, and then specifically refraining from doing anything other than ranting in a manner that can reasonably be expected to do nothing but piss off their targets while not providing a scrap of support for their position and flaming their targets. Frankly, I would love to see more intellectual debate and less whataboutery, more reason and less rhetoric. I bet I'm not alone in that.





    - Fully on-board with dealing with trolls. But if you don’t have conflict on a message board- within the moderation framework that supports the community ideals, obviously- then you don’t have a message board (not that I don’t love my information-only forums, like). I think more consideration has to be given to not lumping in any and all minority/unpopular positions with the behaviour described above. Which I think your next point addresses pretty well tbf, but as a poster vs your position as admin/mod I’m not sure the balance is right as things stand.


    ”mike_ie;110558498&#8221 wrote:
    But I do take your point, though I would consider it more of a tangential issue than a one of intent. That is that moderation, particularly when it's not straight boards rules stuff, can give one side of a debate undue weight if not done correctly. I'd say that this can be inadvertent though, rather than a mod deliberately trying to sway an argument in their particular favour, and I don't believe it's as regular an occurrence as people seem to think.

    I would ask for mods to read this and just keep it in the backs of their minds though - it never hurts to be reminded of these things from time to time. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that most already do - posts in mod forums asking for a second opinion to ensure objectivity, and other conversations that regular posters don't get to see.



    - Watch them, Mike. Watch them like hawks.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110598157&postcount=940

    I was surprised to see this post was infracted. Any clarification available?


  • #62
    dudara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    marieholmfan wrote: »
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110598157&postcount=940

    I was surprised to see this post was infracted. Any clarification available?

    The OP has DRP available if they wish to appeal. Otherwise, I suggest you cont at the forum mods for clarification.

    As this is an individual issue, please do not bring up here any more


  • #63
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    dudara wrote: »
    The OP has DRP available if they wish to appeal. Otherwise, I suggest you cont at the forum mods for clarification.

    As this is an individual issue, please do not bring up here any more

    OK.


  • #64
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    I've just had an idea, related to the topic at hand. More of a suggestion, so not sure if this is the right place.

    But it seems that there is a problem for boards admins/mods when they receive so many complaints/reports they feel they must do something.

    However 'the other side' argues that they are using this as a tactic to shut down debate.

    Resolution:

    For people that abuse the report button, lower their reporting privileges, or remove them altogether.
    Moderators/admins can judge who abuses the button, based on reports given by that user, and rate them on a scale or something. This affects the person who reports in the future. Someone who rarely makes a report would have their opinion hold extra weight.

    There used to be a concept that if you falsely accused someone of something there were repercussions.
    Does anyone think this to be a good idea?


  • #65
    dudara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    If someone is abusing the Report Post function, the moderators will often have a quiet word with them, or we will card/ban them if they don’t cop on.

    Fundamentally, I believe everyone has the right to report posts, even if they are reporting for spurious reasons some of the time. If they are becoming a time sink, we will deal with them as above.


  • #66
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    If you were better able to rely on reports as genuine; moderation would become a whole easier. According to twitter; I'd assume the same for boards, they are inundated with 'fake' reports all the time.

    I would venture to guess <1% of reports get acted upon. If this is so, why not introduce measures to make people think before they report?(whatever they may be)

    Or, without going into too much detail, would you argue you act on >1% of reports?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    dudara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    Contentious forums, eg where emotions run high, are the ones with the greatest report rates. Examples would be Soccer and CA. This because posters get caught up in the debate and report other posters with whom they don’t agree. For the most part, posters don’t step back and apply the charter rules logically and impartially.

    Since I’ve started to moderate CA, I do find that the majority of the Reported Posts are not actionable. I estimate that it’s probably in the 80-90% range. However, in the other forums I moderate, I would say that the level of non-actionable posts is much lower. It’s probably the flip opposite, 80-90% are actioned, and 10-20% not actioned.

    So IMO this is not a consistent problem across Boards. It is IMO only in certain forums where posters do not understand the charter or do not apply the charter. Our mod tools do not allow us to link reported posts to actions taken, so I can’t pull statistics to substantiate what my gut instinct is telling me.


