XenForo Beta6, very disappointed

[Allan]

I very disappointed when i read all modification in this thread.

Sure, there are interesting additions, but almost none of the important suggestions made by members.

What's going on ?

 

[jmurrayhead]

Not everything is going to be sunshine and rainbows as some might be suggesting. If I don't want User B following me, then I should have that option. If people aren't provided these tools, they may just leave the community because now it might be awkward and uncomfortable to them.

Blocking content on facebook works, but with a forum it's a bit more complicated. In our case, we need good moderation tools to handle trouble makers. But not like vBulletin's disciplinary tools. "You have been given a warning at blah blah blah forums" is hardly professional and isn't something you really want to send to a long-time member who just seems to be having a bad day. Also, I don't want moderators derailing subjects further by posting things like, "This is XenForo, not vBulletin. Let's look to the future and have everything be all butterflies and flowers." Seriously, the moderators are just as bad on certain things when they post something in the thread that is completely off-topic. It should all be handled behind the scenes. Basically, the system needs to handle things diplomatically but at the same time, must have the power to take things further, if necessary. How about giving moderators the ability to block users from replying to a thread, without closing it, so that the others can continue their discussion?

XenForo is already at the top on so many aspects of forum software. I feel things like this are needed to take it further.

 

[Paul B]

Also, I don't want moderators derailing subjects further by posting things like, "This is XenForo, not vBulletin. Let's look to the future and have everything be all butterflies and flowers." Seriously, the moderators are just as bad on certain things when they post something in the thread that is completely off-topic.

As I'm the only moderator who has posted in this thread then I assume you're referring to me?

Or do you mean threads/moderator comments in general elsewhere on the forum?

 

[jmurrayhead]

As I'm the only moderator who has posted in this thread then I assume you're referring to me?

Or do you mean threads in general elsewhere on the forum?

Just in general. Every moderator here has stated something along those lines in the Off-Topic forum. I'm just using it as an example.

 

[---MAD---]

Actively "blocking" someone as has been suggested in this thread is completely opposite to how an ignore function works.

When ignoring someone the onus is on you to ignore them.
You are choosing to ignore that person.

From what I've read in this thread, some members want the ability to actively block members from seeing their content with the blocked person being unable to do anything about it.

They are two very different functions which I'm sure you'll agree.

I didn't think that's the blocking functionality people were after? I thought they just didn't want people to follow them and be able to see their content on their news feed therefore stalking them too easily? I might have misunderstood the whole blocking idea though..

 

[Paul B]

I didn't think that's the blocking functionality people were after?

Block this user from:
[x] Seeing your content (comes with "ignore list")

 

[---MAD---]

Ah right, missed that, my bad !

 

[jonsidneyb]

I say Pffffffttttttt to being disappointed with what I am seeing. It is phantasmagorical. <--- Is that a word?

 

[Kier]

You could even have an automation/ rule in the system. If 5 users put you on their ignore list, then you will be banned for 5 days.

I have to say, that's a truly terrible idea. On every board I have ever run there are cliques that form, and tend to wage war against each other. If it were possible for Person A to get Person B banned by convincing their friends to put them on their ignore list, the community would rapidly degenerate into an extremely unpleasant survival of the most influential game.

 

[ragtek]

You could even have an automation/ rule in the system. If 5 users put you on their ignore list, then you will be banned for 5 days.

I have to say, that's a truly terrible idea. On every board I have ever run there are cliques that form, and tend to wage war against each other. If it were possible for Person A to get Person B banned by convincing their friends to put them on their ignore list, the community would rapidly degenerate into an extremely unpleasant survival of the most influential game.

TRUE!

I also thought, that it's a great idea to "set posts on moderation" if more then X (for example 5) members report them.

BUT that's a terrible idea. If somebody would be smart enough to realise that this is happening, he could "hide" THE WHOLE content of my forum
The same could happen with the users^^

So instead of automatic doing this, the system should WARN the admins, but they would need to handle and not the alone system.

 

[Adam Howard]

We've been watching XenForo very, very carefully. And I like the idea that they're not adding more... Until AFTER they've fixed the bugs. I think this is something vBulletin currently lacks (strongly) in development. Internet Brands seems so quick to add things, but leaves their product to be unstable (buggy).

The fact that XF is taking the time to weed things out is a good thing.

This said, we're reviewing their progress (and that of Invision Power Services) and may switch to one sometime in November or December 2011. In that time, we hope they've further developed XF with more features.

 

[Rigel Kentaurus]

I have to say, that's a truly terrible idea. On every board I have ever run there are cliques that form, and tend to wage war against each other. If it were possible for Person A to get Person B banned by convincing their friends to put them on their ignore list, the community would rapidly degenerate into an extremely unpleasant survival of the most influential game.

Yes, and no. I think this might work with .. some modifications.

If 5 random users add you to your ignore list / report you, then yes, it is a terrible terrible idea to ban the user.

