Feedback thread for PI, RI & Bereavement

Hannibal_Smith · 08-01-2020 8:45am

I get that its something that is hard to draw a line under. There are plenty of threads where the OP has been helped by calling a spade a spade.

Im not saying to completely remove the personal experience from posts Leggo, not at all. Thats where advice comes from at the end of the day.

Bitterness has as much experience to offer as anything else, but not to the point where the balance is tipped so that the OP is drowned out. Assumptions shouldnt override the actual posts from the OP, whether it comes in the form of tough love, or in the form of posters discussing the issue between themselves.

HildaOgdenx · 03-03-2020 10:34am

Caranica wrote: »

Meaningful thread titles. I know this has come up here before but the prevalence of vague thread titles in RI and PI is very frustrating, sometimes we even have two threads on the same screen with the same titles about two totally different issues.

Just bumping this again.

leggo · 25-03-2020 2:38pm

There’s freedom of speech and there’s letting someone continually post that rape is okay in a thread with someone talking about being raped. Not having a go at the mods but surely this is crossing the line for ‘letting someone have their opinion’ vs when someone has to step in. If there’s going to be threads with vulnerable people and victims posting, who’s allowed to address them and what they’re saying should be monitored carefully imo because we’ve no idea what will stick with the affected person.

Dial Hard · 30-05-2020 11:52am

Has the rule/guideline about not quoting lengthy posts needlessly changed? There's been a few threads over the past few days where every post seems to be an essay and then every reply quotes the whole thing. Even one of the mods is at it! It makes threads really unwieldy.

Big Bag of Chips · 30-05-2020 6:41pm

Hi Dial Hard,

I suppose that was never an official rule. It was a particular bugbear of mine and I was regularly the one snipping quoted posts and asking posters not to do it. Partly because a lot of my Boards.ie usage was done through the touch site on my phone, and scrolling through pages or duplicate quoted posts used to really annoy me!

So, as a rule it wasn't exactly changed because it was never exactly a rule! But yes, it is definitely something that I feel should be addressed again and will bring it up with the other moderators.

Thanks for the reminder.

Ranjo · 30-05-2020 10:09pm

You could make it a rule but it'll likely continue to happen. Personally, I think the better way is for posts not to be quoted by default when replying.

I posted about it in feedback, got some responses but no plans were made to make that change.

Big Bag of Chips · 30-05-2020 10:14pm

I agree Ranjo. It might be something worth raising with the powers that be again.

leggo · 30-05-2020 11:03pm

I’ve said this a few times but a tagging system instead of quoting, where the tag included a link to the post, would be perfect. Would also help bring an end to incredibly irritating arguments with people multi-quoting each other’s posts and fighting line for line. I know message boards by default are quite old technology now so don’t know how feasible that is, but to me that seems like an idea that solves everything if it is possible.

leggo · 05-07-2020 10:06am

There’s a severe amount of over-moderation going on lately tbh. I know that’s probably an over-correction to an earlier complaint around Christmas but there’s a sweet spot that’s not being hit.

The latest rule that seems to be randomly brought in is “don’t talk around the OP.” This comes across to me as a personal pet peeve of moderators rather than something which makes the forum a better and more constructive place for those needing advice. The reality is that mods are there to do the latter, they’re not in that position to make the forum *they* personally think/want PI to be. PI has always been one of boards’ better forums and moderators should be background noise upholding that gently, not putting their own beliefs front and centre to leave their ‘stamp’ on it.

Posters debating the merits and potential effects of each other’s advice is helpful to the OP (as long as it’s constructive and not personal): it allows two conflicting sides to be teased out to the full extent so the OP can explore how they feel from all angles, gives perspective through added experience attained by questioning the logic that led to a conclusion being made, as well as showing people’s qualification to give advice in certain scenarios.

For example if someone gives advice on getting a divorce but has never even been married and they’re just parroting stuff they’ve read online badly, if it comes across as crap to someone who’s actually been through it but they can’t question it out of fear of ‘talking around the OP’, the end result may be the OP taking horrible advice on a serious matter because it looked like it made sense on paper. And even if you say “well do that but direct it towards the OP”, all that’ll lead to is confusing passive-aggressive conversations achieving the same end starting with “OP I think this is bad advice because...” and the same post, when common sense and cop on can be applied to let people talk directly and constructively instead of having to jump through pointless conversational hoops for the sake of keeping mods happy.

Nobody wants to leave PI saying “y’know they give awful advice there but at least the mods are happy their pet peeves are being enforced.” If you want to default to a situation where OP’s are helped the most, take a step back and look at why you’re actually enforcing the rules in place.

Hannibal_Smith · 05-07-2020 10:20am

Thank you for your feedback Leggo.

Posters are asked to advise an OP when replying to a thread. So rather than it being a pet peeve, it's what PI is for - advising an OP on an issue that is impacting them.

It's not an echo chamber and disagreeing with or having contrasting advice is very welcome. There are ways of disagreeing with another poster or advice, while remembering and directly speaking to the OP.

For example 'OP I would not recommend x course of action because....'

Disagreeing in ^ that manner is fine.