  • #68
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    dudara wrote: »
    Contentious forums, eg where emotions run high, are the ones with the greatest report rates. Examples would be Soccer and CA. This because posters get caught up in the debate and report other posters with whom they don’t agree.

    These are the posters I'm suggesting to warn in some way about reporting because they disagree with opinion. I suggest they come mostly from one ideological bent. At least that's what twitter suggests.

    Forums like AH/Politics have excluded a lot of dissenting opinion at this stage, I'm sure levels of reports are lower.

    I understand if you don't have the tools to do this. Was just a suggestion if this could work in some way. Especially for new forums like CA where opinions will be emotionally charged, and the football.


  • #69
    dudara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    Kimsang wrote: »
    These are the posters I'm suggesting to warn in some way about reporting because they disagree with opinion. I suggest they come mostly from one ideological bent. At least that's what twitter suggests.

    To be honest, there’s an even mix. I haven’t really seen a clear bent or bias to reported posts. It varies all the time depending on the topic.
    Forums like AH/Politics have excluded a lot of dissenting opinion at this stage, I'm sure levels of reports are lower.

    AH has calmed down a lot since the creation of CA. Prior to that aH would have generated a fair few reported posts. Politics, I’m not so sure on. It is again a forum with entrenched views, but a strong charter and well established ways of working.
    I understand if you don't have the tools to do this. Was just a suggestion if this could work in some way. Especially for new forums like CA where opinions will be emotionally charged, and the football.

    See, it’s not even not having the tools. I don’t want to censor any one’s right to report a post. Let them report away, as long as they’re not abusing the functionality. As a mod, it is my responsibility to filter through them and take action, in conjunction with my fellow mods.

    If we implemented what you are suggesting, we would be pre-judging and I just don’t think that’s right or fair.


  • #70
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    • If you apply for a loan you are prejudged on whether you have previous credit history.
    • When you testify as a witness, you are prejudged on whether you have lied before.
    • If you report to the guards or emergency services unnecessarily, they will penalize you.


    I get that you don't want to remove people's right to report and I agree with the sentiment. But there should be a penalty for people that abuse the system, and it certainly would also help moderation in the process, and it would also allow for better debate in contentious forums.


  • #71
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    It could be better tbh that's not to bait the plenty of decent mods out there. I have a question though can mods be stripped easily enough due to lack of activity and without going into too much detail what are the main reasons mods do get stripped. There are certain that come in to hand out sanctions or close threads despite the fact I rarely see them posting in a particular thread.

    There are also some mods out there that I've rarely seen carry out actions of being a mod. Also plenty of good posters on here that I think would make brilliant mods better than some of the current mods I hope these posters aren't mods purely out of choice and not because they haven't been asked.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    TheChrisD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,672 ✭✭✭TheChrisD


    oholly121 wrote: »
    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 !!

    That's one of the big problem I have with boards' moderation. Several forums I frequent actively state that you cannot reply or comment on any on-thread mod actions or you yourself will be punished. Seems incredibly hypocritical.

    Not to mention the times I've reported posts and basically gotten replies back laughing at me asking what the hell I was even reporting that for.

    In some ways, it makes the reddit moderation system far better.
    image.png




  • #73
    dudara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    TheChrisD wrote: »
    That's one of the big problem I have with boards' moderation. Several forums I frequent actively state that you cannot reply or comment on any on-thread mod actions or you yourself will be punished. Seems incredibly hypocritical.

    At the risk of being perceived as combative or defensive, let me try to respond to that statement. Replying back to, or debating a mod instruction on thread has been a Boards no-no for a long time. This is to prevent threads getting de-railed with discussion on moderation. Threads should be focused on the topic at hand after all.

    But, and this important, we don’t ban or forbid discussion of mod actions at all. Posters can contact mods m, CMods or Admins directly, or they can open a discussion thread in the Help desk. We are simply asking that they don’t do it in the original thread.


