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

Feedback - Charter Discussion

  • 05-05-2011 12:57pm
    #1
    LoLth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭


    This is a thread for discussion of the forum charter which can be found HERE.

    All opinions are welcome and the charter is open to change.
    Post edited by Shield on


«1

Comments

  • #2
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Suggest a definition of what the forum mods mean when they refer to trolling


  • #3
    aidan_walsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,208 ✭✭✭✭aidan_walsh


    tbh wrote: »
    Suggest a definition of what the forum mods mean when they refer to trolling
    Whats wrong with the classic definition?


  • #4
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    What is the classic definition?


  • #5
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Forums/Categories should have their own individual feedback areas. Lots of stuff discussed in FB atm are very noisy and don't really appear to lead to any noticeable changes taking place.

    Some forums already have feedback stickies.. they seem a lot more effective for dealing with issues pertinent to the forum they're contained within. Maybe the issues which mods/cmods deem to have implications for the site as a whole could be moved here to be dealt with by the current FF crew?


  • #6
    aidan_walsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,208 ✭✭✭✭aidan_walsh


    tbh wrote: »
    What is the classic definition?
    As Wikipedia puts it best:
    someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    How do you prove that that is their primary intent? This is the thing that annoys me about people playing the troll card - if I post a genuinely held opinion, someone else who doesn't agree with it calls me a troll - as if I couldn't possibly have a rational reason for holding that opinion, the only reason I'm saying what I'm saying is to wind people up. Calling troll is a judgement call - I have no problem with the appointed mods making that call, even if I might not agree with them, as long as the parameters for making that call are clearly laid out in advance - and not just used as a stick to beat someone who holds an unpopular, but sincerely held, opinion. I'm not saying the mods *would* do that, but as the charter is being defined, it makes sense - to me - to lay this stuff out now.


  • #8
    LoLth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭LoLth


    @tbh: certainly something I have thought about but I want ot be careful not to leave a "hole" in teh definition so that a clever troll can point at the charter and say "show me the rule I broke" and use the charter as a tool to beat me/other users over the head with. trolling is something that *needs* to have room for mod discretion (especially low level trolling as is being discussed in the soccer thread currently). The Wikipedia definition + padding may be enough.

    @My Name is URL: that has been discussed multiple times and while it has merit it has its downside as well. This is not the thread for resurrection of that discussion. Its for discussion of the current charter for the current feedback forum.


  • #9
    Gordon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    tbh wrote: »
    I have no problem with the appointed mods making that call, even if I might not agree with them, as long as the parameters for making that call are clearly laid out in advance
    I don't think any forum charters have the exact parameters of what defines a troll clearly laid out do they? LTI doesn't, for example.


  • #10
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    It's never really come up in LTI :). It does arise in, say, tGC, hence:

    Comments regarding personality traits which begin with words like "women just want to" or "all men are" are never true, and never serve any purpose except to inflame other users who feel the need to post to object to them them.
    Therefore, they will be regarded as flaming (posting a intentionally provocative post with the deliberate intention of bringing the thread off-topic) and users may be banned or infracted at the mods discretion.


  • #11
    Gordon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    tbh wrote: »
    It's never really come up in LTI :)
    Probably because you've got it covered in the charter :D


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I might suggest the addition of something along the lines of 'Discussions on Forums should not feature input from those permabanned from same.'


  • #13
    LoLth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭LoLth


    Nodin wrote: »
    I might suggest the addition of something along the lines of 'Discussions on Forums should not feature input from those permabanned from same.'

    I dont think permabans should be excluded from giving feedback, but, I do feel they should either disclose the information themselves upfront or when asked so that their opinion can be taken with a pinch of salt if needs be.

    Its not something that I feel would be enforcable by a hard and fast rule though, not without some discussion with the other admins. Is it fair to discredit an opinion based on a ban that could well be from a long time ago and from a different mod, possibly for an outburst or insult on a particularly hot/controversial topic at the time. I would like to think that sour grapes will be evident in the quality of feedback given.


  • #14
    MitchKoobski
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,101 ✭✭✭MitchKoobski


    Think every forum should be open to having its own Feedback thread..


  • #15
    LoLth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭LoLth


    MitchKoobski wrote: »
    Think every forum should be open to having its own Feedback thread..

    This was discussed elsewhere. There is nothing against each forum having its own feedback thread if the mods want to set one up.

    this thread however is for discussion of the charter for the feedback forum.


  • #16
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    LoLth wrote: »
    I dont think permabans should be excluded from giving feedback, but, I do feel they should either disclose the information themselves upfront or when asked so that their opinion can be taken with a pinch of salt if needs be.

