TV Live Forum Watch News and Information Board

Critique
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10.37
Location: Suffolk

I know it's a rock and hard place situation but the moderation style over on the new place is a bit... odd.

Firstly, the yellow mod edit/comments box gets way too many outings and I feel like every time I visit I read at least one new post which has prompted some sort of comment from the mod team. There are then a myriad of sticky threads at the top of each forum setting out what's on and what's not, an entire forum dedicated to site news and people constantly demanding more features (ironic, I know), plus a persistent banner that's popped up a few times now noting that the forum rules have changed. From a reader's perspective it is tiring to constantly be seeing this sort of thing, and distracts from the purpose of the forum.

Connected to this, I've noticed a few members get caught out by their seemingly innocuous posts (such as a member referring to the identities of long-standing industry insiders who have not tried to hide who they are) attracting the ire of the mods. There also seems to be a zero tolerance policy on making snarky comments about other members - I'm not saying that every comment needs to be laced in snark but I think there's a time and a place for the occasional comment of that ilk, and i don't think TVF ever suffered from letting that sort of thing happen without comment. It's certainly one of the reasons the old TV Forum Watch thread stretched to 844 pages!

Finally, I personally find that some of the mod comments are written in a way that is not especially helpful; I've read a fair few threads where the message has just been a pretty blunt 'cut it out'-type message or another threat of issuing warnings, which loses some of its power every time it is used.

Above all, the real problem though is that I'm not really sure whether there's a better alternative to the current approach. On TV Forum the moderation was very light touch (to the extent that the report function included a message that reports would rarely be dealt with in the public eye). As a result, I remember posts in the old TV Forum Watch thread (and on TVF itself) where members would call for moderation to be more visible, and I think I always read those sorts of posts and agreed that this made sense.

With the power of hindsight maybe Asa got it right after all?!
robschneider
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed 14 Aug, 2013 14.53

No system is perfect but I think the TVF team made some huge mistakes - the likes of Brekkie got away with murder consistently pushing his political agenda whilst other members would be instantly banned for something relatively minor. There was absolutely no consistency and that caused a domino effect, especially when GB News came into play - but what are the people attacking it (before a frame of output has been TXed) frightened of? That's the real question. It it genuinely a fear that it is going to confront situations people are scared of confronting? You don't see the pitchforks out for the out-and-proud left leaning Channel 4, but it is pretty much the "left equivalent" of what the channel will most likely be.

I think a lot of people who feel GB News doesn't have a right to exist need to ask themselves what specifically about GB News they are frightened of.

Anyway, the new system is harsh, but it is fair and equal treatment is being given compared to the favouritism and brown nosing that took place on TVF.
stu
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 19.34
Location: Kings Oak

Self moderation. The foe section comes in handy, you don't see anything the useless posters write which helps clean the place up a bit
Martin Phillp
Posts: 1120
Joined: Wed 11 May, 2011 01.28

Considering TVLF is less than two months old, it's no surprise that Rob and the mods are still finding their feet, so there are some issues with the moderation. One of David's replies when he closed the thread about Lisa Shaw went too personal. A moderator should always stick to why a member has broken a particular role going by the rules posted and then leave it at that.

I don't know if "Les Bean" was banned or left of their own accord, but posters who try and stretch the rules in their posts should be warned and then banned if they carry on.

It was always going to be hard to moderate when it was a second chance for previously banned TVF members and those who were allowed to post political posts on TVF and not receive a warning or a ban, which has led to TVLF being a place where we all don't really know what to say or do that isn't stretching what is television presentation discussion or not. Like TVF, it'll take time for TVLF to find that balance that allows for a touch of off-topic discussion, but doesn't completely change the conversation.
TVF's London Lite.
User avatar
rob
Posts: 984
Joined: Sat 06 Sep, 2003 12.01
Location: Overton, Hampshire
Contact:

Les Bean asked for his account to be closed. He was not banned.

I will accept that the yellow mod warning banner has been used too much. After some discussion, it's been decided that from now on, it will only be used when an official forum warning is issued. The @mentions system will be used to advise users on things that they shouldn't be doing. I shall also try and be a bit more polite in my use of this system, you are right, I have been a bit harsh in my comments.

As stu has rightly pointed out, the foe system is a handy tool if you don't want to see posts from a certain member.

I didn't want to have to go zero tolerance in the GB News thread, but at the end of the day, I simply had no choice. I wasn't going to close the thread, considering it's launching in a couple of weeks time, but the arguments and the bickering amongst some members had to be stopped, and I hope that this will end the matter.

With regards to the "Site News" forum, I hear what you are saying on that one. It's just a handy way of conveying site updates and information easily. I will review whether to keep that part of the site open once the next version of the site is completed.

