No feedback from the Moderators after reporting inappropriate posts

Mods have the discretion to act as they see fit in the best interests of the discussion and/or the community and/or the site in some cases. We are not going to try and take that discretion away by having fixed and inflexible rules for the sorts of rules lawyers muppets who make moderation a soul destroying exercise (and we've all seen plenty of them and yes, they are muppets, they're well aware of what they're doing).

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why are you insisting again I am talking about cards not being visible for deleted posts? I am talking about cards not being visible for posts which have received an infraction which are NOT deleted. (well I am talking about it now, this was originally Sunflower 27's point, not mine).

This doesn't happen, it can't. Cards are automatically displayed on a post that receives an infraction or warning - it's part of the software.

MrWalsh wrote: »

Of course this is happening. But because some mod actions are secret there is no way for a user to show this is happening.

But over time you occasionally find out thing because a user PMs you or because it happens to you.

They're not secret to me or the Admins and if a mod pulls that sort of stunt, they don't remain a mod - in fact, they don't remain a member on this site.

To hullaballoo: I appreciate the point re: the term Rules Lawyering - common parlance we can agree, but something I'll try to avoid using because that doesn't make it right.

MrWalsh wrote: »

What I am saying is that I cannot (nor can other ordinary users) show you where inconsistent rule application is happening very easily when some mod actions are invisible from ordinary users.

And with respect, I dont imagine you have the time nor the inclination to be going over every single mod action daily?

And even if an example was made clear, certainly my perception is that the mods and admins will "circle the wagons" (sorry I cant think of a better phrase) and us users will just be told that some things are mod discretion only - because its not in Boards best interests for mods to be made look bad in public.

Your perception and our realities are 2 very different things, especially considering you have no idea what communication goes on behind the scenes nor what I do and don't read. I don't read every mod action, I don't need to - I trust our mods. I read things that get reported to me to read. That's quite a lot of stuff and it does take quite a lot of my day - my job is, after all, support the mods. Humans are great at seeing patterns, it's one of the reasons we're able to beat computers at a lot of things. We're also great at spotting patterns that aren't there and selectively picking out data to support our hypothesis - that's why we have (or try to have) many eyeballs on many things to get consensus and head-check ourselves.

When people on this forum talk about circling the wagons etc, very, very few of them are willing to see or understand that the reason you see Mods and Admins all saying the same thing in those times is because those are the rules. If you think that the Mods and Admins agree on everything or have some sort of agenda to support each other no matter what, then you are grossly misinformed.

There is one more thing too that no one wants to say, but I'm going to. Sometimes there are people that you can only describe as arseholes who have little for doing than causing stress. We are, if anything, far too soft on these types, but the community wants accountability and transparency and I support that, so we have to show why someone's an arsehole and why we want them gone. When some of said arsehole's cronies start weighing in and muddying waters with half-truths and selective telling of events what happens? We see steaming piles of ..... of threads (and I'm not for one minute suggesting that this thread is even remotely close to this sort of thing by the way) and nothing but stress for 3 days for all concerned.

Now ask yourself this, if you were a volunteer and you thought, even for a second, that you might be slightly out of line, and knowing that this sort of thread I mention above is the potential result, would you go ahead and ban someone just because they ticked you off or they made a point you personally disagree with?

These issues keeps coming up and we're blue in the face telling people.

We will not be sending an acknowledgement of reported posts - it's not something that's easy to implement technically, nor is it something I would ask any mod to manually do. And above all else, and I say this with the greatest of respect and sincerest of thanks to all members of the site for making the reporting process work: it's none of your business what happens unless you're the one that's been reported.

We will not be getting a definitive and exhaustive list of what's allowed and what's not - aside from it being an impossibility, we have no interest in operating the site in that way.

We will not be insisting on standardised responses to rules breaches either - again, far too restrictive and unworkable. Every forum is different and some people either don't or won't accept this is the case, but that isn't going to change.

There aren't many hard and fast rules on the site (I'm actually in the process of re-doing them for clarity), but they're all common sense ones - don't be a dick, don't derail threads questioning what mods are at, don't post about illegal stuff and don't threaten to sue someone.

We've definitely got room for improvement in how all of this stuff works, I'm not suggesting it's perfect, but it is a process we've been refining for fifteen years and in that time we've gotten a pretty good idea of what we're at and what works or won't work. If people could give *US* the benefit of the doubt, that would be great and we'll give them the benefit of the doubt when they've made a mistake - everyone wins. It's easy to type something silly and forget where you are, especially if you're talking with friends and so on. A polite PM solves 90% of issues, but a polite PM is an unfortunately rare thing.