    Its not something that I feel would be enforcable by a hard and fast rule though, not without some discussion with the other admins. Is it fair to discredit an opinion based on a ban that could well be from a long time ago and from a different mod, possibly for an outburst or insult on a particularly hot/controversial topic at the time. I would like to think that sour grapes will be evident in the quality of feedback given.


    ...correct me if I'm wrong, but you aren't permabanned for a single incident, afaik...if somebodys just 'on holidays' for a bit, fair enough, I've no objections, but a permanent exclusion is rather different.


  • #17
    LoLth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭LoLth


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...correct me if I'm wrong, but you aren't permabanned for a single incident, afaik...if somebodys just 'on holidays' for a bit, fair enough, I've no objections, but a permanent exclusion is rather different.

    depends on the incident. Its not always warning then ban then permaban. some things, like posting pornography or seriously compromising a forums rules warrant more than just a warning.


  • #18
    LoLth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭LoLth


    Nodin wrote: »
    I might suggest the addition of something along the lines of 'Discussions on Forums should not feature input from those permabanned from same.'

    I stand corrected.

    recent update to the charter:
    added 08/11/2011:
    Users under a ban from a forum
    Users currently serving a ban from a forum with a duration over 1 month are not allowed to post on feedback threads concerning that forum. Once the ban is lifted or the term has ended, then the user is more than welcome to participate. This is to stem a growing trend of banned users hijacking threads to either appeal a ban or take the opoprtunity to make life more difficult for the mod or mods that imposed the ban in the first place. Any post reported, if posted after this amendment to the charter and during a ban period will be investigated. Any user found breaking this rule will have a ban from feedback imposed on them, without warning, that will only be lifted when their original forum ban has expired or has been lifted. To appeal a ban, please use the Dispute Resolution forum and follow the Dispute resolution procedure. If you wish to complain outside of that process, please feel free to do so on any of the other forums hosted outside of the boards.ie/adverts.ie servers.

    Some banned/permabanned users were willing to give honest feedback but too many were takign advantage of the opportunity to make life difficult for the mods and were using feedback to execute a grudge. I honestly never wanted to have to impose this rule (as I posted above) but recent trends on feedback threads, not just those within the last few weeks, have shown that this is an almost impossible task to moderate and manage. The *only* solution that I can see has to be one of zero tolerance. I apologise for implementing this rule to those that feel this will impact them unfairly and I apologise to thread starters and mods for not implementing it sooner.

    LoLth


  • #19
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Should make it somewhat easier for yez.


  • #20
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    LoLth wrote: »
    I stand corrected.

    recent update to the charter:


    Some banned/permabanned users were willing to give honest feedback but too many were takign advantage of the opportunity to make life difficult for the mods and were using feedback to execute a grudge. I honestly never wanted to have to impose this rule (as I posted above) but recent trends on feedback threads, not just those within the last few weeks, have shown that this is an almost impossible task to moderate and manage. The *only* solution that I can see has to be one of zero tolerance. I apologise for implementing this rule to those that feel this will impact them unfairly and I apologise to thread starters and mods for not implementing it sooner.

    LoLth

    I disagree with this new rule, but respect your decision.

    I think a stern "do not post in this thread again" warning to posters that are not being constructive would suffice, it takes as much effort to moderate this way as it would a blanket ban.


  • #21
    LoLth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭LoLth


    TheZohan wrote: »
    I disagree with this new rule, but respect your decision.

    I think a stern "do not post in this thread again" warning to posters that are not being constructive would suffice, it takes as much effort to moderate this way as it would a blanket ban.

    I do agree with you, to an extent, and it has been my approach in the past. However, the multiple PMs that follow still take time and thats time I dont always have at my disposal. Additionally, on several occasions, the poster might not be directly addressing their ban but instead nudging a complaint from another user or simply keeping a complaint alive long past its resolution for the sake of either wasting time or tarnishng the reputaiton of the mods in question.

    Its a balancing act and currently, valid feedback is getting overshadowed by posts from users with a grudge and mods are spending more time defending themselves from those accusations than responding to feedback from users that are willing to engage and are open to having their opinion changed.

    bottom line is there are a lot of users on this site and feedback from a user that posts in the spirit of the forum and abides by the charter is a lot more useful than those that will not or cannot. Why should we change the site to suit those that refuse to change to fit the site ?

    Honestly, your suggestion has been tried. It hasnt worked. This addition to the charter is, for me, a last resort and not one I am too happy about implementing but, its for the best overall.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    LoLth wrote: »
    thats time I dont always have at my disposal

    Hi LoLth :)

    This looks to me like you are the only Admin regularly involved in Feedback.