I agree that teasing out conflicting sides can be a benefit, but not to the point where it becomes a separate discussion.

leggo · 05-07-2020 10:42am

I get what you're saying but that's the weird conversational hoops I spoke of above (like I literally gave the same example you did) that are only in place to take work off you needing to use cop-on to see where a conversation is derailing rather than make the OP's feedback more constructive.

Again, ask yourself why that rule is in place and assume that we're intelligent adults who also understand this and don't need to be 'taught' or shepherded: the rule is in place for the purpose of not derailing threads away from the OP's original point. So the line where moderator intervention is needed is when that's not the case and it's no longer a discussion about the OP's issue, it's become an argument or gone off-topic (same as with any other board who don't need to ask users to jump through conversational hoops).

Instead of asking everyone to speak unnaturally and making the forum a less constructive and enjoyable place to be because we now always have to be conscious of this specific way you've asked us to address points, you do the work instead and use your common sense to judge these things. You're also on an absolute hiding to nothing and creating a huge workload if you're essentially asking people to change how they naturally discuss issues. This can all be done quietly with a bit of cop-on applied and then you don't need to deal with feedback like this either.

Hannibal_Smith · 05-07-2020 10:59am

There is no offence or insult intended to posters in asking them to advise an OP directly. In fact it's what the majority of posters are already doing.

The rule is there so as not to deviate from the OP and their issue. The OP isn't making a point for discussion, they are seeking advice. I don't believe following that detracts from the ability to offer constructive advice and the contribution of the majority of posters certainly doesn't suggest following the rule means less constructive advice.

Discussing around the OP leads to a tangent branch of discussion and can sometimes choke a thread, which is of benefit to no one. It is the OP and their issue at the forefront here.

Big Bag of Chips · 05-07-2020 11:15am

leggo, for years it has been stressed by the moderators that PI is an advice forum, not a discussion forum. I have been a moderator on and off in PI for around 8 or 9 years and it has always been that way. Posters post looking for advice. Other posters dragging the thread off topic into general discussion that usually ends up on a tangent in no way related to the original advice sought is not what PI is for.

Also posters tend to get into petty over-and-back with each other in a bid to show their advice is better, and it becomes tedious for other users to wade through. Rather than encouraging interaction on thread it serves to turn people off contributing.

Boards.ie is a huge forum. There are plenty of places to discuss topics. Personal Issues is, and always has been specifically an advice forum.

You can disagree with a posters advice by advising the OP why you think they would be better off taking a different approach. It really is simple. Imagine the OP is sitting in front of you. Talk to them.

Big Bag of Chips · 05-07-2020 11:19am

Indeed leggo you yourself are a fan of using the line anyway can we get back on topic as this has nothing to do with the OP's issue.

So you acknowledge that oftentimes discussion is not actually addressing the OP's issue?

We have a specific forum charter in PI/RI. It's not complicated or convoluted. It's simple: Mature, constructive, civil advice to the OP.

That's basically it.

leggo · 06-07-2020 2:22pm

Guys I’m not having a go at yourselves, saying you’re bad at your job or demanding you admit you were wrong on issues. I appreciate that it’s a tough job with a lot of interpretation required and you’re doing your best.

This is the feedback thread though and I’m giving feedback that I feel lately you’ve been a bit heavy-handed with breaking up conversation and following the charter to the letter rather than using the charter as a benchmark to enable you to maintain quality advice. When people come to PI, their issue is generally complicated or they would’ve had the answer themselves and not needed PI. Sometimes it’s something they can’t see and you’ll get a unanimous response one way, but often it’s an issue that can be divisive and the OP needs to decide one way or another. The only way they can see that is through allowing discussion to happen so the OP can see the perspective of people on both sides and say “I think I identify more that way”. Discussion itself isn’t this evil thing, it’s a necessity to figure out complex issues. The only reason general discussion is discouraged here is because we want to keep the point focused on the issue that OPs have brought to us. That’s the line and you absolutely should step in when that line isn’t being towed.

Also from a personal standpoint I don’t often feel comfortable saying “OP I wouldn’t recommend this advice because...”, for the simple reason that even though someone’s point may not initially sit well with me, I may be open to the idea that they’ve seen or experienced something I haven’t so I’m not willing to just dismiss their thoughts and life experience entirely out of hand. So while I might challenge them to give my own experience that led me to my own conclusion, I’m still open myself to changing my mind, and discussing our different experiences may lead both of us (and thus the OP) to the holy grail of arriving at a consensus. If you break up these conversations mid-flow, though, all you’re getting is a muddled thread devoid of any payoff and the only real winner is the charter, ie a random collection of words. Is that really leaving an OP better off than being able to read two intelligent differing arguments fleshing out the exact themes of what they’re experiencing from both sides?

Big Bag of Chips · 06-07-2020 4:43pm

leggo, it is very simple and most other posters in the forum seem to be able to do it without issue. You can disagree as much as you like with the advice or opinion of another poster. That has never been an issue in the forum. Indeed, as you say it is often helpful for posters to hear all sides and differing points of view. The issue is when a poster drags another poster into general discussion on a topic. More often than not the topic then goes slightly (or majorly!) off topic and the thread becomes an over and back between two or more posters completely ignoring the original issue and repeatedly repeating the same argument.

As moderators we tend not to shut down people we think are giving "bad" advice, because there is always a poster who comes along to counter it with sensible advice. As moderators it is not our job to moderate posters and the advice they give. Where we draw the line is when posters get into long winded battles of who is more right. It's irrelevant who is more right! It adds nothing to the discussion and other posters and the OP often have to sift through the noise to get to the actual advice contained in posts. (Sometimes there is none!)

It annoys posters, it annoys OPs. As moderators we mostly go by reported posts, we sometimes go by our own judgement. (All reported posts aren't actioned, all actioned posts aren't reported).

We do appreciate all feedback and as you can see we answer all feedback. But just because you feel very strongly on a particular issue, doesn't mean the forum rules will be changed just because you have posted in feedback. The Forum Charter stands for all. Not just for some, sometimes, if they're making a good argument, or creating a good discussion point.

Personal Issues is an advice forum. Advise the poster who posts asking for advice. Imagine your friend comes to you in real life, upset, worried about something and looks to you for guidance. And you turn to the person beside you arguing a point, whilst pretty much ignoring your friend sitting in front you, upset and worried and looking for advice. That's what happens in PI every time a thread wanders off on a tangent.

You say we are "asking everyone to speak unnaturally". We're really not. If a friend comes to you for advice do you look for someone to argue the details with, or do you advise your friend? If they told you another friend advised a particular path that you don't agree with, do you go looking for that person to argue your point or do you offer opposing advice to your friend? Asking posters to talk to the person who has created the thread and asked for advice in an advice forum is not asking for anything unnatural. It's just asking you, as a poster, to have a bit of consideration for the person and their issue.

Maybe read a few other posters' posts and see how they can contribute to the thread whilst staying within the forum rules. It is possible to do without stunting the flow of any thread and giving differing advice and opinion.

leggo · 07-07-2020 12:31am

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

We do appreciate all feedback and as you can see we answer all feedback. But just because you feel very strongly on a particular issue, doesn't mean the forum rules will be changed just because you have posted in feedback. The Forum Charter stands for all. Not just for some, sometimes, if they're making a good argument, or creating a good discussion point.

I’m not asking you to change the rules for this. I’m dropping you off feedback and a solid reasoning behind it for you to consider going forward.

So you asked me if a friend came to me to ask me for advice would I respond by having a discussion with someone else. If it was an open group scenario (as this is) and I heard someone give questionable advice that I thought would harm my friend, yes I absolutely would! I wouldn’t ignore the person who’d just spoke and only address my friend, hand-wavingly dismissing the previous person’s advice by saying “So you shouldn’t do any of that because...” That’s rude, dismissive and unnatural and it’s going to really grate on a person who probably spoke from a good place even if they were wrong! Instead I’d respectfully challenge their point and give my own perspective while also listening to their perspective too, then continue the conversation as a group including my friend and getting their continued thoughts as the conversation progressed, if they wished to give them.

And to put it back to you: if I was in my job and a client or co-worker gave me feedback, my response wouldn’t be to get defensive and immediately start listing off examples like the above that actually don’t bare out in the real world. I’d accept what they said and consider it going forward, especially if they were a person with a history of contributing meaningfully. Whether I implemented it to make any meaningful changes would be up to me: maybe in my day-to-day duties I may pause for reflection a bit and see validity in their point as time goes on, or I may use it to reinforce my own original notions. But I wouldn’t instantly go back to them and say “So you’re wrong and here’s a list why...”

What you’re doing now by getting defensive and dismissing a valid point out of hand is the one thing you absolutely should NOT do when receiving feedback. It just pisses off the person who’s felt strongly enough to contribute towards the betterment of whatever it is you’re doing (when most people who feel that way don’t care and just go elsewhere so you lose out without even realising), it discourages others from participating in meaningful dialogue in the future because they know it’s a dead end, and the only benefit is that you feel better about yourself for a brief moment by feeling like you ‘got rid’ of the insecurity that caused you to get defensive to begin with. But you didn’t, you just shouted someone who cared down and if the problem they raised exists, it’s still there.

Again, I’m not asking you to make instant wholesale changes on my behalf here, my initial hope in posting was to just drop it off as I’ve done before and this place has a history of sorting this stuff out itself so I felt confident if it was a fair point (which I feel it is) it’d be handled well so I could forget about it and move on. I’ve been respectful towards you and acknowledged it’s a tough job and I appreciate that you’re doing your best. I’m just saying this is something I’ve observed and caring enough to drop it off for your consideration. But you’re handling this awfully by getting your back up and making it into an argument tbh.

Tokyo · 07-07-2020 3:32am

leggo wrote: »

I’ve been respectful towards you and acknowledged it’s a tough job and I appreciate that you’re doing your best. I’m just saying this is something I’ve observed and caring enough to drop it off for your consideration. But you’re handling this awfully by getting your back up and making it into an argument tbh.

To quote one of your opening posts:

leggo wrote: »

Instead of asking everyone to speak unnaturally and making the forum a less constructive and enjoyable place to be because we now always have to be conscious of this specific way you've asked us to address points, you do the work instead and use your common sense to judge these things.

Emphasis mine. People don't always come across as being respectful, despite their intentions. But it does highlight a perfect example of what can often happen in threads in PI. To take your comment, I'm sure you didn't mean that statement in a condescending or disparaging way, and either way it's not something I react to, but quite often in PI we have other posters seemingly on a hair trigger to take apart advice they don't agree with, often based on one or two words in a paragraph, and a thread ends up spiraling into a back and forth between posters effectively fighting over whose advice is better. Somewhat ironically, the last few posts illustrate exactly what often does happen when the conversation turns into a back and forth - you put forward your feedback, two people countered your feedback, and your opinion and response now is that those posters are "defensive and immediately start listing off examples". The original point of discussion has taken second place.

Worse is when other posters fall into camps behind one or two of these opposing sides, and we've had posters abandon their issues (quite often we'll get a PM from the OP to close the thread), because they don't feel like they're getting advice, or they feel like they're getting piled on by a mob. Or worse still, they simply feel like they are not being listened to.

leggo wrote: »

If it was an open group scenario (as this is)...I’d respectfully challenge their point and give my own perspective while also listening to their perspective too, then continue the conversation as a group including my friend and getting their continued thoughts as the conversation progressed, if they wished to give them.

But it's not. You're equating the open nature of the forum with a form of group therapy, which is not the case. Most OPs (in my experience at least - your mileage may vary) aren't coming here looking for a group discussion where everyone enters into broad philosophical discussions about their scenario, talks about them in the third party as they try figure out which solution best applies. They are looking for a place to vocalise their thoughts and feelings on what is often a quite recent traumatic experience in ther lives, and they want to know they aren't alone in how they feel. Quite often the "what should I do next?" element of their enquiry comes second to this initial need.

As the others have pointed out, this has been a long established rule, and one borne out of trying other alternatives first - I remember the days when PI was a free for all, and it wasn't always pretty. And while in the ideal world, each person's opinion should hold equal merit in that discussion, every other forum on the site should serve as a reminder that this isn't always the case - quite often it's the squeakiest wheel that stands out, regardless of whether their opinion happens to be valid or not.

Nobody is being forced to speak unnaturally IMO - the basic tenets are:

Direct your advice towards the OP.
Don't engage in a back and forth with other users.
Don't be a dick when doing 1) or 2).

That's it really. With respect to the "other users" part - can you disagree with another point of view? Of course. "OP - I had different experiences to leggo in a similar situation. For me, XYZ was the outcome". You're still giving validity to the other person's point of view while putting forward your own, and more importantly you're treating the OP like an adult who can decide for themselves which points they want to take from the thread, rather than hammering home a 'correct' course of action for the OP to follow. The OP isn't looking for you (or anyone else) to battle it out for them, and ultimately, nobody here is a trained professional - the best we can do is share our own life experiences and hope the OP can take something from them.

One comment you made did stand out. That the mods should put what the users want from the forum first. We do though you may not always see it, or agree with it. We consider the needs of the OP, first and foremost. If that upsets a subset of people who would like a broader discussion on the OP's issue as a whole, that's unfortunate, but I don't think it detracts hugely from the forum's primary purpose.

In summary, I appreciate that you are not asking us to make instant wholesale changes on your behalf here, that you are providing feedback. Your feedback has been listened to. It has been discussed in the mods forum. Equally I'd like you to accept that the mod response is feedback to your feedback, and not simply write it off as taking a defensive position. Will your feedback change how we mod the forum in this instance - I can't speak for the others, in my case probably not all the time - for the reasons outlined above rather than any hard line against you or your point of view. But am I so entrenched in those reasons that if an edge case comes along that I think would benefit from a little group discussion? No, I'm not. That's how feedback works sometimes.

Hannibal_Smith · 07-07-2020 7:11am

Just two quick further points:-

1. I was an OP here a while ago. All replies were addressed to me and that left the thread crisp and clear, meaning I could sift through the advice, consider it all and find what I most felt workable for me. If I had come back and found two posters discussing their advice between each other I would have been mortified that my personal issue had become a tennis ball in that way. I would have either skipped all the posts between those discussing it between them, or left the thread and come back when the advice started again. That's not constructive.

2. I think it may seem that discussing advice between two posters works - only because not everyone is doing it. If everyone started discussing each others advice amongst each other and not directing any advice to an OP it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. Speaking as a previous OP that would have been far more cumbersome than having posters speaking directly to me. So for that reason posters say 'this is my issue, please advise me' and not 'this is my issue please discuss'.

leggo · 08-07-2020 4:15pm

But that’s your experience. Because that’s your experience and what you personally wanted in that specific instance doesn’t mean the entire forum should bend towards that.

For example I’ve been an OP before too, the help that I got being an OP is what made me become a regular contributor here. In my case, I got hit with generalisations by some users that were bordering on offensive and insulting (and probably wouldn’t be allowed in PI these days), and having other users defend and back up my stance by opposing these actually made me feel supported, sane and valid during a difficult time I actually needed that support. It was actually better to be able to read that defence written by others - it made me feel backed up, understood and validated - than it would’ve been having a mod come in and just shut down the conversation where the hurtful comments had already done their damage.

So there are different circumstances and one over-arching rule doesn’t suit every situation, just because you felt one way in your own personal situation. Similarly my own situation doesn’t cover every instance either. Hence all I’m suggesting is flexibility and common sense rather than over-moderation in the name of following the charter to the letter, and I’m shocked there’s this pushback towards the suggestion of flexibility tbh. Apologies if my directness or anything else caused this defensiveness, but I’m also disappointed at you guys absolutely blasting and coming out heavy at any feedback. You could’ve just acknowledged the feedback and either listened or disregarded going forward as you saw fit instead of going on the assault. I can see I’m getting nowhere though and you don’t want to listen, so there’s no point carrying on going back and forth.

Big Bag of Chips · 08-07-2020 5:03pm

leggo wrote: »

It was actually better to be able to read that defence written by others - it made me feel backed up, understood and validated - than it would’ve been having a mod come in and just shut down the conversation

It is perfectly possible to backup a poster by talking to them rather than arguing with another poster.

Conversation doesn't get shut down unless someone is abusive or suggesting something illegal.

Apologies if my directness or anything else caused this defensiveness, but I’m also disappointed at you guys absolutely blasting and coming out heavy at any feedback. You could’ve just acknowledged the feedback and either listened or disregarded going forward as you saw fit instead of going on the assault. I can see I’m getting nowhere though and you don’t want to listen, so there’s no point carrying on going back and forth.

Nobody is defensive. Nobody is "coming out heavy at any feedback". We did acknowledge the feedback. 3 moderators acknowledge the feedback, listened and subsequently disregarded it. We gave reasons why, at this time, we are disregarding it going forward. Nobody is on the assault. Or nobody is defensive. Disagreeing with you, and highlighting the reasons for disagreeing with you isn't being defensive.

And you are right, there is no point going back and forth. (Similarly to threads in PI, where back and forth between posters regularly derails the thread.) You stated something. We stated the reasons why the forum operates in a certain way (a way that works for the huge majority of contributors). You disagreed. We disagreed. You disagree again. I disagree again.

Thank you for your feedback. The moderators are always very active in the background discussing the general running of the forum. Changes that happen over time, or changes that need to be made. Moderators use their discretion all the time. Some threads can be let run, some threads (or posters) need to be steered back in the right direction. Just because you don't see discussion (or changes that you think should happen) doesn't mean the moderators are ignoring everything.

Anyway, I've said what I needed. I've explained the reasons behind certain decisions, as you say no point carrying on going back and forth.

donaghs · 15-11-2020 3:09pm

Is it still possible to post anonymously in personal issues? Thanks

Big Bag of Chips · 15-11-2020 3:38pm

It is donaghs.

You just log out and navigate to the forum. A moderator will need to approve the thread which might take some time if nobody is online.

donaghs · 15-11-2020 5:24pm

Thanks. But when I sign out and click “post”, it asks for a login. Is it not possible on the mobile version of the site?

Hannibal_Smith · 15-11-2020 5:46pm

Hi donaghs

No it's not possible to post anonymously from the touch site at the moment. But if you scroll to the very bottom of the page you'll see a line of text like this '2020 Boards. Ie | Terms | Full Site'. If you click 'full site' it will change over for you and you can post anonymously using that version (by logging out etc)

HildaOgdenx · 21-02-2021 4:03pm

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Hi Dial Hard,

I suppose that was never an official rule. It was a particular bugbear of mine and I was regularly the one snipping quoted posts and asking posters not to do it. Partly because a lot of my Boards.ie usage was done through the touch site on my phone, and scrolling through pages or duplicate quoted posts used to really annoy me!

So, as a rule it wasn't exactly changed because it was never exactly a rule! But yes, it is definitely something that I feel should be addressed again and will bring it up with the other moderators.

Thanks for the reminder.

Going to drag this up again. I know it's not a part of the charter, but it's annoying.
Especially as posters are / should be replying to the OP, and addressing their reply to the OP, so there should be no need to quote the whole thing, in order to make that clear.

Princess Calla · 04-04-2021 8:56pm

I don't think this has been mentioned, apologies if it has.

I'm not sure how you'd monitor it to be honest, but can something be put in the charter advising against drip feeding information.

Now I appreciate there's a balance, no one wants to read a total wall of text to get to the issue, plus giving way to much detail might lead to identifying an individual.

However it is annoying when someone asks for advice and posters reply in good faith, then the op comes back with "well this also happened" which shifts the initial problem into a complete different light making the original advice offered either very harsh or just not relevant.

Now I do appreciate some problems can be overwhelming for the initial poster and they may not have articulated it well in the first post which is grand....however some OPs seem to thrive on the attention.

It can just get frustrating.

Again sorry if this has already been mentioned.

Tokyo · 05-04-2021 5:02am

Hi Princess Calla

I can understand the frustration when you have a well thought out response typed out and posted, only to be met with yet another mitigating factor that completely changes your view of the situation and therefore your advice. That said, that's pretty much reflective of gettign personal advice in the real world. Rarely has someone asked me for advice IRL where I've gotten the full story, usually it's a piece at a time, and usually it's filtered by the point of view of the person sharing it. I'm sure most of us have been in the same situation - a friend asking for advice where you've listened patiently fro half an hour, when they suddenly drop the bombshell that they maybe should have led with first. Other times, the topic can be extremely difficult for a person to speak about, and as a listener you don't really have a choice but to let them share it at their own pace.

In my opinion, it's endemic of people discussing their issues in general, and I'm just not sure how we can moderate that better, because it's not really a 'boards' problem, it's more of a 'how-people-communicate-their-issues' problem, and I think it's something we may have to just accept, frustrating as it my be at times. I don't think a note in the charter stating "share the WHOLE story in your OP", however nicely it's couched, is to the benefit of the forum. I guess the only thing I can suggest is take a second to think that it's not easy fro everyone to share their most personal problems in a concise form.

Princess Calla · 05-04-2021 10:54am

Thanks for the reply Tokyo

Big Bag of Chips · 05-04-2021 10:58am

I do think that sometimes what happens is a poster will post their issue, expecting a particular type of response. Then if responses go against what they want to hear they will drop in a line to make the issue be something else.

Again, I don't know how to moderate against this, but I do often see the posters of PI are generally quick to call out posters on this tactic. I do think it's human nature, and the way people communicate. And I do think it's natural that if someone feels all advice is pointing out to them that they're wrong they are going to try defend themselves by throwing in something extra.

I think, for now, the PI posters handle it properly and flesh out the issue with posters. We just hope that they continue to do it and continue to remain civil and mature in their responses!

YellowLead · 05-04-2021 12:10pm

What I find frustrating is when people ignore questions that are asked. Often the kind of advice given depends heavily on those answers. Again I think it’s people holding information back about their behaviour so they will get the advice they want to hear. I never understand why people start threads looking for advice and then don’t engage further but I guess each to their own.

Princess Calla · 05-04-2021 12:36pm

YellowLead wrote: »

What I find frustrating is when people ignore questions that are asked. Often the kind of advice given depends heavily on those answers. Again I think it’s people holding information back about their behaviour so they will get the advice they want to hear. I never understand why people start threads looking for advice and then don’t engage further but I guess each to their own.

My take on that, is the original poster showing the thread to whoever was causing them the problem saying "see, these people agree with me, you're in the wrong" or something similar.

Which is obviously beyond the remit of moderators

Princess Calla · 05-04-2021 12:44pm

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

I do think that sometimes what happens is a poster will post their issue, expecting a particular type of response. Then if responses go against what they want to hear they will drop in a line to make the issue be something else.

Again, I don't know how to moderate against this, but I do often see the posters of PI are generally quick to call out posters on this tactic. !

That's the crux of the "issue" I have.

If a poster is on looking for advice that's obviously heartbreaking and traumatic obviously I have no "problem" with information not being forthcoming for want of a better term.

It's the other category I feel are abit disingenuous.

But agreed the seasoned posters are well able to ask the right questions to get to the nub of the issue.

Big Bag of Chips · 05-04-2021 1:01pm

Princess Calla wrote: »

My take on that, is the original poster showing the thread to whoever was causing them the problem saying "see, these people agree with me, you're in the wrong" or something similar.

I agree. Or if not showing it to them at least using the backing of Internet strangers to justify their stance.

I understand where some posters might be slow to bring forward all information. As Princess Calla mentioned above, cases that can be pretty traumatic, someone in an abusive situation where they haven't fully been able to see they're in an abusive situation etc.

But, in general, I do feel the PI posters are particularly good at spotting the difference. Posters who need that bit of support and encouragement are always given it. As a moderator in PI for many years it if a forum I am very proud of. Posters overall are kind in their advice where it's needed. And can be direct where it's needed too.

It is known that there's a low tolerance for messing and posters in general respect that.

I suppose human nature dictates that all different types of people will look for advice here. Some will genuinely want support in their situation, some will want validation or to be able to say "See, I told you". All we can all do, as contributors to the forum, is deal with threads as they develop.

leggo · 11-06-2021 2:58am

Couple of recurring things that I think might be worth looking at to see if there’s a rule that can/should be put in place:

1) If the term ‘creepy’ comes up in any topic, it de-rails the whole discussion every single time with defensive lads flooding it and suggesting it’s all in their head or they should just ignore it or whatever, the usual. If it’s in AH, whatever, that’s just a reflection of boards’ average user today tbh, for better or worse. But if it’s in PI you could be dealing with sensitive or even threatening situations so bad advice could be critical.

I’m an advocate that the term creepy is a valid description of behaviour, and not just an insult, and can be defined under the header “constant and unwanted attention.” Can we look into dissipating this inevitable reaction somehow?

2) The next one is more of a viewpoint or behavioural tendency, so maybe less of a mod action and community policing note for us to bare in mind. There seems to be an influx of intolerance towards certain valid viewpoints that send topics off the rails at times. Where I’ve noticed it recently, but not exclusively, is if people talk about not wanting children for example. There’s one active thread in particular where the OP gives a quite detailed description of the process that they’ve struggled with that led them to that viewpoint, and you still have half the thread saying “But are you sure you’re sure??” It’s redundant, reductive, patronising and unhelpful for people to use these threads to try force their own life beliefs down someone’s throat when it’d be much more productive to just accept it if someone says this is where they’re at and answer the question that’s actually asked.

Again I understand, from a modding standpoint, why you can’t really touch this since there will be times where it’s valid for people to ask “Are you sure though?” But I think it’s worthwhile to flag for regular members to stamp out if it starts.

Faith · 11-06-2021 8:55am

leggo wrote: »

Where I’ve noticed it recently, but not exclusively, is if people talk about not wanting children for example. There’s one active thread in particular where the OP gives a quite detailed description of the process that they’ve struggled with that led them to that viewpoint, and you still have half the thread saying “But are you sure you’re sure??” It’s redundant, reductive, patronising and unhelpful for people to use these threads to try force their own life beliefs down someone’s throat when it’d be much more productive to just accept it if someone says this is where they’re at and answer the question that’s actually asked.

Agreed, but that seems to happen across Boards. If someone posts in the Childfree by Choice forum saying "I'm pretty sure I don't want kids", you get a bunch of replies saying "Oh you should post in PI so you can get a range of responses, not just one-sided ones agreeing with your decision" :rolleyes:

Tork · 24-06-2021 1:26pm

How many of these new threads are genuine? I have noticed a load of essays appearing here lately and I can't help but think they're an exercise to drum up some traffic to here. Either that, or somebody with too much time on their hands is either writing these up or copying/pasting them from elsewhere. I notice the OP usually doesn't come back either, which makes it even more suspicious.

Big Bag of Chips · 24-06-2021 1:42pm

The moderators have some behind the scenes tools that we can check, to a certain extent, the legitimacy of a thread.

Some disingenuous threads may get through. But for the most part approved threads are genuine.

I know some threads can seem OTT, but people's lives and life experiences are wide and varied and what seems like a ridiculous, outlandish issue for one person, can be a very genuine issue for someone else.

We ask, as with all threads that posters reply in civil manner. If a poster feels a thread is not genuine we ask that they not reply to it and that it be reported and we can have it looked in to.

Neyite · 24-06-2021 4:53pm

Tork wrote: »

How many of these new threads are genuine? I have noticed a load of essays appearing here lately and I can't help but think they're an exercise to drum up some traffic to here. Either that, or somebody with too much time on their hands is either writing these up or copying/pasting them from elsewhere. I notice the OP usually doesn't come back either, which makes it even more suspicious.

I guarantee it's not boards drumming up the traffic. :pac:

I do sometimes wonder about some threads - but the way I see it is that if a thread doesn't feel genuine, but we've no proof either way, that someone else reading who's got a very similar situation might get value out of the advice given and it might prompt them to make changes to their situation to make life better for themselves.

Anything you think looks dodgy though, we rely so much on the eagle eyed regulars to flag it with us. We check out each and every report. We always have, and we always will. And we always act on the ones we've got proof of misbehaviour on.

YellowLead · 25-06-2021 6:51pm

Do people who create threads anonymously do it from their official accounts or can people just do it without moderators knowing who they are?

Big Bag of Chips · 25-06-2021 7:21pm

If you post anonymously it is unregistered and the moderators, no more than the regular posters will know who the poster is.

However, a lot of our frequent fliers/banned posters etc have giveaway traits that often make their threads obvious to the moderators who know not to approve the thread/post.

Anonymous posting is a privilege in PI and something we don't like to see abused. So if we are suspicious of a thread/post/anon user, we can look into it and might be able to confirm our suspicions. In general we don't regularly feel the need to investigate too deeply so we rarely know or investigate the regular poster who has chosen to post anonymously for privacy reasons.

eviltwin · 25-06-2021 7:59pm

Do the moderators have a background in dealing with sensitive issues? My background is counselling and I cringe at some of the replies and I worry about the harm they may cause. Most are acted on but often an original comment is allowed stay up just with a warning to the person who wrote it. Maybe there needs to be mods specifically for the PI pages. Or maybe replies themselves should be subject to moderation before they are visible. It also doesn't sit right with me that someone who chooses to post in secret could have that violated. Some threads do seem very out there but life itself can be too so you can't assume it's a pisstake

Big Bag of Chips · 25-06-2021 9:05pm

eviltwin wrote: »

My background is counselling and I cringe at some of the replies and I worry about the harm they may cause.

Unfortunately, because it is an open forum, we can't control what advice people offer. Someone might have an off the wall opinion, but so long as post within the forum guidelines we can't ban them etc. Moderators have on occasion pulled people up on just simply dangerous, factually incorrect advice and told those posters to not post in that thread again.

Luckily most posters are very quick to challenge downright bad advice. But we can't expect all advice to come from people with a background in counselling. People post, looking for peer advice or opinion. And for the most part advice offered is perfectly fine and appropriate.

Sometimes, with more serious issues, posters are pointed in the direction of professionals or sometimes a thread is locked explaining that the issue is outside the scope of the PI posters.

Personal Issues isn't supposed to be a counselling service. And we are, I hope, very clear what the purpose of the Forum is. I think, for the more serious issues, it serves as a kind of sounding board for people. A place where they can hear opinion from objective outsiders, rather than friends and family who might just say what they think the person needs to hear, and maybe get some clarity on their situation and the information needed to take further action in real life.

I think the huge majority of threads don't need specialised care or advice so pre-approving replies would probably just kill the forum.

Anyone who posts, genuinely, anonymously absolutely has their privacy respected. Moderators have no way of identifying posters.

However, for repeat offenders and trolls/banned posters etc there are tools available through the Administrators should we need to call on them. We don't often have to. And generally when we do we are proven right in our suspicions.

Neyite · 28-06-2021 4:59pm

You'll often find that many of the serious issues, mods will lock it and just tell the poster that the help they need is way beyond what random internet people can provide. If we can, we provide links to reputable organisations that could be a start for what they need.

We can't vet anyone's qualifications or experience in counselling/therapy- posters or mods alike.

I know many of the mods here in real life, have met them at least once - but they are ultimately boards users themselves and as such are equally entitled to the privacy between their boards account and real life identity being linked. So some may never reveal their real life identity to their co-mods and that's their right.

In terms of secrecy and privacy, we all take that really seriously. So for example, if you were to start an anon thread, none of us would likely check it. However if it generated a few reports or it might have a similar syntax to a previously banned poster then we'll dig deeper. We may be able to match it to a registered poster, sometimes not. But matching it to a boards account is really just matching it to another anonymous username.

There's nothing we have behind the scenes that would link a persons real life to their posts on boards except what they post themselves. Even then occasionally we snip their posts when we think they've posted too much identifiable information.

Dial Hard · 04-07-2021 11:45am

I think I've asked this before, but could we bring in a process whereby threads are automatically locked after a certain time of inactivity? There seems to be a lot of threads getting dragged back up after a couple of weeks of dormancy lately and nine times out of ten, the "new" posts add absolutely nothing. It's particularly annoying when it's a thread the OP never came back to in the first place.

I'd also question what leaving certain threads open long after the OP has disappeared achieves, even if they're still attracting posts. The disappointing birthday one is a case in point. It became clear pretty much immediately that the OP wouldn't be seen again but it's still open, even though pretty much every post is just saying the same thing. What's it really adding at this point???

06-07-2021 6:40pm

I honestly think that the rule that all posts on PI must contain advice for the OP or be directed at the OP at all times needs to be looked at.

I've had posts deleted on two threads recently because they supposedly "did not offer advice to the OP", while other posts, which had literally no advice but maybe one sentence vaguely addressed to the OP left in place. Its very frustrating after you make the effort to make a post in the first place, for it to be removed for this reason. And it has to also be said, that there is some inconsistency in how this rule is applied.

Its not always possible to phrase every post as as "advice to the OP" especially if its is addressing a point raised by another poster. Sometimes things come up on threads that should be discussed, yet I feel posts only offering an OP validation are wanted. And sometimes just giving someone validation is not in their best interest.

Maybe reading a little back and forth between other posters (within reason) would be good for them to read and see different points of view without each posts needing to be actually directed at them.

Anyway, thats my thoughts.

Big Bag of Chips · 06-07-2021 7:05pm

Hi Loueze,

The rule is there to stop threads being dragged off topic. Often when back and forth is allowed to continue between posters it very often ends up with two or more posters disagreeing over a point, arguing points completely irrelevant to the questions asked by the OP and neither ever backing down or conceding the other's point.

Not all posts will be removed, simply because moderators cannot read all posts. Moderators are also allowed use their discretion and judge each case on an individual basis.

Personal Issues is an advice forum. If it was allowed to become a discussion forum threads would, naturally, veer off on tangents and away from the advice sought.

We try to balance between letting opinion flow but also keeping the OP of the thread in mind. The person who has come looking for advice on a specific issue. Replying to other posters in a discussion type post just invites the thread to veer away from advising the OP. We have also found if threads are allowed run into discussion it generates lots of reported posts. Posters getting annoyed with each other and arguing their point. Personal attacks rather than genuine discussion. Which then leads to cards and warnings.

There are loads of other boards here that allow for free flowing discussion or debate. Personal Issues is specifically not that!

06-07-2021 7:49pm

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

<Snip> Please don't unnecessarily quote the full post.

I'm not suggesting there should be a free for all kind of free flowing discussion. But what, and how much discussion is allowed seems to be very inconsistently applied. If mods are only selectively reading then how can they have the full context?

I honestly can say I see no logic or pattern to why some posts are removed, and others are not. It's honestly very frustrating.

Big Bag of Chips · 06-07-2021 8:37pm

Some posts are removed because they have the potential to derail the thread or indeed are already contributing to the thread being derailed. Some posts don't.

I often find it's the posters who are more interested in soap boxing and proving that their point is more important than others are the ones, who complain about our 'advice' rule.

The huge majority of regular posters understand what the forum is for and have no problem posting within the guidelines.

Edit: There's also no need to quote an entire post. Especially the preceeding post. It clogs the thread with duplicate text.

06-07-2021 10:22pm

OK, The fact that you call it derailing a thread or soap boxing tells me all I need to know.

Apologies about the quote. Phone does it automatically.

Feedback thread for PI, RI & Bereavement

Comments