But if 5 users, from a list hand-picked by the administrator, add people to their ignore list / report the content, then the user might be a good candidate for banning and I would say ban him first, ask later. If the administrator feels that those people are abusing their power they can just go and remove them from the elevated privileges list. That way, people would be careful of not involving themselves in some sort of pity war, short of loosing their privileges.

This is a soft approach to moderators. These members would not have the same responsibility / power as a moderator (closing threads, editing posts, moving content, splitting it, giving advice, having an official title in the board) ... these are more like a group of senior members, that are trusted by the community with special privileges in the forum. They might or might not be named (the administrator can choose to hide this behaviour, or they can advertise that John, Luke and Paul can get you banned.) For all I know they might never know they have the power to ban people. They are just ignoring and reporting.

I have been giving these ideas some thought lately, some kind of peer moderation. Especially when content jumps to thousands of threads a day, the moderators system does not scale. Sure, I can always add more moderators, but who is going to watch their actions as I do? Having some sort of validation done by the community could be certainly helpful. Maybe I don't trust a single person the power to ban people from the forum, but I might trust that 5 votes from a specific group would do.

 

[Trombones13]

But if 5 users, from a list hand-picked by the administrator, add people to their ignore list / report the content, then the user might be a good candidate for banning and I would say ban him first, ask later. If the administrator feels that those people are abusing their power they can just go and remove them from the elevated privileges list. That way, people would be careful of not involving themselves in some sort of pity war, short of loosing their privileges.

This is a soft approach to moderators. These members would not have the same responsibility / power as a moderator (closing threads, editing posts, moving content, splitting it, giving advice, having an official title in the board) ... these are more like a group of senior members, that are trusted by the community with special privileges in the forum. They might or might not be named (the administrator can choose to hide this behaviour, or they can advertise that John, Luke and Paul can get you banned.) For all I know they might never know they have the power to ban people. They are just ignoring and reporting.

Wouldn't that spark cries of elitism, though? I feel like if the word gets out that they have such power (and even if you don't do it yourself, part of me thinks the more power-trippy users chosen would blurt it out anyway), then those who aren't chosen are going to a. ask why they weren't included, or b. ask why the ones who were chosen got picked. Maybe I'm alone in this thought, but I think that the only people who should be able to ban people are staff members chosen by the site administrator for taking care of problems carefully and without personal judgment, and after a staff discussion on whether or not the member in question needs a ban--automatic banning feels to me like it won't end well in any case (as an aside, note that I come from communities that only ban for major offenses).

 

[dieketzer]

Yes, and no. I think this might work with .. some modifications.

If 5 random users add you to your ignore list / report you, then yes, it is a terrible terrible idea to ban the user.

But if 5 users, from a list hand-picked by the administrator, add people to their ignore list / report the content, then the user might be a good candidate for banning and I would say ban him first, ask later. If the administrator feels that those people are abusing their power they can just go and remove them from the elevated privileges list. That way, people would be careful of not involving themselves in some sort of pity war, short of loosing their privileges.

This is a soft approach to moderators. These members would not have the same responsibility / power as a moderator (closing threads, editing posts, moving content, splitting it, giving advice, having an official title in the board) ... these are more like a group of senior members, that are trusted by the community with special privileges in the forum. They might or might not be named (the administrator can choose to hide this behaviour, or they can advertise that John, Luke and Paul can get you banned.) For all I know they might never know they have the power to ban people. They are just ignoring and reporting.

I have been giving these ideas some thought lately, some kind of peer moderation. Especially when content jumps to thousands of threads a day, the moderators system does not scale. Sure, I can always add more moderators, but who is going to watch their actions as I do? Having some sort of validation done by the community could be certainly helpful. Maybe I don't trust a single person the power to ban people from the forum, but I might trust that 5 votes from a specific group would do.

great post and some strong points worthy of consideration.
i like the idea of giving a type of mod power to people that i trust, and having them unaware of the fact.

 

[Rigel Kentaurus]

Wouldn't that spark cries of elitism, though? I feel like if the word gets out that they have such power (and even if you don't do it yourself, part of me thinks the more power-trippy users chosen would blurt it out anyway), then those who aren't chosen are going to a. ask why they weren't included, or b. ask why the ones who were chosen got picked. Maybe I'm alone in this thought, but I think that the only people who should be able to ban people are staff members chosen by the site administrator for taking care of problems carefully and without personal judgment, and after a staff discussion on whether or not the member in question needs a ban--automatic banning feels to me like it won't end well in any case (as an aside, note that I come from communities that only ban for major offenses).

That is true, but at the same time you will be acknowledging people that have had to courtesy of hanging in your forum long enough. I do not think I should handle my old-time members the same way I handle the newcomers. While I think both groups have the right to express their opinion and should be under the same set of moderation rules and policies, the members with more time in the forum have more information and a better opinion about the philosophy of the community, the values that my site is setup to follow, the moderation and conversation style of the place and the general ambiance.