    Is this the way it is? How many Admins are there, and why aren't more of them involved in Feedback?

    I've noticed before that you yourself seem to have a lot of Admin-y responsibilities on your shoulders (you are also seemingly the only Admin involved in the Forum Request Forum on anything approaching a regular basis).

    Trout seems to be the man for DRP closure, and Zaph deals with Prison.

    Who are the other Admins, and what are their roles?


  • #23
    LoLth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭LoLth


    Des wrote: »
    Hi LoLth :)

    This looks to me like you are the only Admin regularly involved in Feedback.

    Is this the way it is?

    nope, the other admins pitch in as needed. I just tend to hit feedback first :)
    How many Admins are there, and why aren't more of them involved in Feedback?

    more than you might think and we're cloning more all the time.
    I've noticed before that you yourself seem to have a lot of Admin-y responsibilities on your shoulders

    no more than any other admin. The time I was referring to was RL time. I dont get to sit down with boards for the same length of time I used to anymore so I try to use time in a better way. Responding to PMs is always top of the list, the more pms the less time is left for other things.
    (you are also seemingly the only Admin involved in the Forum Request Forum on anything approaching a regular basis).

    I am a sort of self appointed caretaker of that forum but I'm not the only admin that drops in there. I post more perhaps but its not my "domain" in any way.
    Trout seems to be the man for DRP closure, and Zaph deals with Prison.

    Trout has yet to lose his layer of fatty patience. we'll get him skinnied down to a less tolerant admin soon enough :) as for prison, we generally deal with our own sitebans to make things clearer for the user, I dont siteban that many people so I would appear less there than Zaph. (which explains why he's less prominent on feedback as he's dealing with banned people.
    Who are the other Admins, and what are their roles?

    there's a list somewhere...cant remember offhand. We do have loosely defined roles but we try to steer clear of strict boundaries as you never know when you may be needed to fill a gap and also the same task day after day becoems a task and not something you enjoy and admins, like mods, are volunteers so we have to enjoy it to make it worthwhile (I'm a nice person but I'm not selfless, I've modded/cmodded and now admin because I get satisfaction from it. It may be the bannings, it may be helping to keep a community going, I dont know, let the speculation begin!). if I get time I'll PM you a link to the list (its in the mod forum isnt it? the who's who?)


    however, this is only tangentially related to the charter. Do you have a comment or question on the recent addition?


  • #24
    Kiera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,130 ✭✭✭✭Kiera


    LoLth wrote: »




    there's a list somewhere...cant remember offhand.


    Here ya go :)


  • #25
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    tbh wrote: »
    What is the classic definition?

    There's one in the parenting charter.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056190205
    Trolls
    What is a troll?
    A troll is a poster who posts in away to try get your goat.

    How will a troll do this?
    By being annoying confrontational and antagonistic and saying it's just that my opinion differs.

    What does a troll want?
    To disrupt a forum and upset the posters who post there.

    Why does a troll do this?
    For kicks, the more worked up you get the more fun a troll thinks it is.
    A successful troll will post something which is not enough to get them banned but the reactions of posters to it will get the poster banned and have posters turn on each other.

    How do we deal with trolls and neutralise their behaviour?
    By not reacting in the way they want, they are like the bold child acting out.

    First thing you can do is take a deep breath.

    Second things you can do is report the posts.
    While one or two trollish posts may not be enough to have the troll booted from the forum if they persist and there is a clear pattern of such behaviour they will be banned permanently from the forum. Yes this has been done before and will be done again if needed.

    Third if you do reply to posts don't let the troll drag you down to it's level
    stay on topic and be civil as per the rules of the forum.


  • #26
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Would second TZ's post in that, while I disagree with this new Charter amendment LoLth, I still fully respect your decision to back it. I would also mirror Des's comments in that you do seem to put in more time that any other members of Admin (second only to RopeDrink perhaps) and anyone that spends even a little time here reading the threads can see that and so see my points as being directed at admin as a entirety, not just yourself.
    LoLth wrote: »
    Some banned/permabanned users were willing to give honest feedback but too many were takign advantage of the opportunity to make life difficult for the mods and were using feedback to execute a grudge.

    As I said in the other thread, this 'grudge' accusation has become a favourite weapon of choice for some mods in FB this past lately. It's for sure an easy way to muddy the waters and get admin's attention. Make a user look as if they have ulterior motives for saying what they are and so ir will appear as if there is little or no substance in their complaints, they have an agenda .. and to be fair, it works - and works well.

    I'm not for a second trying to suggest that there are not users that fit the above description by the way, as there most certainly are those that after being permabanned, should they happen into FB and see a thread regarding that same forum (or indeed a moderator that they had dealings with) will see it as an opening to troll, stir and get the boot in throughout the thread's lifespan.

    However, again I have to agree with TZ here in that those users should undoubtedly be moderated for that. Blanket banning users from ever giving feedback when it concerns forums that they have been permabanned from, is a bridge too far. I have been accused of having a grudge against a forum when there was no truth in it, so I speak from experience. A forum I only ever disputed moderation in ONCE and posted in ONE feedback thread concerning, yet got permabanned. Interestingly, the very thing you again cite here as one of the reasons for this amendment was also throw at me: "you were making trouble for the mods".

    So what? That's the nature of feedback when you don't agree with. It will rankle, of course it will but sure if it holds no water and there is no merit in it, there should be no problem pointing that out. It's as clear as day when someone has a GENUINE grudge against a forum as there never any substance in what they say. They usually talk in circles and if you asked them what they want, they wouldn't be able to tell you as they rarely if ever know. There is never any specifics to their complainants and they generally only know what they don't want moderators on a forum to do, never what they wish them to do.

    This new amendment has been pushed through for one reason and one reason alone and that is to SHUT USERS UP. Users that certain moderators wish had no voice when it comes to giving feedback regarding forum's that they moderate. Maybe not right away, but over time there will no question be a hell of lot more permabans for users from now on, as a consequence of this amendment, that's is for damn sure - because, as long as mods know that were they to permaban a user from their forum, they are also having the knock on effect of muzzling them in FB (and from even ever giving FB as long as that ban stands) well then unfortunately, the incentive will appear to great for some.


  • #27
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Would second TZ's post in that, while I disagree with this new Charter amendment LoLth, I still fully respect your decision to back it. I would also mirror Des's comments in that you do seem to put in more time that any other members of Admin (second only to RopeDrink perhaps) and anyone that spends even a little time here reading the threads can see that and so see my points as being directed at admin as a entirety, not just yourself.



    As I said in the other thread, this 'grudge' accusation has become a favourite weapon of choice for some mods in FB this past lately. It's for sure an easy way to muddy the waters and get admin's attention. Make a user look as if they have ulterior motives for saying what they are and so ir will appear as if there is little or no substance in their complaints, they have an agenda .. and to be fair, it works - and works well.

    ..........

    I suggested this on the 8th of May, as it was obvious to me that vendettas by the permabanned were being dragged into feedback regarding mods, users and the fora they were slung out of. I'm not a mod.

    If you've been permabanned from a specific forum, have gone through the DRP and the decision has been upheld, what valid input are you going to be able to have, exactly? Whats the point of it?


  • #28
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Nodin wrote: »
    If you've been permabanned from a specific forum, have gone through the DRP and the decision has been upheld, what valid input are you going to be able to have, exactly?

    Not all users that get permabanned have the option of a DRP thread, I have made that point many times now and as of yet, it has not been addressed. The thread I started on that particular point regarding admin issued permabans was swiftly locked and it was implied that I wanted to complain about the forum which I was banned from, which is the kind of thing that I am talking about. This 'grudge' stick is just being used as a tool to shut certain users up, users that have a genuine complaint (some don't, again - I of course get that) but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water here.

    If users try and dispute bans here in FB and/or try and get a witch hunt going against a moderator, then just moderate them (get new mods if necessary). Lets not punish the users who trying to give genuine feedback based on their experiences, even if that experience includes a permaban. Treating such users as if they just want to get digs in and have no other reason for posting is wrong, it shouldn't happen, not without very good cause at least and in my opinion, this new amendment, will make that an even more likely occurrence from hence forth, as that particular stick has now got even bigger, much to the delight of those who don't like hearing criticisms regarding their forum, no matter how legitimate such criticisms might be.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Whats the point of it?

    Users that have been permabanned from forums, don't always dispute their bans, many fully accept that they were deserved, that's just one point. Another being that users that have been permabanned might just have something worthwhile and valuable to say. Something that the mods may have missed amongst the din and chaos that goes with permabanning a user from time to time (I've seen many issued at once for instance). If FB was moderated more frequently (not trying to imply it isn't moderated well by the way) then I don't see why all users should not be able to give feedback without quandary, once of course that is that they obeyed the previous Charter (which I had thanked).

    Personally, I have no truck with admin, cmods nor specific moderators. On the contrary, I happen to think overall that they do a great job, as other than this current permaban (which I would without question would like to dispute in the DRF) I have had three other temp bans in my six years on Boards and each and every one of them was lifted using the DR process. I have also had occasion to request admin to delete certain abusive posts on Boards and they also were kind enough to do that for me. Nor indeed a grudge against any forum on Boards and this is my main point: we need to put an end to these constant accusations of users having grudges against forums. It's a tactic employed to muddy the waters and lessen the complaints that users might have with regards to forums and/or how they are being moderated.

    If moderators question a users motives in FB, then they should report the posts and let admin look into it and let them decide if there is evidence to support such accusations. Steaming into FB making these claims usually ends up with threads getting derailed and then ultimately locked .. another tactic perhaps. One wonders also what has admin making this amendment. Is it many forums on boards that want it? Just a few? Do the same mods/users reports posts in FB making these claims of 'grudges' and the like?

    As, maybe it's just me (quite probable) but I would have thought that any user making nonsense complaints in FB fuelled only by a grudge that held little or no weight, would be easily handled by moderators replies and/or reporting said posts. Address these users main points and ignore the noise, then where is the issue. What is this so called "trouble" that mods are having to go to, to such an extent that admin have to make this amendment to the charter? One wonders yet again would it really be that these moderators just don't like having to explain their moderation to mere users with unbolded usernames?

    As it seems to me (aye, an opinion) that certain mods are well able to come to FB and converse with users, address their points, agree to disagree and get on with their day, while there are others, that appear to resent the fact that any user has dared question their moderation, let alone the fact that admin would provide the very platform for them to do so. My guess is that the mods/admin responsible for pushing this new rule through are the very same ones that I am referring to with regards to some not been to receptive to constructive criticisms of how their forums are moderated and/or their individual moderation decisions. Which begs the question: is this all really just a case of the tail wagging the dog.


  • #29
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Not all users that get permabanned have the option of a DRP thread, I have made that point many times now and as of yet, it has not been addressed..

    Thats up to the site mods. You seem to be under the impression that a site is obligated to you or that you have some 'rights' as regards matters disciplinary. They aren't and you don't. Not here, not anywhere that I'm aware of.
    OutlawPete wrote: »
    The thread I started on that particular point regarding admin issued permabans was swiftly locked and it was implied that I wanted to complain about the forum which I was banned from, which is the kind of thing that I am talking about. ..

    I wonder where they got that idea from.....
    I was recently permbanned from a forum by a member of admin, via PM. I feel the permaban was unjust and unwarranted. Certain reasons given for the ban were for things which I feel users should be able to do on Boards freely, without fear of it ever getting thrown back in their face, such as: disputing a moderation decision in the Help Desk, giving Feedback etc. There were other accusations also made in the PM which were quite frankly, absurd, as I have never been so much as infracted on this particular forum and have only ever given Feedback in relation to it on one single thread in five years.

    .....any suggestions?

    This thing about "constructive criticisms of how their forums are moderated" by the permabanned - you don't see how that would end up as an endless rehash of the argument concerning the issue(s) that led to them being hoofed out in the 1st place?


  • #30
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Nodin wrote: »
    Thats up to the site mods. You seem to be under the impression that a site is obligated to you or that you have some 'rights' as regards matters disciplinary.

    I think the site is "obligated" to me with regards to matters disciplinary? What a nonsense statement.

    Boards.ie, with the DRF and the DRP has made it quite clear that they wish for bannings to be as transparent as possible and I am pointing out that there is one area where there is zero transparency and that is when admin ban a user at the request of the forum mods. If Boards.ie does not wish to allow users to dispute such bans, then that is obviously their choice. A point which I made clear in the last few lines of this post:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75199858&postcount=5
    Nodin wrote: »
    I wonder where they got that idea from.....

    As do I as I made it quite clear that I wanted to dispute my ban in the DRF.
    Nodin wrote: »
    .. you don't see how that would end up as an endless rehash of the argument concerning the issue(s) that led to them being hoofed out in the 1st place?

    Eh, did you read my post? I have stated many times that I beleive users that do that should be moderated and banned from FB if necessary.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    LoLth wrote: »
    I dont think permabans should be excluded from giving feedback, but, I do feel they should either disclose the information themselves upfront or when asked so that their opinion can be taken with a pinch of salt if needs be.

    So why did you change the charter to prevent them giving feedback?
    And basically you are saying people who are permabanned should not have their poinmts considered on whether they are right or wrong but they should in addition to the sentence they already have have a double jeopardy added? Clearly non bis in idem.

    Anyway why should you judge a fact based on who told you the fact?


  • #32
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    Here's a suggestion, limit the ammount of chars in a post.
    Yes it's pretty big but given it's feedback and feedback should be succinct,
    is it possible to half the post length for this forum?

    It will stop the wall o' text replies which can kill threads making them tl'dr.


  • #33
    --amadeus--
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,096 ✭✭✭--amadeus--


    I can understand why this has been introduced, simply from a time management POV.

    However I do think it's a bad idea and one which is just going to re-inforce the status quo. Anyone who has been around here for any length of time will recognise that in 99% of permaban cases the user is wrong and teh rules are right. But what about that 1% of teh time when Mods use charters and rules to enforce an "editorial policy" on a forum? Charters are written that reinforce the line they want the discussion to follow and anyone posting from a contrary viewpoint is in breech of teh charter and ultimately banned. And that ban will be upheald through the DRP and by Admins because - well because they breached the Charter (catch 22)

    For example lets suppose that there was a Banking form where the mods were all working in the banking industry and the Charter specifically stated that the forum was for bankers and those involved in the industry to discuss common interests. But then some posters went in and started negative discussions about Anglo or bailouts. The Mods are within their rights to close the conversation down and ban the users for breaching the charter. The DRP has no solution. And now the users cannot open a discussion in feedback to ask if the conversations they want to have are suitable for that forum, they cannot use feedback to provide feedback that the forum may not be serving it's purpose.

    As I said 99% of the bans are valid and the posters in feedback are just exercising grudges. But there are times when a series of posters will fall foul of rules that could legitimately be questioned and if we remove the option of discussing those rules here - openly and as equals - then where do they get discussed?


  • #34
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    ISAW wrote: »
    ... Clearly non bis in idem....

    It's that sort of perseverative argument, completely ignoring the fact that you have been told that it does not necessarily apply here, that leads me to support the idea of changing the feedback forum charter.

    Why should a handful of tenacious individuals with axes to grind spoil the boards experience for everybody else, and place a huge burden in the mods, cmods, and admins, all of whom are volunteers?


  • #35
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Why should a handful of tenacious individuals with axes to grind spoil the boards experience for everybody else ..

    Who decides that a user has an axe to grind though? The moderators of that forum? Admin? Both?

    From experience, just because that accusation is levelled at a user, does not make it so, no matter often or how loud it is repeated. I was labelled as having an axe to grind with the forum I was permabanned from BEFORE I was permabanned and that was the FIRST time I ever gave feedback on it also. Not only that, but the criticisms that I made about the forum where made seven weeks before that by one of it's moderators.

    Of course you will get users that have been permabanned for constantly breaking a charter of a forum or regularly abusing other members on it but those users can easily be moderated. If they are posting in a way that is not considered to be feedback that is relevant to the topic, then moderate them, ban the from the thread and/or the FB if they make a habit of it.

    amadeus is spot on:
    --amadeus-- wrote: »
    But there are times when a series of posters will fall foul of rules that could legitimately be questioned and if we remove the option of discussing those rules here - openly and as equals - then where do they get discussed?


  • #36
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    ISAW wrote: »
    So why did you change the charter to prevent them giving feedback?

    Thats not the case.
    Users currently serving a ban from a forum with a duration over 1 month are not allowed to post on feedback threads concerning that forum
    Outlaw Pete wrote:
    Of course you will get users that have been permabanned for constantly breaking a charter of a forum or regularly abusing other members on it but those users can easily be moderated. If they are posting in a way that is not considered to be feedback that is relevant to the topic, then moderate them, ban the from the thread and/or the FB if they make a habit of it.

    You've yet to explain to me the point of a banned user posting about a forum they cannot post in.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Nodin wrote: »
    You've yet to explain to me the point of a banned user posting about a forum they cannot post in.

    I did, I suggest you go back and read what I wrote after I quoted you making that very point. I would do so again here but I see some seem to have an issue with users posting too many characters.


  • #38
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Who decides that a user has an axe to grind though? The moderators of that forum? Admin? Both?
    ...

    I would not leave it to a single moderator, or even a pair of moderators in the same forum, to make a final judgement.

    When a person has exhausted the procedures (mod-level; c-mod level; admin level) and not won the argument, then I would support the idea of the person being outside the pale so far as a particular forum is concerned, and be restrained from participating in general discussion in Feedback about that forum.

    Where a person is banned by a mod and does not take the case further, then it can be inferred that he or she has accepted the mod's judgement and can be considered to be on the same level as somebody who has invoked all the procedures. Otherwise we might have people arguing that because a ban was not upheld by an admin, they should have a right to hurl on the ditch in Feedback.


  • #39
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I would not leave it to a single moderator, or even a pair of moderators in the same forum, to make a final judgement.

    But quite often that is what happens here. Not just with myself, but with many other users also and yes, sometimes it is justified, but there are times when it simply is not. As I said, the first thread I ever gave feedback on regarding the forum I was later to be banned from, I was accused of having an axe to grind, as was every other user on that thread who held the same opinion in fact and that is wrong. It's a tactic by some and a tactic that is quite effective, as when there are many mods from one forum saying the same thing (and no doubt also reporting posts and repeating those same accusations there also) it's bound to be given some credence. It's classic muddying of the water, for muddying sake and as we all know, mud sticks.

    How about in the charter mods are no longer allowed to accuse a user of having an axe to grind, or a grudge to bear against a mod or a forum for that matter and should they feel that that is the case, report the user instead of having a pop at them and derailing the thread. I'd like to see a total clamp down on these type of posts, from both mods and non-mods alike. FB can be like a bloody circus at times with the amount of people that like playing the man/woman instead of the ball. I know I'm sticking a target on my back saying this stuff but it's the truth. Thanks whoring posts having a pop at a user with a grievance are the single biggest cause of threads getting derailed here.
    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    When a person has exhausted the procedures (mod-level; c-mod level; admin level) and not won the argument, then I would support the idea of the person being outside the pale so far as a particular forum is concerned, and be restrained from participating in general discussion in Feedback about that forum.

    I would agree.

    However, not all banned users have the option of the DRP (which I'm sure everyone is sick of me saying at this point) and even if those that have that option, there is undoubtedly some users that are genuine and have the character to still take part in FB threads without rehashing the ins and outs of a some ban that they have disputed in the DRP which didn't go their way. With this new rule, those users are the ones that getting chucked out with the bath water.
    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Where a person is banned by a mod and does not take the case further, then it can be inferred that he or she has accepted the mod's judgement and can be considered to be on the same level as somebody who has invoked all the procedures. Otherwise we might have people arguing that because a ban was not upheld by an admin, they should have a right to hurl on the ditch in Feedback.

    There is a difference between someone getting digs at mods and/or a forum and a user making genuine and relevant points. The former is easily moderated. For instance, you and I might have some ding dong in AH and you get banned as a result of missing a mod's post telling you to leave it out, so you start a DRP thread, which you lose. Then, while the ban is in effect, there is a FB thread regarding AH and how it deals with users that are taking over threads with point scoring ding dongs. Now you might wish to give some FB on this and say that you think mods should use the post header and/or write Mod Note in bold in moderating posts, as it would make sure users didn't miss them and unbeknownst, ignore an on-thread warning.

    Some users will see you as having a dig of course, but I think it's relevant FB. If you was to go the thread and say: "Well, maybe if mods made their moderation posts clear then I wouldn't have been banned but oh no, it's my fault I suppose :rolleyes:" -- well then that would someone grinding their axe and without question needing moderation. Thread ban such users, forum ban them if they persist, but there's just no need for this amendment. It's been pushed through because a selection of moderators moaning and bleating to admin whenever a thread is started in FB regarding a forum that they moderate and/or where a user that they may have muzzled by banning, is now in FB criticizing either the forum's stance on an element of it's charter, or one of a whole host of other complaints that can get thrown their way.

    Let's be honest, the vast majority of both positive and negative feedback comes for one's experience of a forum. If a user says that they think mods of Forum X do an amazing job and are very fair with the regulars and non-regulars alike, that will come from them experiencing that while in the forum and so naturally, if a user is saying the opposite, then that too is bound to come from personal experiences of a forum also. That's not a user having an axe to grind, that's their opinion and an informed one at that.


  • #40
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    I did, I suggest you go back and read what I wrote after I quoted you making that very point..

    I see it now.
    Users that have been permabanned from forums, don't always dispute their bans, many fully accept that they were deserved, that's just one point.
    Another being that users that have been permabanned might just have something worthwhile and valuable to say.

    As they've still been chucked out, it implies that they and the fora can't play well together. Thus its hard to see what positive input such a person could have.


  • #41
    --amadeus--
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,096 ✭✭✭--amadeus--


    Nodin wrote: »
    As they've still been chucked out, it implies that they and the fora can't play well together. Thus its hard to see what positive input such a person could have.

    But you are ignoring the point that maybe the charter is flawed and users banned through a flawed charter have no recourse through the DRP and now have just had Feedback closed to them.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    --amadeus-- wrote: »
    But you are ignoring the point that maybe the charter is flawed and users banned through a flawed charter have no recourse through the DRP and now have just had Feedback closed to them.

    I don't believe it is flawed.


  • #43
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,003 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    Nodin wrote: »
    Thus its hard to see what positive input such a person could have.

    Must all feedback be positive, why can we not have negative feedback?


  • #44
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    The Muppet wrote: »
    Must all feedback be positive, why can we not have negative feedback?

    ....from people who haven't managed to get themselves banned or permabanned, or permabanned twice, yes, sure why not.


  • #45
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,003 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....from people who haven't managed to get themselves banned or permabanned, or permabanned twice, yes, sure why not.

    Quite a few users get themselves banned , sometimes for quite trivial offences , it shouldn't mean they have nothing worthwhile to contribute or that their opinions are any less valued than anyone else.


  • #46
    LoLth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭LoLth


    The Muppet wrote: »
    Quite a few users get themselves banned , sometimes for quite trivial offences , it shouldn't mean they have nothing worthwhile to contribute or that their opinions are any less valued than anyone else.

    with teh DRP no user should receive a ban of over 1 month for something trivial. if it is trivial then an appeal will sort it out. If it goes through the DRP and the ban is upheld then the mod, cmod and admins all agree that it is not, in fact, trivial regardless of what the user themselves thinks and that would have been explained to the user as part of the DRP.

    If the user does not go through the DRP then they are accepting the ban, there may be another reason for not going through the DRP but we cant make a ruling for every single possibility that a user might come up with.

    This charter amendment is currently being discussed by the admins and there is genuine feeling that there has to be a better way but for what its worth for now, imho, no, the opinion of a user that cannot obey the same rules hundreds of other users obeys and gets themselves a ban period of 1 month + is not as valid as that of a user that uses the forum in the manner for which it was intended. Mods/cmods and admins should not have to spend time respondign to their queries if that meas time is being diverted from users that dont do anything wrong or have heeded mod warnings in the past.


  • #47
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,003 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    LoLth wrote: »
    with teh DRP no user should receive a ban of over 1 month for something trivial. if it is trivial then an appeal will sort it out. If it goes through the DRP and the ban is upheld then the mod, cmod and admins all agree that it is not, in fact, trivial regardless of what the user themselves thinks and that would have been explained to the user as part of the DRP.

    It's evident from recent threads here that that is not the case as not all bans can be appealed. We have also had evidence of trivial bans pop up recently,
    LoLth wrote: »

    If the user does not go through the DRP then they are accepting the ban, there may be another reason for not going through the DRP but we cant make a ruling for every single possibility that a user might come up with.

    I don't agree with you about them accepting the ban but understand that there is noting you can do in that situation.

    LoLth wrote: »
    This charter amendment is currently being discussed by the admins and there is genuine feeling that there has to be a better way but for what its worth for now, imho, no, the opinion of a user that cannot obey the same rules hundreds of other users obeys and gets themselves a ban period of 1 month + is not as valid as that of a user that uses the forum in the manner for which it was intended. Mods/cmods and admins should not have to spend time respondign to their queries if that meas time is being diverted from users that dont do anything wrong or have heeded mod warnings in the past.

    I'll be frank about the charter amendment, It's a joke which won't have the desired effect. Whoever came up with the idea didn't think it through very well.

    everyones opinion is supposed to be equal here according to your own charter , yet there is a lot of emphasis put on rubbishing certains users opinions by certain admins and users here on feedback citing bans elsewhere as reason for that, it portrays management in a bad light, impartiality should be a lot more evident here than it has been of late.

    My perm ban thread forum thread is an example of this. You locked it saying the op (me) was left behind in teh discussion. That was a cop out as other users were continuing the discussion in a perfectly civil manner, I was well up to date on the discussion . Since when must the op continue to post in threads to their natural conclusion?

    I could cite other examples but i think i,ve made my point, a little less of the censorship in feedback would be beneficial imo.


  • #48
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    The Muppet wrote: »
    It's evident (..........)beneficial imo.

    Anyone who gets a permaban from a forum is never going to post in that forum again. If they can't post normally in a forum, they're not suitable to give feedback on it. If you've received two, well.......
    The Muppet wrote: »
    My perm ban thread forum thread ..........

    Underlining the point that it ends as an endless rehash of 'Why I Was Unfairly Banned' once more. Well done.


  • #49
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,003 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    Nodin wrote: »
    Anyone who gets a permaban from a forum is never going to post in that forum again. If they can't post normally in a forum, they're not suitable to give feedback on it. If you've received two, well.......

    That's a very black and white picture you paint. I suggest if user has thousands of post's in a forum over a considerable number of years they are suitable to give feedback on it irrespective of anything else.


  • #50
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    The Muppet wrote: »
    That's a very black and white picture you paint. I suggest if user has thousands of post's in a forum over a considerable number of years they are suitable to give feedback on it irrespective of anything else.

    I had no idea quantity equated to quality. You must inform the scientific community of this breakthrough.


  • #51
    LoLth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭LoLth


    can we limit discussion to the charter please and avoid user v user arguments.

    As I said, the charter change is still under discussion at admin level and could very well be reversed. For now though, your feedback, even negative, is appreciated and will be taken into account.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement