Is anyone else actually reading this thread?
Of course it would not mean any such thing - because there would be clear rules to follow, not a set of rules based on post count.
course I'm reading it if you are refferring to me - the thing is in not participating in depth throughout the thread its easier to look in from the outside and strip it back to what seems the main point ( see OP title) and that appears to me that what are classed as valuable contributors are no longer here and as a result the forums are boring.
The thread then expanded into why these members are no longer here, why they went in the first place and what can be done to stop them leaving again should they return. The net result with these members is that they will still be banned (but probably quicker due to a request for more decisive and consistent moderation!) because said members bless them won't change their ways - I think someone mentioned lepeord spots?!
Upvote
0
I think this thread has some diversionary tactics being applied to it but going all the way back to the OP. Yes it is a shame but the whole incident seems to have kicked T/O into life.
Think I'm the newest member here so yes I would expect to be treated differently than someone with 10x the amount of posts I have, rules are rules but by their very nature they are open to interpretation.
Consistency only works in absolute cases of rule breaches, every other case has to be viewed in context and some past behaviour being taken into account.
No adult person in their right mind would stoop to the level of a PA as this gives away a weakness, but there are some threads that by their very nature invoke emotional responses (i.e. religious threads) that are hard to moderate and the measure of a forum isn't the easy topics such as, cease and desist questions, employee rights, ltd company liability, business set up questions, can I sue my wife because she says I have a small todger etc...
Its the tough topics that trigger the interest and the once one post wonders to stick around for a bit and hopefully click on a few more ad sense ads..
Think I'm the newest member here so yes I would expect to be treated differently than someone with 10x the amount of posts I have, rules are rules but by their very nature they are open to interpretation.
Consistency only works in absolute cases of rule breaches, every other case has to be viewed in context and some past behaviour being taken into account.
No adult person in their right mind would stoop to the level of a PA as this gives away a weakness, but there are some threads that by their very nature invoke emotional responses (i.e. religious threads) that are hard to moderate and the measure of a forum isn't the easy topics such as, cease and desist questions, employee rights, ltd company liability, business set up questions, can I sue my wife because she says I have a small todger etc...
Its the tough topics that trigger the interest and the once one post wonders to stick around for a bit and hopefully click on a few more ad sense ads..
Upvote
0
Post 117 should cover it - particularly the last paragraph.
.... so its this?
"Depends what these infraction are for - to use your current model of moderation, a relatively new member could see a long standing member make certain comments and be led to believe that those comments are allowed. So when they make identical comments and receive an infraction / ban they will justifiably be confused"
So you say because of inconsistant moderation, new members will assume they can say the same things as established members and then be confused when they get infractions and the old members don't?
except I would say the instances of this happening (happy to be proved otherwise) are rare. Its a non problem IMO.
Upvote
0
I tend to agree, anyone familiar with forum etiquete realises they need to get a feel for the place, sure I'm not the only one who has signed up for a forum and not bothered to read the T & C/rules and found out the limits of expression available by trial and error.
Generally I feel forum rules go hand in hand with what is expected in civilised society with the odd allowance to be a little more brutal with ones opinion as text based medium doesn't allow for the beating around the bush shenanigans of verbal discussion.
Upvote
0
There is not a tiered level of moderation by post count and I resent this being implied.
All members are treated the same as far as the infraction system goes but there is other discretionary effort in circumstances such as tension with established members or encouraging newbies to read the rules.
Example .. A newbie may get a zero point warning for signature links because they probably didn't read the rules whereas an established member who sneaks them in will get a strike.
Everything else is treated as consistently as possible and by that I mean warning, 3 strikes and then ban
Occasionally there are very slight exceptions where further warnings may be given but this depends on what the rule breaks are as spam, personal attacks or self promo might be dealt with differently if they were a repeat offence or a one off.
With additional mods on board there is more coverage but more things get discussed also.
I agree with Tin that there is always room for improvement and the mods are trying very hard to get efficiency and fairness in place without having to reach a consensus on every action but this is a balancing act with keeping valuable members here who don't break rules
All members are treated the same as far as the infraction system goes but there is other discretionary effort in circumstances such as tension with established members or encouraging newbies to read the rules.
Example .. A newbie may get a zero point warning for signature links because they probably didn't read the rules whereas an established member who sneaks them in will get a strike.
Everything else is treated as consistently as possible and by that I mean warning, 3 strikes and then ban
Occasionally there are very slight exceptions where further warnings may be given but this depends on what the rule breaks are as spam, personal attacks or self promo might be dealt with differently if they were a repeat offence or a one off.
With additional mods on board there is more coverage but more things get discussed also.