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I don't think it unfair at all. I am not saying it is ALL mods, but certain forums, AH in particular, is a clear breeding ground for mods enjoying flexing their muscle..

I have been seeing statements like this for years - see my previous point re: selective data samples. The AH mod team is the biggest on the site, do you not think they don't check in with one another and make sure they're being as consistent as they can be? What you're suggesting simply doesn't add up. Given how busy AH is, the Admins and I are always available to them too for advice and guidance and they regularly make use of us because they have no interest in making stress for anyone.

MrWalsh wrote: »

Well thats exactly the point Dav. There is no transparency of what goes on behind the scenes so I cannot see your reality. Obviously I am only aware of my own perception. This is why this thread exists, and I have seen other threads over time where users have requested some kind of visibility of reported posts and if they were actioned or ignored or whatever.

However, it is clear that you do not want this.

I will bow out now as I am aware that raising ones head above the parapet to ask such questions is a risky business.

Just imagine for a moment that the entire process was transparent. How is a team of people meant to have a discussion about what someone has done and what actions it warrants when the person they're discussing is reading it? How on earth could that work? Explain it to me, cause I'm working at this for the last 6 years and I've been a volunteer here since we started having volunteers in 2000, and nothing I have ever seen has indicated to me that what you're proposing will result in anything other than chaos and upset. And hey, if you've (not you personally, I mean the rhetorical you) done something that warrants moderator attention, then you're the one at fault, not the mods for trying to clean up your mess.

And here I am trying to answer your questions and we get that stupid statement about heads over parapets. Do you see why no one wants to deal with people like you (and NOW I mean you personally)? I've given you an answer, you don't like it, you make some sort of "oh look, they're out to get me, beware everyone" and then you'll use this thread as justification for causing more stress when you next break a rule (and you will because you've already got a history of it). That's a pattern we see time and time again.

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I think that is unfair and dismissive. I also think it leaves plenty of room for people to feel as if they have been treated unfairly. Not everyone that questions a warning is a muppet. Many just want to know why what is good for some is not good for others. And that is entirely fair enough. If you are given a warning for quoting a mod and the next person that does it isn't show to be reprimanded the same way, of course people are going to get miffed. It's human nature.

If there is to be no standardising of warnings and bans, and by that I mean all of them being made public, then you (mods in general) open themselves up for questioning and ridicule.

You may see it as not wanting to take away that mod discretion, but then if that is the case, you can expect people to question it because it clearly is unjust to have some outcomes for some and other outcomes for others.

No, it absolutely isn't. The real world does not work that way, how and why should it? This is not a single site, it's a collection of communities. They're all different. They're all supposed to be different, otherwise what's the point?

Here's the most obvious and clear cut reason why it can't work the way you think it should...

2 posts appear on a forum - both of them are talking about a subject that is taboo or that has been deemed inappropriate. Both posts are by someone who's been a member for a month, both get reported. The first shows that the member who posted it is a re-reg of a known idiot. It gets nuked and the idiot gets permanently site banned. The second is from a brand new member who simply didn't realise that the particular subject was trouble. It gets deleted and they get sent a PM from a Mod saying "hi there, we don't discuss this subject for <reasons>" and that's that.

2 radically different results to the same issue. You're proposing that we should treat both of these cases the same and I'm telling you why we can't or won't. Now of course, we can say "well obviously that doesn't apply because of the first person being a re-reg" and so on. So then we have to have an exception which has to be written down somewhere for the sake of clarity for people who are too ignorant to care about rules anyway.

Then we add "well obviously this second person shouldn't get off without a ban just because they're new and they didn't read the rules" and so now we have two exceptions to what was a black and white rule as you proposed.

What then when we have to add an exception for "Well I didn't see that the mod had posted a warning in the thread because I was typing a multi-quote response to 4 different people?" Suddenly your proposed black and white rule has layers of clauses and subsections all of which simply serve to confuse the issue and give numpties something they think they can fight over where as if we simply say "hey mods, do what you think is right and in the best interests of the discussion and community" then all of that stops being an issue.

*IF* there's an abuse of a mod's position, it's very obvious very quickly to an Admin or I if it's kicked up the line to us (and as I said, it frequently is). I can count on one hand the number of times this has turned out to be the case since I've been a member of this site, never mind an employee - that's because we pick people who are smart and not inclined towards being a numpty themselves to be moderators - some people are better at this sorta thing than others.

I don't know why people cannot accept that we have been down all these roads many, many times before - this site is practically ancient in terms of the internet and as I said previously, our policies are based on experience of what works for us and what works when you factor human behaviour into the equation.