  • #74
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,514 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    TheChrisD wrote: »
    That's one of the big problem I have with boards' moderation. Several forums I frequent actively state that you cannot reply or comment on any on-thread mod actions or you yourself will be punished. Seems incredibly hypocritical.

    Not to mention the times I've reported posts and basically gotten replies back laughing at me asking what the hell I was even reporting that for.

    In some ways, it makes the reddit moderation system far better.

    You have plenty of other avenues to raise issues or make complaints. Why turn a discussion on a relevant topic into a debate about moderation?


  • #75
    Boards.ie: Niamh
    Boards.ie Employee Posts: 12,597 ✭✭✭✭✭Boards.ie: Niamh
    Boards.ie Community Manager


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    It could be better tbh that's not to bait the plenty of decent mods out there. I have a question though can mods be stripped easily enough due to lack of activity and without going into too much detail what are the main reasons mods do get stripped. There are certain that come in to hand out sanctions or close threads despite the fact I rarely see them posting in a particular thread.

    The majority of the time a mod is de-modded when they decide to step down themselves. They may no longer have the time to invest, particularly if they are modding a busy forum. Real life events will always take precedence over modding and that's exactly how it should be. They may have lost interest in the topic of the forum or in Boards in general. They may have agreed to mod but then found it was not something they enjoyed. It's rare that a mod is de-modded for anything else but on rare occasions can be that their viewpoint of how modding should be done does not correlate with the rest of the team. By team I mean other mods, Cmods, Admins and ourselves.

    Also on a rare occasion, a mod might not be online for a significant period of time. We'll try to contact them to see if everything is ok and if we get no response or a response to tell us they haven't the time at the moment then a replacement mod will be sought.
    Stephen15 wrote: »
    There are also some mods out there that I've rarely seen carry out actions of being a mod. Also plenty of good posters on here that I think would make brilliant mods better than some of the current mods I hope these posters aren't mods purely out of choice and not because they haven't been asked.
    We approach users to become mods based on their posting in the forums, usually they are suggested by other Mods/Cmods who know the forum and it's posters well. They do not volunteer to be a mod.

    How can I? User's guide to some features on the new site



  • #76
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    dudara wrote: »
    But, and this important, we don’t ban or forbid discussion of mod actions at all. Posters can contact mods m, CMods or Admins directly, or they can open a discussion thread in the Help desk. We are simply asking that they don’t do it in the original thread.

    its true that this type of discussion isnt banned, ive actually found some of the admins and mods really open and interested in what must be fairly boring or repetitive discussions on topics recently.

    its also true to say that ive started to feel the heat in other various ways from mods that may or may not be loving my input into feedback discussions.

    could that be what the poster refers to?


  • #77
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Boards.ie: Niamh wrote: »

    We approach users to become mods based on their posting in the forums, usually they are suggested by other Mods/Cmods who know the forum and it's posters well. They do not volunteer to be a mod.


    are there any other avenues that could or should be considered? could/should the community itself not have an input into nominating mods?

    it might help prevent any feeling that theres a bit of a closed shop or a groupthink vibe if the self-selecting were to be looked at?


  • #78
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Deleted User wrote: »
    are there any other avenues that could or should be considered? could/should the community itself not have an input into nominating mods?

    it might help prevent any feeling that theres a bit of a closed shop or a groupthink vibe if the self-selecting were to be looked at?

    In effect the community *does* in fact cause potential mods to surface.

    Good, level headed posters are proposed by the sitting mods to the cmods who have a look at their posting history and / or any trouble they have caused recently and then send (or not ) them forward to admins for closer scrutiny.

    As you go up the mod chain, there is more information available. e.g. a popular poster now may have a bad history as a previous account. Equally they may not. None of that should be discussed in public as part of a popularity poll.

    We have a system that works well, there is oversight on many levels and is something I would not wish to change.


  • #79
    Ken.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,898 ✭✭✭✭Ken.


