The Corinthian wrote: » I do not have the time to babysit a bunch of overgrown kids who want to libel each other. Neither do any other moderators or the admins, I suspect.
The Corinthian wrote: » If I felt that people could generally behave I would agree with the board's reopening, however from what I have read here, I'd have my doubts and could see it devolving within a week.
tomED wrote: » And nor should you have to! Damn, for once I'm actually agreeing with a mod.... :P Seriously though, I think this thread shows exactly why the hosting forum should stay closed for the forseeable future... Although I would love it to be back open, this thread clearly shows that we still have a long way to go before it's safe to do so.
HandWS LTD wrote: » Ok...you were for it before you saw that tweet. I explained it....mistake. Would you have still been for it, if that didn't happen? Most forums abroad have made it work. Why not boards.ie? They can be better. The past is over. Things died down. Now its a chance to bring it back and HOPEFULLY its good and works. Plus it will be good and easier for the users to find the correct info.
HandWS LTD wrote: » Fair point....it may be tough to start with but you have the power to ban them.
If it starts bad then it will eventually calm down.
Try a trial. Doubts are part of everything, but you'll never know until you try.
The Corinthian wrote: » I think you missed the bit about not wanting to spend 24/7 moderating such a board. Last time is started bad and got worse. Why would it be different this time? We did. It failed. However, that was some time ago, which is why I am keeping my own mind open to this. Given this, what I have read here and associated with this thread does not fill me with a warm fuzzy feeling. Admins call, TBH, although if we were to do a trial, I would not end it quickly - none of this 'wait for it to calm down' malarky.
HandWS LTD wrote: » I'd be willing to help.
tomED wrote: Personally I think it would be better to open the discussions again without "pimping". Anyone caught pimping should be banned full stop.
HandsWS wrote: This is why i have asked for consideration in opening it again and HAVE stricter rules on pimping.
tomED wrote: If you look at a lot of the threads that are started, generally it's a lot of people that hardly even know they need hosting - there's a clear need for answers to questions relating to hosting.
HandWS wrote: Lets see if the other hosting companies on the forums will stand by that. This is a BIG ask after what happened years ago.
The Corinthian wrote: » How about you offer to underwrite all future libel damages? That would make things a lot easier for the mods/admins.
CoNfOuNd wrote: » It would be nice if webhosting discussion could be re-opened, but it is probably unrealistic unless all the webhosts who use it agree to a strict set of rules. My own suggestion would be to expand the 'Where to get hosting' thread, so that in addition to listing the webhosts and webhosting directories, it could include more details about each webhost. In other words, each webhost could have a few lines where they could outline their amazing features and cheapest package, and people could continue to be directed to this thread. Thoughts?
HandWS LTD wrote: » It may cause extra work....just like that tweet was found. But won't that make boards.ie better if the web hosting was opened.
Gordon wrote: » No, it would be more work and there would be MUCH more noise as opposed to signal. The mods have got a tough enough job as it is without grown adults resorting to petty childishness. We have learned from our mistakes in the years we, as a site, have grown, and limiting web hosting specifics is one of those benefits we have gained. aidan_walsh has given a decent middle ground to the web hosters, any more leniency and problems will start to happen. We're still open to suggestions of course, but I can't possibly think of a solution to stop the hosting squabbles, if it's a case of 'try it out' 'trust us just one last time' then I'd say no, sorry, been there, done that.
HandWS LTD wrote: » I understand. I hate the bad stuff and sure hope it doesn't happen again. What do you think of the points mentioned that could help, like TomED's(about pimping)
CoNfOuNd's and mine after his.
Gordon wrote: » More work for mods and the errant users will find more cryptic and hidden ways of pimping by stretching and pushing the limits of acceptability. The bit about stricter rules? Stricter rules means heavier moderation means more time spent modding. Why should mods have to spend more time if people can't play by the rules as it is? Why is it the mods' fault? As for confounds idea about opening up the sticky to allow more info on hosts? I'll trust aidan's view on that for the forum. My own personal view is - why does it matter? All you are trying to do by allowing discussion on hosting is apparently to let the end user know more about a company, understand why they should go with the company, what is good and bad about the company. What then would they learn from a marketed blurb? A blurb geared towards getting business, when instead they should be doing their own research, considering we allow minimal discussion and they can't do it here. My personal vote would be no, as it's in the users best interest.
HandWS LTD wrote: » Nobody is going to complain that its the mod's faults. If all msg's can not become visable until validated by the mods. Not more work...they log on read message, activate for the forum or answer themselves. That way nobody will see any of the messages that ye may feel may affect the forum. OR put the conditions on the web hosts themselves so ye can read their messages and activate them or not.
Overheal wrote: » Pre-moderation of posts is a feature of Personal Issues as it is. I have no idea what goes on back behind the curtain but I can tell you PI taken at reader/face value is not a forum that requires the work of ten of the site's best moderators to handle. Fact is 99% of the work is probably the pre-approval of all unregistered/anonymous posts in it. Tack on 30% for the volume of "Why hasnt my post shown up yet?" posts. Im not sure you understand that, what you are suggesting, would be making an absolute mountain of work for anyone silly enough to agree to moderate such a discussion board. Im also not sure you appreciate how much work youre asking of the site administrators and developers by asking for a timeshare option either: as far as I am aware that is simply not a feature available on Boards or V-Bulletin, and one would have to be created Ad-Hoc. Really, really low on the list of priorities, tbh.
Darragh wrote: » HandWSLtd, If we allow this discussion, would you be happy to participate if we removed all of the links in your username and signature?
HandWS LTD wrote: » Nobody is going to complain that its the mod's faults. If all msg's can not become visable until validated by the mods. Not more work...they log on read message, activate for the forum or answer themselves. That way nobody will see any of the messages that ye may feel may affect the forum. OR put the conditions on the web hosts themselves so ye can read their messages and activate them or not. .
HandWS LTD wrote: » 2 of the points i mentioned should help if they haven't been used before. BLOCK ALL web hosting companies after a certain time (including official representatives) from the web hosting category e.g 6pm. And when a users asks about some hosting companies or recommendation for a hosting company to go with, then ONLY the mods can reply. Some ways to stop the pimping going on. Are the developers of boards.ie able to develop something like that?
HandWS LTD wrote: » A 3rd solution is that any post written to the web host forum will not be visable until it is viewed by a mod to be acceptable for the forum. They can only communicate with mods if not suitable and the mod's prob don't have to reply for a couple of days or so when they are free. If suitable then the other 2 points above comes into play or something like that. Does that make it easier?
Cabaal wrote: » The twitter post in question would be of major concern, but I'd think that IF such a forum was re-opened then no sigs allowed and outright bans for anyone acting the muppet.
aidan_walsh wrote: » Unfortunately, often times the posts that were causing problems didn't come just from other hosts but from their customers or former customers as well. As for pimping, the rules are already as strict as they can get on it - Don't do it. I have and do ban posters for doing so, and despite the threads pointing out the ban, it happens regardless. I don't see what can change other than making potentially more work for myself by allowing the discussion again.
tomED wrote: I've been misquoted above and would appreciate reference to me is removed from the second point
HandWS LTD wrote: » I have apoligised and regret what did happen. One person did mention about just opening the web hosting to the users ONLY which was a good recommendation but then again after reading all this i believe the there is NO chance of this happening. Another just above mentioned the mods should be getting paid. They are all suggestions that will help.
HandWS LTD wrote: » Another just above mentioned the mods should be getting paid. They are all suggestions that will help.
HandWS LTD wrote: » This question should not be directed at me as i have said "Another" person mentioned the mods should be getting paid.
