You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] yerwanontheinside [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 



User b_user_28

> Originally Posted by johnny_ultimate
> In terms of visual and therefore discussion accessibility, could be an idea to ensure de-emphasis of the 'star ratings' and
> post counts on everybody's public profile. Might make it a bit more enticing for new users to participate when they
> don't feel like they're facing off against 'super users' or what not. Think the simple user/subscriber/moderator/admin
> tag on the touch site feels like a more level playing field
> I don't use the new site, but that's one of the positive changes
> over there. Think there's even room to downplay those simple tags TBH.

That's a very good point. I remember starting off posting and being very intimidated by the regular users with a few thousand
posts disagreeing with a point but one or two others took the time to agree with me and/or PM me with a bit of guidance.
F&F is a bit different from other forums, I suppose, in that we all generally work in the one industry and are used to banding
together but one important thing done before my time was stickying a Welcome thread for new users to introduce themselves and
what they do. Talking to one or two of them offline, they seem to like the chance to say hello and be welcomed onto the forum.
Also, looking at the negative reviews of Boards on other sites, it seems to be mostly from posters who had difficulty with getting on
with other users, I think. But those reviews can put a bias in the mind of people who may want to post but are not inclined to give it
some time to get to know the site and the users because they are pre programmed to have a negative view?


User: b_user_18

> Originally Posted by b_user_6
> I'm not saying under moderation, more self moderation. Have users self moderate by either reporting posts or fighting
> their own corner, fine line I know between attacking the post and the poster but I think the line will be found if it's allowed
> to be.

I see this working quite well on other forums I use. The discussion gets more or less back on track and usually the derailers get
ignored and eventually bugger off. The really goady ones get deleted. People who rise to the bait get those posts deleted but
there are no visible sanctions. Occasionally a mod might post on a thread, but mostly its just an empty post saying 'post removed
for breaching guidelines' that indicates that a post was ever actioned. Other posters invariably counter-debate the derailing posts
anyway and move on with the discussion.
Here on boards though, that might not work initially because of the established norm of a visible mod presence indicating that a
line has been crossed, and if there is no mod on the thread, then its assumed to be a free for all.
The lack of mod explanation on those posts in other forums I think helps. It's a more grown-up way of dealing with it - behind the
scenes and between poster and mod. The calling out of a specific poster (particularly the ones who are not trolling, but might have
inadvertently breached the charter) is infantile and hugely off putting to a poster venturing into a new forum.
I actively avoid certain forums on here where I feel the modding is OTT. (Feel odd saying that as mod of PI, which is often
regarded as the most strictly modded forum on boards.)


User: b_user_27

> Originally Posted by b_user_6
> No offence b_user_27 but 1 of the problems with the site is everyone subforum thinking they are the likes of cafe and I'd be
> interested to see what'd happen if chaos was to be allowed to happen.

In the case of the cafe, it was closed for the best part of a week tbh
Divorce, Religions Archive, Work The likes of work and jobs, religion or seperation and divorce are very different from the likes of the cafe tbh, and are much more self moderating


User: b_user_29

> Originally Posted by b_user_14
> Bye bye boards from me! As a poster first and secondly as a mod. I've already stopped following a couple of fora for
> being under moderated.

All of this stuff has been talked about many times before. Obviously the technical side of the site needs to be dealt with by the
office, but it really would help if people would chill out a bit and remember that it's only the internet


User: b_user_1

> Originally Posted by b_user_29
> it really would help if people would chill out a bit and remember that it's only the internet.

I totally agree with this (if I have picked your point up correctly). I remember Minesajackdaniels stepping down because she was
so sick of having to bite her tongue with idiots. She used to come out with the most on-point, scathing retorts that would put eejits
right in their place, without ever actually crossing the line to abusing them. There are so. many. times that I want to tell posters that
they're being gobshytes, but we just can't any more. I don't want personal abuse being thrown around, but even from my
perspective, the site is heavily over-moderated. So what if a discussion gets off-topic? So what if people start arguing? I feel that
we should only get involved when there's a clear need to - trolling, abuse or other gross violations of site rules. It does my head in
when I see mod warnings all over a thread.