    ^^^^^^But every now and again one chancer slips through the cracks. :D


  • #80
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Nosnon wrote: »
    ^^^^^^But every now and again one chancer slips through the cracks. :D

    :D

    Careful now, my banhammer is bigger than yores... :D


  • #81
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Steve wrote: »
    In effect the community *does* in fact cause potential mods to surface.

    Good, level headed posters are proposed by the sitting mods to the cmods who have a look at their posting history and / or any trouble they have caused recently and then send (or not ) them forward to admins for closer scrutiny.

    As you go up the mod chain, there is more information available. e.g. a popular poster now may have a bad history as a previous account. Equally they may not. None of that should be discussed in public as part of a popularity poll.

    We have a system that works well, there is oversight on many levels and is something I would not wish to change.

    in fairness

    the above is a mod saying that he agrees with mods picking mods based on the history of their passing muster according to mod application of mod-applied rules!

    i dont think the whole system is rotten or anything but while the interpretation of mod/admin is such an integral part of the policing of the site, the practice of coming up through the ranks by invite-only will never lead to much self-reflection or changes (which may or may not be necessary, but which is hardly ever prompted from internal motivators)


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    TheChrisD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,672 ✭✭✭TheChrisD


    dudara wrote: »
    But, and this important, we don’t ban or forbid discussion of mod actions at all. Posters can contact mods m, CMods or Admins directly, or they can open a discussion thread in the Help desk. We are simply asking that they don’t do it in the original thread.

    That rarely works though. Especially since it's hidden in the doldrums of private messages. Heck, last time I tried to comment privately about what I considered an overreactive mod action, they threatened to ban me too.

    Maybe it's just that I'm a lot more used and appreciative of most subreddits where comments on visible mod actions are not only visible, but encouraged to gauge community feedback. Because as it is here, it feels like no-one dares to speak out, least they get silenced too.
    Beasty wrote: »
    You have plenty of other avenues to raise issues or make complaints. Why turn a discussion on a relevant topic into a debate about moderation?

    The title and some of the more recent posts made this out to be a discussion about moderation on boards in general. This is the feedback forum after all, is feedback related to the thread title suddenly not allowed? Or are we not allowed to attempt to have a reasonable discussion regarding our views on moderation because that breaks a hidden "no discussing mod actions" rule?
    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    the practice of coming up through the ranks by invite-only will never lead to much self-reflection or changes (which may or may not be necessary, but which is hardly ever prompted from internal motivators)

    That's pretty much the exact reason why r/ireland makes a complete meme out of boards moderation - the mindset that it's a bit of a circlejerk club that you can only get in by nepotism, and exuding the aura that they are infallible because no-one is allowed to publicly comment on their actions.
    image.png




  • #83
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Deleted User wrote: »
    in fairness

    the above is a mod saying that he agrees with mods picking mods based on the history of their passing muster according to mod application of mod-applied rules!

    i dont think the whole system is rotten or anything but while the interpretation of mod/admin is such an integral part of the policing of the site, the practice of coming up through the ranks by invite-only will never lead to much self-reflection or changes (which may or may not be necessary, but which is hardly ever prompted from internal motivators)

    What are you proposing as an alternative?

    Democratically elected mods?

    If you got elected thus and one of your voters goes on a rant and posts stuff that may harm the site or cause it to be shut down, where would your allegiance lie?


  • #84
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    TheChrisD wrote: »
    Heck, last time I tried to comment privately about what I considered an overreactive mod action, they threatened to ban me too.

    I call bullshit on that remark.

    Please post a screenshot of where this happened or else phuq off.


  • #85
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    Steve wrote: »
    What are you proposing as an alternative?

    Democratically elected mods?

    If you got elected thus and one of your voters goes on a rant and posts stuff that may harm the site or cause it to be shut down, where would your allegiance lie?

    I don't think somewhat democratically elected mods would be a bad idea if the voters had to meet certain criteria such as a good track record and minimum amount of time spent on the site with a minimum amount of posts.