I agree with Tin that there is always room for improvement and the mods are trying very hard to get efficiency and fairness in place without having to reach a consensus on every action
but this is a balancing act with keeping valuable members here who don't break rules
Upvote
0
No I don't think it contradicts. I'm trying to choose my words carefully here aswell
What I'm trying to say is that there isn't leniency applied by post count or join date or any that you may associate with an established or active member in that people don't get let off without strikes or warnings where they are due. However what tends to happen is that mods will take extra steps to resolve things where they can via PM or edits or monitoring threads or tensions more closely. Things may also get delayed whilst they are considered thoroughly to try to be fair and reasonable.
I also think its good that Admin are considering different rules and forum changes to keep up with changes with technology and social media stuff in general and may experiment with different processes and procedures if it improves forum experience. No different to what we would all probably do in our workplaces rather than stay the same . Someone mentioned earlier about mods looking after certain sub forums as an example.
Hope that helps to clarify
If anything I wish this forum could be more self moderating sometimes with members frowning upon and rebuffing unpleasant remarks instead of applauding them and joining in but that's just my personal opinion as I hate it when some bright and enthusiastic new start up gets rubbished by the elders unnecessarily. I can understand it when someone's new business idea is fraud or rip off but sometimes people just don't know what they don't know and there's no need for members to humiliate and play to the gala.
What I'm trying to say is that there isn't leniency applied by post count or join date or any that you may associate with an established or active member in that people don't get let off without strikes or warnings where they are due. However what tends to happen is that mods will take extra steps to resolve things where they can via PM or edits or monitoring threads or tensions more closely. Things may also get delayed whilst they are considered thoroughly to try to be fair and reasonable.
I also think its good that Admin are considering different rules and forum changes to keep up with changes with technology and social media stuff in general and may experiment with different processes and procedures if it improves forum experience. No different to what we would all probably do in our workplaces rather than stay the same . Someone mentioned earlier about mods looking after certain sub forums as an example.
Hope that helps to clarify
If anything I wish this forum could be more self moderating sometimes with members frowning upon and rebuffing unpleasant remarks instead of applauding them and joining in but that's just my personal opinion as I hate it when some bright and enthusiastic new start up gets rubbished by the elders unnecessarily. I can understand it when someone's new business idea is fraud or rip off but sometimes people just don't know what they don't know and there's no need for members to humiliate and play to the gala.
Upvote
0
Just to shed some light on how I see it when moderating. It has nothing to do with the numebr of posts, and more to do with the fact the mods know a member(s), and can see that it is not a case of the member(s) being deliberately insulting, it is a case of the red mist having come down, and the posts being out of character. in this case we will often delete all the posts and send a warning saying "cmon boys use your heads, this is daft, have a cuppa and let it go" .
It has nothing at all to do with post count, and everything to do with knowing the character of the member(s) involved and cutting them some slack because the action is out of character, and seeing as the aim of any system is to rehabilitate, there really isn't much point, especially when applying the rules in black and white.
E.G I have sent a message to a member (long term member on 2 strikes) asking him to calm down as he is posting way over the top as he had got into a rant (it was on teh KTMOG thread). This member replied telling me to eff off (full mouthed) mind my own business as he was right.
Now according to the rules I should have issued a strike and the guy would have been banned for 6 months PURELY because he got caught up and the red mist came down and all his usual logic flew out the window.
I continued and eventually he walked away as I locked the thread because by that time it was impossible to moderate we were deleting posts but as there were 6 people all slanging each other off the posts were being made faster than i could deal with them. On that occasion I could have banned 4 long term members, I locked the thread and re-opened it the next day.
I got Pm's apologising and thanking me for my actions.
Honestly I would seriously warn against black and white moderating, because you WILL see long term members being banned, especially seeing as many simply refuse to accept the forum rules claiming they are wrong.
As Matt said, and it was not really picked up. IF we had applied the rules in the black and white fashion that is being asked for, NONE of the members mentioned in this thread (or some posting in it) would be active members as they would have been banned a long time ago.
If you want robotic moderating then the forum will die, that is something I can say with hand on heart, please don't push for that.
It has nothing at all to do with post count, and everything to do with knowing the character of the member(s) involved and cutting them some slack because the action is out of character, and seeing as the aim of any system is to rehabilitate, there really isn't much point, especially when applying the rules in black and white.
E.G I have sent a message to a member (long term member on 2 strikes) asking him to calm down as he is posting way over the top as he had got into a rant (it was on teh KTMOG thread). This member replied telling me to eff off (full mouthed) mind my own business as he was right.
Now according to the rules I should have issued a strike and the guy would have been banned for 6 months PURELY because he got caught up and the red mist came down and all his usual logic flew out the window.
I continued and eventually he walked away as I locked the thread because by that time it was impossible to moderate we were deleting posts but as there were 6 people all slanging each other off the posts were being made faster than i could deal with them. On that occasion I could have banned 4 long term members, I locked the thread and re-opened it the next day.
I got Pm's apologising and thanking me for my actions.
Honestly I would seriously warn against black and white moderating, because you WILL see long term members being banned, especially seeing as many simply refuse to accept the forum rules claiming they are wrong.
As Matt said, and it was not really picked up. IF we had applied the rules in the black and white fashion that is being asked for, NONE of the members mentioned in this thread (or some posting in it) would be active members as they would have been banned a long time ago.
If you want robotic moderating then the forum will die, that is something I can say with hand on heart, please don't push for that.
Upvote
0
B
Beachcomber
- Original Poster
- #136
OK.
So which is it? Everything is fine or things need to be sorted out?
I was under the impression that the problems had been pretty much agreed and they were in the process of being discussed and resolved 'behind the scenes'
But looking at many posts by mods, it seems there is in fact no problem at all and we have spent the last several pages discussing a non-problem and everything is rosy.
Well, which is it?
So which is it? Everything is fine or things need to be sorted out?
I was under the impression that the problems had been pretty much agreed and they were in the process of being discussed and resolved 'behind the scenes'
But looking at many posts by mods, it seems there is in fact no problem at all and we have spent the last several pages discussing a non-problem and everything is rosy.
Well, which is it?
Upvote
0
R
Root 66 Woodshop
- Original Poster
- #137
I'm quite confused too Beachy...
One minute things are being discussed as we type, the next there's nothing to discuss?
It honestly seems all one sided at the moment, i.e.
The "troublesome" members cause a stir, the mod's deal with it, more "troublesome" members create a discussion regarding the stir and we're then told there's a discussion about the stir being held by Mods... suddenly there appears to be no discussion as there was no stir.
Minus a few points, but I think that's more or less what is being said.
One minute things are being discussed as we type, the next there's nothing to discuss?
It honestly seems all one sided at the moment, i.e.
The "troublesome" members cause a stir, the mod's deal with it, more "troublesome" members create a discussion regarding the stir and we're then told there's a discussion about the stir being held by Mods... suddenly there appears to be no discussion as there was no stir.
Minus a few points, but I think that's more or less what is being said.
Upvote
0
B
Beachcomber
- Original Poster
- #138
Glad it's not just me.
Most confusing of all is that the same members are contradicting themselves and don't seem to know whether there is a problem or not - despite the fact that we are assured that it is all apparently being sorted out behind closed doors - by admin that can't even be bothered to contribute to the discussion.
Ostrich time all round I think.
If at the very beginning someone had said 'thats how it is, take it or leave it' I could have at least respected the honesty - but this constant wishy-washy flip flapping indecisiveness is just embarrasing to watch, particularly as we are supposed to be business owners as well as grown ups.
All attempts to direct the discussion towards positive resolutions are met with nit-picking semantic arguments with lottle or no substance.
Pretty silly really.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
I think we may have got sidetracked with the definition of offensive/personal remarks etc and whether or not established members are treated differently.
I've re-read the thread again and I think the areas of clarification are
* the length of time of a ban.
* a review of what can and cannot be discussed on UKBF
Is that correct?
I've re-read the thread again and I think the areas of clarification are
* the length of time of a ban.
* a review of what can and cannot be discussed on UKBF
Is that correct?
Upvote
0
B
Beachcomber
- Original Poster
- #140
I think that covers the most of it, along with consistency in moderation with all members - old, new, mods and admin - abiding by the same rules and having them applied equally.
Also, the rules need to take into account that the current over-sensitivity to perceived 'abuse' on the forum. There needs to be a review and a definite line needs to be drawn between what constitutes banter or heated argument and what constitutes flaming and personal insults.
Also, the rules need to take into account that the current over-sensitivity to perceived 'abuse' on the forum. There needs to be a review and a definite line needs to be drawn between what constitutes banter or heated argument and what constitutes flaming and personal insults.
Upvote
0
Can you explain where a mod has stated there is nothing to discuss? Sorry but things are now being taken out of context. What I siad is there is no point in repeating things over and over as they have been taken on board. That is certainly not saying there is nothing to discus.
e.g
Can I have an ice cream? YES you can
Can I have an ice cream? YES you can
Can I have an ice cream? YES you can
Can I have an ice cream? YES you can
Can I have an ice cream? YES you can
Can I have an ice cream? YES you can
It has already been established that the icecream has been agreed on, so why keep demanding it?
I am completely against boiler plate moderating. I am also waiting for opinions on the real worl scenario I posted. You see it is very easy to be critical of those who make decisions, so i would truly appreciate it if the most vocal in the thread would post how they would have dealt with the real world scenario I posted.
Here it is again.
e.g
Can I have an ice cream? YES you can
Can I have an ice cream? YES you can
Can I have an ice cream? YES you can
Can I have an ice cream? YES you can
Can I have an ice cream? YES you can
Can I have an ice cream? YES you can
It has already been established that the icecream has been agreed on, so why keep demanding it?
I am completely against boiler plate moderating. I am also waiting for opinions on the real worl scenario I posted. You see it is very easy to be critical of those who make decisions, so i would truly appreciate it if the most vocal in the thread would post how they would have dealt with the real world scenario I posted.
Here it is again.
Upvote
0
B
Beachcomber
- Original Poster
- #142
Look back throught his thread and see where things that have been widely agreed need to change (and we are assured backroom discussions are underway) are also being defended as the way to do it and not at fault.
It's all in this thread for all to see.
Really? We're still roleplaying this?
OK.
Well yet again (surprise!) the anser is quite simple.
When a 6 way argument is taking place, you firstly post in the thread stating that the thread is getting out of hand, posts are breaking the rules and cool it off or strikes will be issued.
If they carried on then warning pm's would be sent to all concerned.
If they still carried on, issue the strikes.
So a long standing member ends up with a ban - so he bloomin' well should do - thats what the rules are for! It's all this namby-pambying that loosed the mods and the rules any respect as enforcement is irrational, inconsistent and limp.
What you don't mention is what the previous strikes were for - were they all warranted or a result of over-sensitive moderation? Were they all also accrued within the last 6 months?
It really can't be any more simple can it.
So, do we get a big 'reveal' on who this scenario concerned?
Upvote
0
So you have immediately when faced with a real world scenario, moved your position form 1 warning, and strikes? And moved to a logical considered approach, which is eaxctly what I did, and that you have been complaining about. This is what i meant by please don't try to enforce a boiler plate system on moderating as it doesn't work.
The rules are clear, when I was told to eff off, it is moderator abuse a strike should have been issued. the htread was out of control, I have previously posted that we begged people to calm down (which you have also suggested as the correct course of action, while also describing those actions as being poor.
As I have said many times, moderators are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
The rules are clear, when I was told to eff off, it is moderator abuse a strike should have been issued. the htread was out of control, I have previously posted that we begged people to calm down (which you have also suggested as the correct course of action, while also describing those actions as being poor.
As I have said many times, moderators are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Upvote
0
H
Henry Osadzinski
- Original Poster
- #147
Agreed - folks, as we've said, the issues people have raised are being looked at by Sift & the mod team and our commitment is to making sure the system benefits everybody on the site. We want updates to be good to go this week.
Nobody involved wants the way the site is run to be unfair or unbalanced - that's been made very clear. Questioning individual decisions and going around in circles with scenarios isn't helping. This thread is now closed but that doesn't mean the feedback is being ignored or dropped. Please remember that while this is going on, an in depth look into what we can do has also been happening and will be brought to everyone's attention ASAP.
Nobody involved wants the way the site is run to be unfair or unbalanced - that's been made very clear. Questioning individual decisions and going around in circles with scenarios isn't helping. This thread is now closed but that doesn't mean the feedback is being ignored or dropped. Please remember that while this is going on, an in depth look into what we can do has also been happening and will be brought to everyone's attention ASAP.
Upvote
0
H
Henry Osadzinski
- Original Poster
- #148
Hi everyone,
I'm posting in here to draw your attention to the new thread in the feedback area - http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=2182575#post2182575 We've been working hard to make sure that things are cleared up and members are involved in the discussion.
Thanks,
Henry
I'm posting in here to draw your attention to the new thread in the feedback area - http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=2182575#post2182575 We've been working hard to make sure that things are cleared up and members are involved in the discussion.
Thanks,
Henry
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
What I Wish I'd Known Before Using AI in My BusinessSomewhere between the headlines promising AI will transform everything...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Is AI Making the Internet Worse?It started with a comment about music. @JEREMY HAWKE , a courier...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The AI Divide: What UKBF Members Really Think in 2026Every few months on UK Business Forums, a thread appears that refuses...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When the Algorithm Gets It Wrong: What eBay's AI Moderation Problem Tells Us About Platform RiskA thread appeared on UKBF this week that, on the surface, looks like a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...
- Ozzy
- Updated: