Feedback forum / thread?

T

torblednam

Registered User
Messages
954
Just wondering, where (if anywhere) is the appropriate place for feedback on user experience, or to raise / discuss issues about site moderation etc...?
 
This is the right forum for making suggestions.

Do note the Posting Guidelines

22 We do not discuss moderators' decisions
The moderators are volunteers and do not have time to enter into discussions on our editorial decisions, so

1) Don't ask why a particular user was banned

2) If you genuinely don't know which guideline you broke, then maybe you should not be posting on Askaboutmoney

3) In very rare circumstances, where there was a genuine misunderstanding about your post, you may send a Private Message to the moderator. But we have no time to indulge people.


This does not stop you making general points about moderation policy.

Brendan
 
Guideline 22 is noted.

I suppose I'm more interested in Guideline 10 and how it is generally applied. It says:
"10 Do not abuse other posters
Controversy and argument are welcome. But please keep your comments civil. Attack an opinion by all means, but please don't attack the person expressing the opinion.Posts or threads which use language designed to be deliberately offensive or just to stir up trouble will be deleted."

I can think of several threads in the last few months (and they tend to be the rare ones that actually get a lot of views and posts) that have been locked by the mods. One such was a thread started by Brendan himself, on a topic that was almost certain to provoke strong feelings, subsequently closed with the statement that the mod doesn't have time to be reading all the posts or reviewing all reports of abusive posting.

I think shutting down threads on what is supposed to be a discussion forum, because there's too many posts or too many reports, indicates an unwillingness by moderators to actually moderate. It's something that has been in my mind for a while from seeing various threads shut but the irony of the most recent, which was a discussion started by the site owner himself, brings me to the point of wanting to raise the issue.

I'm absolutely not trying to stir up trouble, but I just want to point out that this moderating practice, of shutting down threads because of controversy and/or argument, flies directly in the face of the posting guidelines. It has the effect of preventing an honest robust debate from developing on any topic where there is likely to be a spectrum of views.

If threads where posts are reported, are going to be locked simply because of the reports, without the mods actually considering whether the reports have any merit, then I think it's pretty obvious how that could adversely affect debate from developing. People either refrain from reporting because they don't want a thread shut down, or they start firing in reports so that a thread WILL be shut down if they feel like they're losing the argument.

Brendan and the mods can run the site however he likes, obviously, but my suggestion would be to change the posting guidelines to reflect how the site is actually run. Also if they don't have the time or energy to do the necessary level of moderation on threads, perhaps the format of the site could be changed to a more Q&A factual type format rather than the site malfunctioning as a discussion forum. I'd still be happy to contribute to such a site, as I'm sure would plenty of others, without the frustration of investing time in trying to discuss subjects only to see what appears to be perfectly reasonable discussion shut down for lack of the resources to moderate that discussion.
 
I share Torblednam's frustration regarding the apparent mis-match between the posting guidelines and the reality of the forum's moderating practice.

If it is unacceptable to criticise or dismiss an opinion or argument of another poster (as opposed to attacking or insulting the poster himself or herself), then we can't really have an open discussion on any controversial policy issue.

Perhaps the guidelines should be revised to simply ban any discussion on any political or policy matters?
 
Hi Mandlebrot

Thanks for the suggestion.

torblednam said:
the irony of the most recent, which was a discussion started by the site owner himself, brings me to the point of wanting to raise the issue.
Click to expand...


I did indeed start the thread, but only by reporting an Irish Times article. I didn't make any comment on the thread, although I have strong views on the matter.

Irish Times "CGT exemption on family home at risk in the Budget"


torblednam said:
shutting down threads because of controversy and/or argument, flies directly in the face of the posting guidelines.
Click to expand...


Except that we have never closed a thread because of controversy or argument????

The thread in question was closed because people on both sides were being abusive to each other.


torblednam said:
they start firing in reports so that a thread WILL be shut down if they feel like they're losing the argument.
Click to expand...

This isn't really a problem. Most reports are fully justified. I think that all the reports on this thread were. We have very, very rarely received completely frivolous reports. And we deal with them appropriately.

The biggest concern for us is that someone losing the argument could just start offending people to make the thread too much trouble for us. Again, I haven't really seen this happening, but where someone is repeatedly offensive, we warn them and, ultimately, ban them.

But the people posting offensive material on this thread were all frequent posters from both sides of the argument. They called other people "trolls" and accused them of "waffle" not to close the thread, but because they presumably believed it. Frankly I was surprised at the insults hurled by very valuable contributors to the site who don't generally indulge in personalised attacks.

I closed the thread to let people calm down. But it had no effect. After reopening it, there was a spate of offensive posts.

torblednam said:
It has the effect of preventing an honest robust debate from developing on any topic where there is likely to be a spectrum of views.
Click to expand...

There are 130 posts on the thread!!! The debate had fully developed.

There isn't much purpose in keeping it open. Do you really think that you can persuade someone on the other side around to your way of thinking by one more post if you haven't done so already?
 
Sarenco said:
If it is unacceptable to criticise or dismiss an opinion or argument of another poster (as opposed to attacking or insulting the poster himself or herself),
Click to expand...

Where on earth is this coming from?

No post has every been deemed unacceptable for criticising an opinion or an argument.

But posts are unacceptable if they are abusive.

Maybe we need to clarify what abusive means?

Brendan
 

Well actually I had intended on following up on a couple of other posts by Tommy McGibney and Sarenco about the lock in effect and what the actual implications in practice might be, once myself and Odyssey's very good natured but robust had ended! I thought that there was still an interesting discussion (not even necessarily argument) to be had about that.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Where on earth is this coming from?

No post has every been deemed unacceptable for criticising an opinion or an argument.

But posts are unacceptable if they are abusive.

Maybe we need to clarify what abusive means?

Brendan
Click to expand...

I certainly think it would be very helpful if you could point to the trend of abusive posts after the thread was reopened, that warranted shutting it down for good. I'm really struggling to see where the abuse was, and it seems I'm not alone.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
No post has every been deemed unacceptable for criticising an opinion or an argument.
Click to expand...

Well, one of my posts was deleted for describing a specific line of argument as waffle (in the sense of being vague or trivial) in the context of what was being discussed.

I don't see how that could possibly be considered to be insulting or abusive. It certainly wasn't personalised.

If I suggested that a particular line of argument was vague, nonsensical or absurd would that have been acceptable?

In any event, I don't see why a single post warranted locking the thread.
 
Sarenco

You might not regard dismissing someone else's argument as "waffle", as offensive, but it was reported as such.

You could easily have made your points without using this term.

It was only a couple of days after I had asked people to calm down.

Again, I must stress that with 131 posts already made, none of the moderators is going to sift through the posts and make a deicision whether a point someone else made was waffle or not.

It's actually not that complicated.

Make your points without dismissing the other person's argument in an offensive manner.

Ignore people who repeat themselves or offend you.

Make meaningful, on-topic posts.

Not that many threads are actually closed. And very few are closed early on in the discussion.

Brendan
 
Not at all.

That was the final straw after a long bad-tempered discussion after it had already been closed to allow people to calm down.

I repeat - there had already been 131 posts on the topic. (More if you include the deleted posts.)

Brendan
 
I think the primary quality of the site is in the Q&As, the discussions are secondary.
And to a far greater extent than on other discussion sites, the mods bring a wealth of expertise to the Q&As.
Their modding of discussions is again a secondary (though important) contribution.

I am well able to handle robust discussions, here and elsewhere.
But, most discussion sites have a policy of "play the man, not the ball".
There is also the tactic, favoured by certain football teams, of taking "man and ball together".
If someone starts using those tactics, there's very little the other party can do except retaliate in kind if they want to respond... and I know where that ends - flame wars. Let's leave them to other sites...

I don't want AAM to be a place where the referee brings the two teams together, blows the whistle and says "I'm going to blow this again in 45 minutes and whatever happens in between, ye sort out among yourselves."

If the mods are seeing a discussion thread that's generating a lot of such 'fouls', and a few yellow cards wasn't enough calm things down, then probably for all parties the best thing to do is blow for full time early.
Rather than burn time in low level mods of posts, it's a more productive use of time for them to be directly contributing.
 

That's fair enough Odyssey, but I've just spent 20 minutes going back through the posts on the thread subsequent to it being reopened and unless there have been multiple posts deleted then I am at a loss as to how anyone reading the discussion could consider any of it in any way abusive. As the other most frequent contributor to the thread, do you see where all the fouls were being committed that resulted in the match being abandoned?
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Maybe we need to clarify what abusive means?
Click to expand...
If I describe a post as "nonsense or "rubbish" it may upset the poster but it's not abusive or in any way personal.

"Your argument is nonsense" or "Your post is rubbish" is my opinion of someone else's opinion and clearly not abusive. If the poster responds with a personal attack against me e.g "You're stupid for saying that", then yellow card time I'd suggest.
 
Hi mathepac

If you say: All profits on the sale of family homes should be subject to CGT and I disagree, then I should be able to do it with respect.

If I say : That is nonsense, that is stupid, or that is rubbish - it ups the temperature and causes you to insult me as "stupid"

It's a matter of degree.

Maybe "abusive" is the wrong word.

10 Do not abuse other posters
Controversy and argument are welcome. But please keep your comments civil. Attack an opinion by all means, but please don't attack the person expressing the opinion.Posts or threads which use language designed to be deliberately offensive or just to stir up trouble will be deleted.

How about something like
10. Please remain respectful and civil towards those with whom you disagree
We promote civil and respectful discussion and argument. For example, describing someone else as "stupid" or "trolling" is a breach of this guideline. If you describe an argument as "stupid" you will get that person's back up and the the thread will quickly deteriorate. For that reason, we do not allow such comments.

Please do not respond to disrespectful or abusive posts. Either ignore them or report them. When we delete disrespectful posts, we delete all posts responding to them as well.
 
Last edited:

It's not civil and it's disrespectful though isn't it?
How is it helpful to the discussion?
How could it be considered a useful contribution?
Why do you want to upset the other poster instead of trying to argue your own points?
And how is the person on the receiving end of that supposed to respond in a civil or respectful manner?

"Your post is rubbish."
"No sir I must humbly disagree... your post is an entire truck load of rubbish."
" Your post is an entire incinerator worth of rubbish."
"You must be very familiar with rubbish to recognise it..."
ZZZ...

It's the equivalent of tackling for the ball and leaving in an elbow, or saying "are you looking at me" in a bar. It's stirring up trouble.
It's only a matter of time before the fists start flying, or the offensive and abusive comments come out.
And the mods will have their hands full then.
Far wiser to keep a lid of things.

No third party in a discussion has ever been convinced that someone's argument is the right one because of phrases like that.
They might be convinced by actual points made to rebut the opposing view.
Remove the "your argument is nonsense" line from any post and the effect of the argument has not been diminished.

Trash the points the poster made in the post, don't trash the post - which is a lazy and cheap debating trick that it is all too easy to fall into, and to use instead of real arguments.
 
Last edited:

It also renders the whole thread useless from the point of view of informing others of the relative merits of both opinions, and reduces my opinion of the posters.
Maybe no-one cares about this, when its a one-to-one bun fight, but one of the strengths of askaboutmoney is the informative debate.
 
It is a significant change to now deem it unacceptable to criticise or dismiss an argument or opinion on the grounds that it might get somebody's back up. It effectively contradicts the statement in the guidelines that controversy and argument are welcome.
 
Menu
Log in
Register