  • #86
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    I don't think somewhat democratically elected mods would be a bad idea if the voters had to meet certain criteria such as a good track record and minimum amount of time spent on the site with a minimum amount of posts.
    So, pretty much how we do it now... except we check for previous bans / infractions and re-reg accounts? :)


  • #87
    TheChrisD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,672 ✭✭✭TheChrisD


    Steve wrote: »
    I call bullshit on that remark.

    Please post a screenshot of where this happened or else phuq off.

    This is exactly the sort of reaction I got last time I tried to report something. Responses like that from a CMod of all things are exactly why many people don't have much faith in moderation here. Plus the fact you're never going to get told off for it doesn't help either.
    Steve wrote: »
    So, pretty much how we do it now... except we check for previous bans / infractions and re-reg accounts? :)

    Democratically elected by the Admins/CMods is not the same as democratically elected by the community.

    Although mod elections are probably complicated enough as it is. Open applications are probably a potentially worthwhile option in some forums - generally, at least from my experience on reddit, only people who actually care about it tend to apply, and mods can also weed out applicants that don't fit their criteria.

    The more I write this though, the more it starts sounding in my head like the process to elect a new Catholic cardinal as narrated by CGP Grey.
    image.png




  • #88
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    TheChrisD wrote: »
    This is exactly the sort of reaction I got last time I tried to report something.

    Care to elaborate on that?

    Really.

    You reported something and the boards mods / cmods / admins colluded to silence you?

    What was it that you reported?


  • #89
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    TheChrisD wrote: »
    Although mod elections are probably complicated enough as it is. Open applications are probably a potentially worthwhile option in some forums - generally, at least from my experience on reddit, only people who actually care about it tend to apply, and mods can also weed out applicants that don't fit their criteria.
    So, say you were elected mod by popular vote, what's the first thing you would change?


  • #90
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Steve wrote: »
    What are you proposing as an alternative?

    Democratically elected mods?

    If you got elected thus and one of your voters goes on a rant and posts stuff that may harm the site or cause it to be shut down, where would your allegiance lie?


    fair questions

    im not sure how a vote would even work without being a total mess, I'll admit. proposals/nominations thread then a straight vote thread, maybe.

    and im not sayin to replace all current mods or even any of them. im not saying moderation of the site is a shambles or any such thing.

    im pointing out the the current selection works to only serve the preferences of mods, and youd want to be very sure that the system was perfect to consistently tell users that theres no way their input into mod selection could work.

    the second question is a straight "allegiance to the good of the site" answer, same as if a poster you got on with before you became mod under the current system behaved in a similar fashion.

    but i think a more varied range of voices on what "the good of the site" is might be worth a thought.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Boards.ie: Mark
    Boards.ie Employee Posts: 5,461 ✭✭✭✭✭Boards.ie: Mark
    Boards.ie Employee


    Unfortunately, the popular vote or nominations doesn't always work. That's how we get Boaty McBoatface (although I'm alright with that one). If people want to be moderators, be good posters. Add value to a forum, create resources and insightful discussion, and don't flaunt the rules of a forum. That shows that you care about the forum/site in itself. It's not necessarily a system to serve the preferences of Mods as such, but the team is going to have to work together and need to be able to show that they can abide by rules of forums too.

    While mod actions can be highlighted on subreddits, the flow of conversation and discussion is very different thanks to the nested responses. If you don't want to follow the discussion on moderation, you minimise that line and move on. Here, it can draw the conversation off on a completely different tangent. That's why we ask users to PM Mods or to open a Help Desk thread rather than discuss it on-thread. Like in threads, private messages can also be reported, which provides Admins with a heads-up of a situation that may require investigation.

    How can I? User's guide to some features on the new site



  • #92
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭Buford T. Justice XIX


    TheChrisD wrote: »
    That rarely works though. Especially since it's hidden in the doldrums of private messages. Heck, last time I tried to comment privately about what I considered an overreactive mod action, they threatened to ban me too.

    Maybe it's just that I'm a lot more used and appreciative of most subreddits where comments on visible mod actions are not only visible, but encouraged to gauge community feedback. Because as it is here, it feels like no-one dares to speak out, least they get silenced too.



