Site is a graveyard - How can boards save itself? [Threadbanned users in 1st post]

it implies that in 50% of cases a moderator does intervene in some way. So the tactic by some of reporting posts is a valid one, you get a 1 in 2 'success' rate.

No. Action isn't dependent on 'hit rate'. And people abusing the reporting function by reporting everything and anything they don't agree with have been warned about it.

It must be possible to generate reports of a posters reporting history.

It's not. It's not even possible to generate a report of the most prolific posters in a forum at the moment.

If I were to suggest an improvement, it would to assign a particular mod to contentious threads as they arise in AH/CA or elsewhere.

Not workable when volunteers are giving their time to the site. Would a nominated moderator be expected to be online during particular hours? If they were not available and the thread descended into over and back abuse by two opposing sides should the thread be left run until a moderator comes back to maybe 100s of off topic abuse?

There's no easy fix. If there were it would be implemented. The entire internet is full of arguing people, angry people, people deliberately trolling to get a reaction. Boards is no different. Moderators do their best. Sometimes getting it wrong. Very often getting it right. And regularly getting abuse.

I think I am generally fair and give posters time to explain their issues and try to give reasons for why certain things are done or not done. I have on previous threads taken the feedback and gone back to the moderators group with suggestions and ways of improving the overall experience of posting here. I am regularly abused both in PM and on-thread. I have no vested interest in Boards.ie whatsoever, other than it is a place to pass a bit of time in the evening, advice and information can be good and occasionally it can be a bit of craic. I help out because I was approached to and I would like to see the place continue to be somewhere to pass a bit of time, get some advice and occasionally be a bit of craic.

I suppose one can always dream!

I think this is a fair point.

Obviously new posters signing up to give recommendations would quickly be spotted for what they most likely are.

But regular, long-term posters should be able to recommend. But.. that then could be open to abuse with posters maliciously giving a local company a bad review due to a grudge etc. The moderators can't know what's a genuine recommendation for/against something and a malicious complaint - and then we're back to a company potentially taking legal action due to being defamed on the site.

@[Deleted User] you were given 3 warnings by liamog, not 22. You were given a 0 point warning on 11th Feb which is an instruction rather than a warning. You were given a 1 point warning on 15th Feb for ignoring that instruction, and another 1 point warning on 19th Feb for repeatedly ignoring the moderator. The rest were PMs where he discussed with you how to best post in the forum. One decision he overturned after discussing with you. You opened 3 helpdesk threads where decisions were discussed and explained. You were also told you were not allowed post PMs without permission of the sender or being requested by a moderator.

I eventually applied a 4 point warning for repeatedly and consistently ignoring moderator instruction and wasting moderator's and administrator's time This put you in "jail" and stopped you starting anymore new threads but still allowing you to post on the site. The moderator applied a 1 point warning after that for again ignoring mod instruction. He quickly reversed the decision when he realised it triggered a temporary siteban (giving you more chances than you realistically should have been given). He was not obliged to reverse it, but did so to give you a chance. He didn't want to see you sitebanned.

You are now trying to hijack this thread with the same argument. An argument that 2 Admins have reviewed. I will delete the above PMs as you have no right to post them here. I am also applying another 2 point warning which will result in a temporary siteban.

As per my 2 PMs to your request to close your account if you want to close it you must email datarequests@boards.ie or PM @Boards.ie: GDPR. This request can only be handled by the office.

And I'm sorry, but I think the CMods and Admins know very well who these moderators are, but give them "a nudge", or a talking too, rather than acknowledge they are not up to the role and de-mod them because of the so often given reason that there are not enough mods as it is, and that mods are volunteers. All done behind closed doors, of course, in a mod only forum.

In the same way posters are oftentimes given a nudge behind closed doors (via PM) rather than onthread. Posters, and moderators are given chances. A moderator will not be demodded immediately if there are problems. Same as a poster won't be banned immediately (take our friend on this thread as an example!) Being a mod is a thankless job. It's a very public job and people are expected to never make a mistake - And accept abuse if they do. The background team of moderators would rather work with a moderator to help them resolve whatever is going on rather than pile on and demod immediately. Sometimes, demodding will end up being the appropriate outcome, but not before a fair chance has been given to make changes.

And just as posters are not going to be privy to every action taken against other posters, they also don't need to be privy to actions taken against moderators.