Feedback - Charter Discussion

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

In fairness, asking for a "thumbs down button" is practically a Feedback meme itself at this stage. We all know it's never going to happen. Could that a mention in the charter too?

Nobody reads the charter so whether its in there or not the threads will still appear. Takes nothing to ignore the one or two threads on it a year or a couple seconds to write a short polite response explaining its been asked plenty and not gonna happen.