Feedback thread for PI, RI & Bereavement

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???

[Deleted User] · 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!

[Deleted User] · 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.

[Deleted User] · 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