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

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

[Deleted User]

Seems to be getting worse and worse. How can boards save themselves?

New backend system?

Not been afraid to have controversial topics? If the site owners are worried about this they really need to get an education on the internet.

Better moderators? Maybe younger ones who are up to speed with the younger generation?

Realizing people have their own opinions?

Its different than reddit but Reddit seems to flow contionusly with great conteant and controversial opinopns are allowed.

I just think boards need better research. Its not the year 2000.

Moderator:

List of threadbanned users:

Green Peter (Permanent)

Mad_Lad (expired on April 12th)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960211#Comment_121960211

I honestly don’t know what goes on in the background there Andrew it’s above my pay grade I guess you’d say 🤣

Site development is not within the mods remit that’s for odharan and Mike I would guess? Maybe admins but I don’t think even they have any input there themselves

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121959987#Comment_121959987

When there is a mod vacancy for a forum, the Cmods assigned to the category where the forum is located conduct a search.

This mod search is to be conducted confidentially per policy. Cmods cannot advertise vacancies to members for mods in the forum. Hurt feelings can result.

Typically Cmods will look at the most frequent posters of the forum for possible candidates. Before Vanilla a simple request to Admin was made for the top 10 or 20 most prolific posters. Admin was quite quick to respond historically. Now with Vanilla the Admin dashboard lacks the quick push button most prolific posters function. A cumbersome Cmod search remains.

Cmods with few forums in their categories may already have some knowledge of possible candidates, as well as those with a history of trouble making that may affect their ability to mod fairly.

If the forum already has an existing co-mod or more, they can be asked to recommend mod candidates from the forum members. Once again, these co-mods must insure that this search is confidential per policy, and cannot contact members to see if they may be interested in modding. Although a forum mod with “boots on the ground” recommendations are taken seriously, there are no guarantees that their candidates will be ultimately selected for proposed mod to Admin.

Then again, it is wise for Cmods to consult with the existing forum co-mods about a candidate before proposing to Admin. Cmods can also consult with their fellow category Cmod, as well as chatting about a potential candidate in the private and confidential Cmods forum where all categories Cmods can contribute. Furthermore, it’s common for Administrators to view and participate in the private Cmods forum.

If no qualified candidates emerge from this process, Cmods are allowed to post the vacancy in the private and confidential moderators forum to see if existing mods may be interested. To increase confidentiality, interested mods generally PM the Cmod rather than reply by posting in the mod forum. Obviously it’s easy for Cmods to evaluate existing mods.

Once one or more possible candidates have been discovered, a close examination of their records are conducted, including the reading of several of their posts in both the forum with the vacancy and in other forums on the site. Members who exhibit forum topics knowledge, and grand thread contributions, while not violating the forum or site charters and guidelines bubble to the top. Occasionally members with problems exhibited early after joining, but later clean up their act are also considered as candidates.

When a Cmod feels confident that their candidate may be an excellent choice, they then propose them to Admin. In a few days Admin decides. If no, the Cmod may look at other candidates that emerged from the above process and propose them.

If Admin approves, only then may the Cmod contact the candidate to see if they may be interested. If yes, Admin is contacted by Cmod and asked to push the magic buttons.

Apologies if I missed something. It’s Easter and my turn to cook.

Sorry for making your eyes bleed with this long post, but Cmods typically take this mod search very seriously, because if the mod fails, they can hurt the forum and site, while giving the Cmod a colossal headache, as well as raise questions as to their competency.

Cmods are selected by Admin, so best to have one of them address that part of your question.

Cheers and happy Easter!

Fathom

nachouser

At the end of the day, it's a free site with one employee and a bunch of people who give up their free time to keep the site going. Like it or lump it. Happy Easter.

Ha Long Bay

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121959349#Comment_121959349

What do anecdotes add to discussion in these type of threads?

An example Newposter123 joins and their first post is about how they saw people from country xyz dump their pushchair at the bus stop but they have also know a friend or family member working in social protection and they have been told they have a warehouse of them so the person from country xyz can collect a new one later that afternoon.

There is nothing factual or verified and it's an extreme example but it's clearly posted to stir up hate against people from country xyz.

I think what threads like CA need is more fact checking. The amount of link dumps posted from random Twitter\X users and dubious sites is a plague on the site.

Also I understand this is not practical from a moderation point of view to fact check what is posted so I do not really have a solution but I think it's one reason why some posters avoid posting in threads like CA now.

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960425#Comment_121960425

Is having to cook for someone part of the process?