    The title and some of the more recent posts made this out to be a discussion about moderation on boards in general. This is the feedback forum after all, is feedback related to the thread title suddenly not allowed? Or are we not allowed to attempt to have a reasonable discussion regarding our views on moderation because that breaks a hidden "no discussing mod actions" rule?



    That's pretty much the exact reason why r/ireland makes a complete meme out of boards moderation - the mindset that it's a bit of a circlejerk club that you can only get in by nepotism, and exuding the aura that they are infallible because no-one is allowed to publicly comment on their actions.
    Well that's completely incorrect for a start.

    As mods, we have to be able to stand over any card or ban that we make and provide a reason for why we took the action that we did. This is shown to all posters in the Prison and DR forums.

    And in the backround, which isn't visible to the general poster, we also have to justify those actions to our fellow mods in the forums we mod in, the Cmods of those forums and Admins.

    If we make mistakes, and we do, we reverse those decisions at the earliest opportunity. If we make too many mistakes or moderate poorly on an issue, our fellow mods in those forums will let us know fairly quickly where we are failing. And if they don't, Cmods or Admins will point it out.

    Just because you can't see a discussion on a mods handling of an issue doesn't mean that it isn't happening.


  • #93
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Elections can be rigged. Especially when its anonymous profiles on an internet discussion board.

    I dont know how the Ireland sub reddit do things, but thats not my concern; as i think the moderation system here (seen as a mod in the last 2 years and seen as a normal user for the previous 11.5 years works fine. If ye want to post there more power to you. If you want to post here you can. If you dont want to post here you can. Lots of options.

    There is accountability in the system here and users get a fair shake on multiple levels as long as they remain civil and engage with the system.

    There are mods i disagree with and mods i agree with; just like there are posters i agree with and disagree with when im in a discussion. Mods openly discuss decisions with each other before during and after their implementation; i dont see how democratically electing mods will improve this; and i think any kind of election could potentially select a mod who wouldnt be suitable for the position (which is less likely to happen with the current vetting process).


  • #94
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Baggly wrote: »
    There is accountability in the system here and users get a fair shake on multiple levels as long as they remain civil and engage with the system.

    how is this measured and confirmed?

    id raise a current dispute but im sure id be told that the processes dont allow me to do so here!


  • #95
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    What do you mean by measured and confirmed?


  • #96
    TheChrisD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,672 ✭✭✭TheChrisD


    Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »
    Here, it can draw the conversation off on a completely different tangent. That's why we ask users to PM Mods or to open a Help Desk thread rather than discuss it on-thread.

    I get that, in particular for times when a thread need to be trained back on the original topic it was started for. However, when a mod decides to take it upon themselves to bring the thread off-topic by publicly posting a mod punishment action against a user, then said action should be open for public comment and/or criticism.

    It's very much a "completely different ruleset for us" sort of deal; with the gagging of responses to publicly posted mod actions, all that leaves are the white-knighting yes-men who use the post thanks system to... in the nicest words possible, pat the mod's back while sucking up to them. At least if the system had the option to respectfully disagree with a post in the same one-click manner (whether suck a hack exists or has ever existed for vB, I don't know), or if post thanks were disabled on mod-highlighted posts that issue would be reduced.
    Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »
    As mods, we have to be able to stand over any card or ban that we make and provide a reason for why we took the action that we did. This is shown to all posters in the Prison and DR forums.

    I'm not calling for fully public moderation logs - as a reddit mod, I know that most of the moderation work is generally more of a case of janitorial cleanup, rather than punitive actions - but maybe those reasons shouldn't have to be surfaced only if the victim decides to go ahead with the dispute process (which in and of itself seems like a massive uphill battle when the first step is "talk with your punisher").
    Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »
    If we make mistakes, and we do, we reverse those decisions at the earliest opportunity. If we make too many mistakes or moderate poorly on an issue, our fellow mods in those forums will let us know fairly quickly where we are failing. And if they don't, Cmods or Admins will point it out.

    Just because you can't see a discussion on a mods handling of an issue doesn't mean that it isn't happening.