Re: the banner notifying users of updated rules: In time, there won't be a need to put a banner up, as any changes will be conveyed in the form of a notification, which is what I plan to replace the "Site News" forum with if I decide to change things. The rules are pretty much set in stone now, so there's no need to alter them. I do plan to remove the seperate forum guidelines from each forum and merge them with the main rules though.

I am reading all your comments, and I am learning what is right and what isn't, and am attempting to respond constructively to your criticisms and suggestions. I appreciate your honesty and feedback. It's helping, trust me. :)
DavidWhitfield
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue 17 Nov, 2020 14.15

Martin Phillp wrote: Sat 29 May, 2021 03.43 One of David's replies when he closed the thread about Lisa Shaw went too personal. A moderator should always stick to why a member has broken a particular role going by the rules posted and then leave it at that.
Thanks for your constructive comments, Martin (and Critique before that).

Never my intention to come across as unduly harsh or personal, Martin.

In terms of the specific example given, closing the Lisa Shaw thread was something I did not do lightly -- it remains the one and only thread I've shut down completely in my (albeit short) time as a moderator -- but I felt I had no choice but to put a stop to the discussion after a whole page of it descending into very dodgy ground stating assumptions as hard facts, speculating about her health generally, going into her family's comments on her passing, discussing the safety of the COVID vaccines... I wanted to make it abundantly clear that this was not acceptable on the site, but I accept that I was perhaps too strong in my closing post where a more simple and concise response would have been quite sufficient. This probably wasn't helped by the fact that as a fellow north-easterner, I was very familiar with Lisa Shaw and her radio work, and therefore seeing a thread which was opened to announce her passing descend into such inappropriate discourse seemed galling and deeply insensitive. More than happy to take ownership of the fact that I could have handled it better, and appreciate the feedback.

As Rob has stated above, we've been discussing the moderation generally as recently as yesterday afternoon, and we're always trying to improve and provide the best environment possible. Hopefully, you - and the other users - will notice what you will see as a positive change in the moderation as time goes on, as we adapt to feedback and develop a 'best fit' style as time goes on.

Hope you're enjoying the site generally and are slowly getting used to typing 'tvl' rather than 'tvf' to get your fix of discussion as we hit the two month mark.
robschneider
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed 14 Aug, 2013 14.53

Zero Tolerance on snarkiness is welcomed. We have this forum to do that.

It kind of has to be this way given the Year Zero policy. The returning members should be judged on what they are posting now not what they posted twenty years ago.

If your opinion is that someone doesn't have a right to be there, use the Foe function.
all new Phil
Posts: 1726
Joined: Sun 13 Feb, 2005 00.04
Location: Next door to Hell

robschneider wrote: Sat 29 May, 2021 16.21 Zero Tolerance on snarkiness is welcomed. We have this forum to do that.

It kind of has to be this way given the Year Zero policy. The returning members should be judged on what they are posting now not what they posted twenty years ago.

If your opinion is that someone doesn't have a right to be there, use the Foe function.
No. Snarkiness improves the place. Some posters need it.
Thought this was a nice forum, clearly not.
robschneider
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed 14 Aug, 2013 14.53

all new Phil wrote: Sat 29 May, 2021 21.18
robschneider wrote: Sat 29 May, 2021 16.21 Zero Tolerance on snarkiness is welcomed. We have this forum to do that.

It kind of has to be this way given the Year Zero policy. The returning members should be judged on what they are posting now not what they posted twenty years ago.

If your opinion is that someone doesn't have a right to be there, use the Foe function.
No. Snarkiness improves the place. Some posters need it.
Is that not bullying?
liam
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri 02 Apr, 2021 20.29

I have to say - I'm quite concerned about the levels of moderation at the new place. I'm worried that mods will get run down very quickly with the levels of how much they do. The back-and-forth between one member and the admin yesterday on the BBC World News forum was uncomfortable... I think both parties were excessive and it wasn't exactly necessary. I'm grateful for the new place being around, but we all make up a forum, not just the people that pay for it. I hope this feels constructive, I just wanted to share the discomfort.
robschneider
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed 14 Aug, 2013 14.53

BettyS, in the GB News thread wrote:Having thought about it and read the comments on here, I would think that the only sensible option is to go for the 'Daily Mail' audience. Give them the news they want to hear and support it with lots of death insurance & mobility scooter adverts. I still cant see it making any money but perhaps that not the point of it. Maybe the Tories backers want all the news to themselves.
I mean, Ste, Brekkie and James Bond have talked some shit in that thread but that's next level.

What a load of absolute bollocks. Why don't the left start their own channel and support that with adverts for Museli, Nut Milk and Sandals? Maybe a competition to win your own Palestine flag that sings "Oooh, Jeremy Corbyn!" when you try to have sex with it?

Fucking bollocks.
Please Respond