ShamoBuc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960464#Comment_121960464

Only on weekends in fairness.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960464#Comment_121960464

Only if they are the winner of Hell’s Kitchen for a cooking forum! Thanks for your craic.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960455#Comment_121960455

Ok, so what's the difference between the example you gave and another poster saying that they live close to an accommodation centre for people from country xyz and that they are all very friendly lovely individuals?? That's anecdotal too.

In practice both are equally likely to be true or untrue, but whilst the latter will be passed over without a glance, your example may well draw a warning or threadban.

You might as well shut down these threads as have this sort of censorship threat hanging the Sword of Damocles over posters.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121959468#Comment_121959468

My limited experience of threadbans is that it's like or lump it - take it or leave. So I guess that's what users do after a while - they just re-reg a new account as it's the only way around what are effectively permanent threadbans. So make them a month and then expire them. Better system as long as not abused.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121959515#Comment_121959515

"A mod cannot act on any post that doesn’t break the rules."

LOL, that gave me a good laugh!! That is exactly the complaint of many here - moderator actions for posts that don't break site rules, charters or specific thread advice. That are done on a whim, that are very subjective. Surely you've seen this in your time here?

Ha Long Bay

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960517#Comment_121960517

I do not see where in the mod warnings you re-posted where it's called out as to what the subject of the anecdote is?

Did you report an anecdotal post on one of them threads like you described and it was not actioned?

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960469#Comment_121960469

feic - look at all the letters after your name - can you name them all? 😀

Necro

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960541#Comment_121960541

That's never the case at all. The thing about thread bans is that they can't be enforced from a system point of view so require the posters restraint from engagement in that particular thread.

So by showing said restraint for a period of time (and assuming the poster hasn't picked up any other warnings for similar behaviour elsewhere on the site) if they then contact the mod and request the thread ban be lifted then I'd absolutely consider lifting said ban. Indeed I have done on many occasions in the past. Don't use thread bans as much nowadays granted in the forums I currently mod.

knucklehead6

what the hell…..

that Long John Silver post. Wow. Just wow.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960564#Comment_121960564

No - the moderator in question tends to disallow some posts and issue warning on the basis that they are 'anecdotal'. But the judgement of what is or isn't 'anecdotal' seems to be purely up to them. It's a ridiculous thing to try and define but there you go?

Sephiroth_dude

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960592#Comment_121960592

This is the kind of CT nonsense we have to put up with in current affairs as mods.

Ha Long Bay

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960609#Comment_121960609

Do you think my previous example of anecdotal should be allowed and does it add anything to a discussion thread?

Necro

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960609#Comment_121960609

In a topics which can be highly emotive it's much better to focus on facts that can be proven though rather than what Billy Bob's sister in law's experience was.

Anecdotes from either side don't really add anything to a discussion imo, you just get a bunch of posts arguing that X or Y is talking nonsense with no real way of either proving what they have said is the truth.

So the whole thread ends up being derailed by "he said, she said" stuff rather than a discussion on the actual topic.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960554#Comment_121960554

It must be an Easter miracle.

I actually heartily agree with Furze99 here.

EmmetSpiceland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960554#Comment_121960554

LOL indeed. The complaint of “many” here, and in the “Dispute Resolution” forum, is that they’ve been unfairly targeted, and totally innocent, when they’ve clearly broken site rules.

You’d swear butter wouldn’t melt in the mouths of the lads in that forum, always blaming the mods for their inability to not be a dick. Claiming they just have the “wrong” opinions and the mods don’t like it. Really low quality users, who’s dreadful record on the site usually comes up in the conversation.

Now, it should be pointed out, that there is nothing in the rules against having these “wrong” opinions. In fact, many users share them but, unlike the whiney lads in the DP forum, they can express them without breaking any of the, actual, site rules.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960368#Comment_121960368

Why are you reluctant to speak for yourself?

You're clearly not happy doing a voluntary job, why continue?

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121959352#Comment_121959352

All you're doing at this point BBoC is making it a bigger red flag.

You're showing what is an all too familiar approach of mods on the site in general and feedback threads in particular to take any pointed feedback that cuts too close to the bone of the situation that exists in reality as being intended as a direct insult at the people involved. Which I've pointed out twice that that is not the case.

Even if you step back for a second and read your third paragraph here you'll see you are describing a site where moderation, is subjective and inconsistent across the site from forum to forum. How can that be an appropriate approach to help create an environment where there aren't widespread accusations of biased mod intervention?

Long time members and contributors to the site have been saying for years now how big a problem moderation is and there is zero, I mean zero, evidence of the site acknowledging this or taking steps to resolve/overcome this issue.

The last time there was a feedback thread on this topic, one of the mods, who has posted here today posted something very close to the following.

'Let me be clear, when you are banned from a thread it is 100% because of you, not the moderator'

And now you are making it clear how ad hoc and inconsistent this moderation is to the point that someone as involved and committed as you are and have been struggles to navigate it.

evolvingtipperary101

As far as I can see, the problems are multifold and complex. Others are keen to stress there are no problems other than problem posters. They stress the simplicity of the process and the rules.
I think my exchange with Shamobuc sums it all up.
I'm addressing a cultural issue within the forum's management, calling for acknowledgment of universal fallibility. Everybody is human. ShamoBuc focuses on the mechanisms/rules in place for dealing with reports, which doesn't directly address the concern of moderator accountability and the perception of bias that I'm highlighting (especially that both poster and mod are capable of bias/bad behavior/being dicks).
In essence, I sought acknowledgment of a principle (that moderators can also behave poorly and should be held accountable), while ShamoBuc is focused on explaining the process, perhaps missing the point about the need for self-reflection and openness to criticism within the moderator team. This indicates a misunderstanding primarily on the part of ShamoBuc regarding the nature of complaints. It's not a one way system.
Moderators are volunteers and their time is important. Tasked with maintaining order, enforcing rules, and fostering a positive community atmosphere, takes significant effort and time. Given that this role is unpaid, mods have limited time and resources to dedicate to each concern. There's hesitancy to be pulled into anything outside of black and white rules.
There are also mods in here that have said they learned something. They show open-mindedness and understanding. I don't think you'll find them in the dispute section. This kind of interaction fosters a positive community atmosphere. The other does not. It pitches posters as dicks, farcical, and wasting time.

I'd propose a system. A post is flagged, whether by a mod or another poster. A mod must come to a judgement but not on his own. His decision whether warning, suspension, or just leave it, must be presented to another mod and another poster to adjudicate on its fairness. This process would involve both independent mods/posters perspectives.
Implementing a system where both moderators and regular posters are involved in adjudicating decisions about flagged content could significantly enhance fairness and transparency.

By involving another moderator and a regular poster in the decision-making process, it ensures multiple perspectives are considered. This reduces the likelihood of bias or unilateral decisions.

Establishing a transparent process, where decisions are reviewed by both a peer (another moderator) and a community member (a poster), can build trust. It demonstrates that the forum values fairness and is willing to subject its own decisions to scrutiny.

Including regular posters in the adjudication process gives the community a voice in its governance, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility among members.

This system can also support moderators by providing a framework for feedback and discussion on their decisions, potentially offering new insights or considerations.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960734#Comment_121960734

you’ve a very weird habit of putting words in my mouth Rows.

like everyone (or well, most of the year base here), I can clearly see problems with Vanilla that have gone unaddressed. Perhaps they are being addressed in the background but as far as I can see there’s no major reason given as to why we’re still stuck with vanilla when it’s clearly, to be blunt, rubbish.

I’m not the only mod not to mention user who’s said this in the past both distant and recent. It’s said almost daily.

I’d love to know where in all of that you seem to have managed to gather “I hate being a mod”. If I didn’t want to, I wouldn’t have agreed to be, I certainly wouldn’t continue either.

If by simply inviting anyone who seems to think I’m a “bad” mod to address that with the relevant Cmod or Admins comes across like I can’t wait to be demodded, I don’t think I’m doing a poor job. I could think of a handful of people who think otherwise with a burning passion, but that said, those same individuals wouldn’t exactly make a top 10 list of “boards best posters”, so I won’t lose any sleep over it.

Padre_Pio

Bring back down votes.

[Deleted User]

The migration to the new vanilla platform, or whatever its called, was like administering mild poison to an already aging dinosaur. Call it as it is. It hasn't worked.

Green Peter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960425#Comment_121960425

I think this is the problem, it's incestuist, mods selecting similar mods over the years, it ends up with inbreds and this is where we are at in 2024.

_______________________________________________

Mod Note: Keep it civil please

Dan Steely

Good thread. Fair play to all, esp the mods for their open engagement.

[Deleted User]

I'm not defending mods, but its been their goodwill (free time, effort, and much frustration I'm sure) that has kept Boards.ie going. I still cant figure out why they do it. If they go, surely Boards is finished.

Pauliedragon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121960895#Comment_121960895

Should be a sticky. Lots of info here that a lot of people didn't realise before.