This gives the new people something to look for. I am setting the good example that other people should follow. If someone is polite, helpful, and have been around for months now, and for some reason they are not a moderator, it provides an example for other members to follow. If I'd give this report/banning power to people that just have been around for a year but are rude or trollish then yeah, I would be setting up myself for some trouble.

It might fall down to your personal style of managing a community. I have no trouble whatsoever saying "These are the elite members", I don't call them elite, though. Some people are uncomfortable with that, but the thing is that pretty much from a 1,000 member setup, I am lucky if 20 are engaged and enthusiastic. For those, I want to acknowledge them. This in turn act as feedback to the system, those people are more willing to collaborate if they feel they are noticed, and the people watching and reading know what it takes to get noticed.

Please note most of my comments apply to forums with ~500k posts which are the ones I manage and I would probably not recommend this setup for everyone.

 

[dieketzer]

it could be as simple as a usergroup permission.
the more i ponder it, the more i like it.

 

[Will]

Yes, and no. I think this might work with .. some modifications.

If 5 random users add you to your ignore list / report you, then yes, it is a terrible terrible idea to ban the user.

But if 5 users, from a list hand-picked by the administrator, add people to their ignore list / report the content, then the user might be a good candidate for banning and I would say ban him first, ask later. If the administrator feels that those people are abusing their power they can just go and remove them from the elevated privileges list. That way, people would be careful of not involving themselves in some sort of pity war, short of loosing their privileges.

This is a soft approach to moderators. These members would not have the same responsibility / power as a moderator (closing threads, editing posts, moving content, splitting it, giving advice, having an official title in the board) ... these are more like a group of senior members, that are trusted by the community with special privileges in the forum. They might or might not be named (the administrator can choose to hide this behaviour, or they can advertise that John, Luke and Paul can get you banned.) For all I know they might never know they have the power to ban people. They are just ignoring and reporting.

I have been giving these ideas some thought lately, some kind of peer moderation. Especially when content jumps to thousands of threads a day, the moderators system does not scale. Sure, I can always add more moderators, but who is going to watch their actions as I do? Having some sort of validation done by the community could be certainly helpful. Maybe I don't trust a single person the power to ban people from the forum, but I might trust that 5 votes from a specific group would do.

I just don't see this as being something that is really needed in the software. Not to be rude or anything but I think it is pointless to put something like this in when you could just create a team of staff members to do this without an extra feature. I also think that very few admins would even use something like this but that is my opinion. It could be better suited as an add-on for that reason.

 

[Paul]

Cant we go back to the "adding features" arguement? would be much more useful than features that maybe one or two people would use.

Hell, why not have a poll with a list of options and everyone can argue out what new "feature" to add there! One small one per release, or 3 releases for a big one

I have to say, that's a truly terrible idea. On every board I have ever run there are cliques that form, and tend to wage war against each other. If it were possible for Person A to get Person B banned by convincing their friends to put them on their ignore list, the community would rapidly degenerate into an extremely unpleasant survival of the most influential game.

Not a good community thing i agree, however probably great fun at the time till it gets out of hand

 

[Trombones13]

I just don't see this as being something that is really needed in the software. Not to be rude or anything but I think it is pointless to put something like this in when you could just create a team of staff members to do this without an extra feature. I also think that very few admins would even use something like this but that is my opinion. It could be better suited as an add-on for that reason.

I think that's how I feel, too. I don't think there's an issue with just having staff members for such purposes...if you trust them with "community"-oriented banning power, I don't see why you can't just make them a staff member. Furthermore, unless you have a fairly large board (however you define that; for the record, the forum I administrate has 229k posts and 5k members, and content is rarely reported more than once before it's taken care of by a staff member...maybe that's a special case *shrug*), I would imagine that you wouldn't often get five reports before staff gets to it.

/offtopic

 

[dieketzer]

I just don't see this as being something that is really needed in the software. Not to be rude or anything but I think it is pointless to put something like this in when you could just create a team of staff members to do this without an extra feature. I also think that very few admins would even use something like this but that is my opinion. It could be better suited as an add-on for that reason.

i dont see the sense in the miserable user feature and im thinking its not something the majority of admins over the age of 15 will use, but its still there.

 

[dieketzer]

I think that's how I feel, too. I don't think there's an issue with just having staff members for such purposes...if you trust them with "community"-oriented banning power, I don't see why you can't just make them a staff member. Furthermore, unless you have a fairly large board (however you define that; for the record, the forum I administrate has 229k posts and 5k members, and content is rarely reported more than once before it's taken care of by a staff member...maybe that's a special case *shrug*), I would imagine that you wouldn't often get five reports before staff gets to it.

/offtopic

i think maybe because i am a stealth admin and because the users generally push back at 'MODERATOR' types, this sort of a system would work way better for me than a rehash of the ubb5 moderation system.
this is what i was talking about when i mentioned my fear of a sole administration style being considered.