    I don't doubt there's things happening in the backend, but still though, from a regular user's point of view, it feels like there's little if any way to actually provide feedback on mod actions against other people. PMs are worthless (almost like pissing in the wind), on-thread responses are outlawed, and posting new threads in Feedback are either removed for targeting specific users, or are too generic and almost rely on sheer dumb luck for the intended people to actually read it.
    image.png




  • Advertisement
  • #97
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    i suppose i mean that youve made a value statement there. the mods agree that everything works well, the processes are in place and the processes are followed.

    behind the scenes there is very thorough discussion of the actions taken, mods are doing their best and consult inter alia etc etc.

    all the same you get a lot of posters making the same complaints again and again about the DRP being a closed shop.

    about the engagement with the poster actioned and the attention paid to their version of events or their disagreeing with the mods interpretation of same.

    of reasons for mod action changing throughout the DRP

    and of appellants unhappy with the processes, or not bothering with them once they see the overwhelming outcome is that "the system works. the system always works. the system worked here".

    its i guess a feeling, to go back to the original point, that the public face of moderation really does come across as a monolith that defends the monolith as opposed to being willing to question whether or not the moderation is often personalised or politicised, whether at times mods are actioning certain users and not certain behaviours.

    that "behind closed doors" is not a good way to reassure those being modded

    and that "we pick those that are like us" is pretty much an assertion that things couldnt be any better.

    question: do you think a poster that has actions against them can be nevertheless a good poster? a valuable member of the site? could under no circumstances bring something to the mix as a moderator that would help the site? because under the current circumstances the answer to that is a huge no, and i dont think thats a great reflection on the openness of the system to question itself.


  • #98
    Boards.ie: Mark
    Boards.ie Employee Posts: 5,461 ✭✭✭✭✭Boards.ie: Mark
    Boards.ie Employee


    TheChrisD wrote: »
    I get that, in particular for times when a thread need to be trained back on the original topic it was started for. However, when a mod decides to take it upon themselves to bring the thread off-topic by publicly posting a mod punishment action against a user, then said action should be open for public comment and/or criticism.

    It's very much a "completely different ruleset for us" sort of deal; with the gagging of responses to publicly posted mod actions, all that leaves are the white-knighting yes-men who use the post thanks system to... in the nicest words possible, pat the mod's back while sucking up to them. At least if the system had the option to respectfully disagree with a post in the same one-click manner (whether suck a hack exists or has ever existed for vB, I don't know), or if post thanks were disabled on mod-highlighted posts that issue would be reduced.

    Mods comment publicly in some cases because it has been asked for previously in Feedback threads. Thread bans do not showcase a card beside a post, for example. Sometimes people asked for more context surrounding action taken.

    One post doesn't drag a thread off-topic, but if discussed on thread the conversation becomes at least one post to ask about it, one post to respond and then x posts discussing the action taken. This is on top of the discussion dedicated to the thread topic which clutters up the thread and makes things harder to follow.

    As said, there are avenues to discuss action taken that won't distract from the topic at hand in any given thread.

    Unfortunately, thanks cannot be disabled on a post-by-post or even thread-by-thread basis. It's all or nothing in a given forum.

    How can I? User's guide to some features on the new site



  • #99
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Deleted User wrote: »
    i suppose i mean that youve made a value statement there. the mods agree that everything works well, the processes are in place and the processes are followed.

    behind the scenes there is very thorough discussion of the actions taken, mods are doing their best and consult inter alia etc etc.

    all the same you get a lot of posters making the same complaints again and again about the DRP being a closed shop.

    about the engagement with the poster actioned and the attention paid to their version of events or their disagreeing with the mods interpretation of same.

    of reasons for mod action changing throughout the DRP

    and of appellants unhappy with the processes, or not bothering with them once they see the overwhelming outcome is that "the system works. the system always works. the system worked here".

    its i guess a feeling, to go back to the original point, that the public face of moderation really does come across as a monolith that defends the monolith as opposed to being willing to question whether or not the moderation is often personalised or politicised, whether at times mods are actioning certain users and not certain behaviours.

    that "behind closed doors" is not a good way to reassure those being modded

    and that "we pick those that are like us" is pretty much an assertion that things couldnt be any better.

    question: do you think a poster that has actions against them can be nevertheless a good poster? a valuable member of the site? could under no circumstances bring something to the mix as a moderator that would help the site? because under the current circumstances the answer to that is a huge no, and i dont think thats a great reflection on the openness of the system to question itself.

    I wouldnt judge the moderation of boards.ie off DRP though. The majority of issues in my experienced are resolved before they ever get to DRP, through reasoned and civil discussion between mod and poster (which, tbh, im glad is private - if i was sanctioned, id want to discuss it privately with the mod, rather than have everyone starting at it in DRP).

    I think the closed shop thing comes down to the fact that usually, if a mod makes an error (and it happens, and would with mods whether elected, chosen or plucked randomly from the site), the user points it out in a PM and the mod agrees and overturns it.

    I can personally vouch for the fact this has happened to me. I have misread a post and actioned it, and then a user gave their take and i overturned the action.

    If its getting to DRP, in my experience, its usually not because a mod is being unreasonable, its because a poster isnt happy with the mod decision or rationale. Now if that is the case (and again, this is only my experience) then of course DRP is going to seem like a closed shop. Because all that will happen is the same rationale the mod tried to explain will be examined by cmods or admins and (if we mods are doing their job) stand up to scrutiny and be reinforced.

    If the posters point is a slam dunk, then the mod wont agree to bring it to DRP, cause they will look like an eejit when the poster puts their point across. If it happens enough times, mod probably gets a talking to and / or demodding.

    If there is a desire for the whole process to be public, i can understand that; but i don't agree with it. Some conversations stay private to respect peoples privacy. And some conversations stay private because to be honest, i wouldn't like to be a mod if i knew the wider user base was watching any questions, queries or requests for second opinions i make, and could use those questions as ammunition against me the next time they disagree with a mod decision i make.

    All of the above is, of course, just my opinion.


  • #100
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    i appreciate the take, and i think its fair to note that a post going to DRP is going to be contentious alright.

    i think that mods maybe dont appreciate the process from the poster's point of view these days.

    your post is publicly actioned

    you dont have right of reply in thread

    the onus is on you to PM the person you obviously disagree with, with whom there is a power imbalance

    if its going to DRP then de facto that PM hasnt worked.

    Off you go to make your case. Your loss over PM is to be made public

    It is heard by a CMOD, with whom you have a greater power imbalance.

    Often you find yourself pleading a different case to the original. Often the review seems to be little more than a harsher look at the infraction for daring to bother anyone.

    Your loss over the appeal is obviously public. you can appeal to an admin, with whom you have an even greater power imbalance.

    Often you find yourself pleading a different case again. Often the review seems to be an appeal against the process of boards rather than an examination of your case or countercase. Often your history is brought into it, while context is expressly out of bounds.

    Your loss over the admin appeal is public and final. you may find yourself, after all this, being told that you are lucky to have avoided further sanction for abusing the process.

    time and again elements of the above come up as poster complaints.

    time and again mods will remind us that behind the scenes there is a scrupulous process and mods are watching each other like hawks back there, but i hope ye can see that there are real issues here that cannot be beaten through repetition of the mantra.

    alternatively, everyone ever sanctioned who has gone through the above and has the above complaints is a dickhead who has been or is in the process of being managed off the site, and rightly so.

    whats the trend over twenty years (if that is to be the defence against "this might need looking at folks"?)


  • #101
    dudara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    You have to consider the evolution of Boards. The processes that we have now were not in place 20 or so years ago, so it’s a little unfair to paint the entire history of Boards like that.

    In the glory days :) you could have been banned instantaneously, and subjected to a load of LOLCAT memes to boot. And possibly rightfully deserved too, although I’m sure there were cases that were not deserved too.

    As Boards changed, so did the processes. The DRP was introduced, the concept of thread bans were introduced, Prison changed in reaction to feedback and so forth. It will continue to change.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement