Reporting Mods.

kneemos · 20-11-2014 10:53pm

Beasty wrote: »

So you think that whenever I report my own post for the info of the local mods the whole site should get sight of it? It becomes a magnet for anyone wanting to sh!t stir it for any mod they don't get on with. "Oh I'll report him and give the whole site a laugh." The whole idea is ridiculous and will basically put people off from taking the roles on in the first place

Fair enough.

El Guapo! · 20-11-2014 10:55pm

kneemos wrote: »

Fair enough.

So in summary:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Sounds like case closed to me.

Brown Bomber · 20-11-2014 10:56pm

SW wrote: »

well unless the mods of a forum are consistently moderating via PM to such an extreme as to give the impression of an unmoderated forum, I don't see what the problem is. The poster made their report. There is no mention anywhere on the site that they will be PM'ed with a mod update on their report if action doesn't occur on thread.

As far as I am aware there is also no mention anywhere on the site that users will occasionally be warned over their infringements in secret. I stress again that no mod update to reporters is necessary; merely an acknowledgement that rules that are supposed to apply indiscriminately are being applied without favour.

Also, I don't see it as a "problem". I see it as fine-tuning. I was genuinely trying to help but some got over defensive as if I was talking about revolution and not evolution.

SW wrote: »

I'm not a mod, so the perception of ignoring reported posts doesn't apply.

OK, but I am 99% certain you were previously. Is this the case?

Brown Bomber · 20-11-2014 11:01pm

Beasty wrote: »

So you think that whenever I report my own post for the info of the local mods the whole site should get sight of it? It becomes a magnet for anyone wanting to sh!t stir it for any mod they don't get on with. "Oh I'll report him and give the whole site a laugh." The whole idea is ridiculous and will basically put people off from taking the roles on in the first place

I agree. However, it could be an idea for reported posts of mods to go directly into a CMOD/Admin only forum, especially if you are reporting a post of a mod in their own forum

I've been hesitant to report posts of mods ever since one made an off-the-cuff reference to my reporting of him. Something like "why don't you report me for this too like you normally do." I had no idea that all mods could read their own reported posts.

The_Morrigan · 20-11-2014 11:03pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I agree. However, it could be an idea for reported posts of mods to go directly into a CMOD/Admin only forum, especially if you are reporting a post of a mod in their own forum

I've been hesitant to report posts of mods ever since one made an off-the-cuff reference to my reporting of him. Something like "why don't you report me for this too like you normally do." I had no idea that all mods could read their own reported posts.

That won't work as we often report our own posts if we need to draw attention to something - like a re-direct to another forum, which the new forum mods will then need to see. No point only cmods and admins seeing that.

Tokyo · 20-11-2014 11:10pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've been hesitant to report posts of mods ever since one made an off-the-cuff reference to my reporting of him. Something like "why don't you report me for this too like you normally do."

Did you report the off the cuff reference?

Delirium · 20-11-2014 11:17pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

As far as I am aware there is also no mention anywhere on the site that users will occasionally be warned over their infringements in secret. I stress again that no mod update to reporters is necessary; merely an acknowledgement that rules that are supposed to apply indiscriminately are being applied without favour.

Also, I don't see it as a "problem". I see it as fine-tuning. I was genuinely trying to help but some got over defensive as if I was talking about revolution and not evolution.

It's mentioned in the FAQ for the site that mods have discretion on how to handle their moderating duties. Sometimes a polite PM is good enough to deal with a reported post. I'd have no expectation to be kept in the loop after reporting a post. Just because a warning happened via PM doesn't mean the rules haven't been applied.

OK, but I am 99% certain you were previously. Is this the case?

Briefly and for a forum that had little to no reported posts beyond reports for spamming.

If a post is reported, there are at least 3 possible scenarios that can give perception of being ignored.
1. Private PM is sent to offending poster to warn them to be mindful of how they post.
2. Reported post doesn't warrant any action.
3. Mods haven't read the report yet.

Are the mods to flag the post if scenario 1 or 2 have occurred? If a user isn't being infracted or banned, why does the reporter of the post need any feedback from mods? If users have concerns that reported posts are being ignored, then PM mods, or if needs be, the CMods.

Brown Bomber · 20-11-2014 11:23pm

mike_ie wrote: »

Did you report the off the cuff reference?

It was a long time ago. I honestly can't remember, doubt it though. I rarely report posts.

Tokyo · 20-11-2014 11:25pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It was a long time ago. I honestly can't remember, doubt it though. I rarely report posts.

Reporting posts would be a good first step towards improving the site, before worrying about the fine-tuning of how moderators deal with them.

Brown Bomber · 20-11-2014 11:39pm

SW wrote: »

It's mentioned in the FAQ for the site that mods have discretion on how to handle their moderating duties. Sometimes a polite PM is good enough to deal with a reported post. I'd have no expectation to be kept in the loop after reporting a post. Just because a warning happened via PM doesn't mean the rules haven't been applied.

I still don't think you are understanding me at all.

I think it is a good thing that mods can be fluid and empowered to handle situations in they way they think is most beneficial.

I do believe that the "polite PM" route can be very effective in letting people know where they stand in an adult way and can contain potential problems before they really start.

I do not believe that every person who reports a posts has an entitlement to be kept in the loop after this.

All reported posts should be considered. After this there are a number of routes to go down.

Mod considers no breach of charter
No action taken.

Mod considers breach of charter.
1. General on-thread warning
2. Specific on-thread warning
3- Secret PM to rule breaker
4. Infraction
5. Banning

3 above is the only scenario where the reporter of the post, someone who quite possibly is the victim of the rule breach, who has played by the rules in not responding to the reported post but reported it in good faith is left in the dark and apparently ignored.

Under all other circumstances it is made clear that the rule breach is not acceptable. This is educational for newer users of the site.

Secret PM's give the appearance of inaction, which is tacit approval of the rule breach while at the same time giving the appearance of sticking two fingers up to the person who has played by the rules and guidelines.

It makes no sense why this would be preferable.

Insect Overlord · 20-11-2014 11:50pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

3- Secret PM to rule breaker

3 above is the only scenario where the reporter of the post, someone who quite possibly is the victim of the rule breach, who has played by the rules in not responding to the reported post but reported it in good faith is left in the dark and apparently ignored.

Secret PM's give the appearance of inaction, which is tacit approval of the rule breach while at the same time giving the appearance of sticking two fingers up to the person who has played by the rules and guidelines.

It makes no sense why this would be preferable.

It's preferable because Private Messages are private and none of your business.

Delirium · 20-11-2014 11:56pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I still don't think you are understanding me at all.

I think it is a good thing that mods can be fluid and empowered to handle situations in they way they think is most beneficial.

I do believe that the "polite PM" route can be very effective in letting people know where they stand in an adult way and can contain potential problems before they really start.

I do not believe that every person who reports a posts has an entitlement to be kept in the loop after this.

All reported posts should be considered. After this there are a number of routes to go down.

Mod considers no breach of charter
No action taken.

Mod considers breach of charter.
1. General on-thread warning
2. Specific on-thread warning
3- Secret PM to rule breaker
4. Infraction
5. Banning

3 above is the only scenario where the reporter of the post, someone who quite possibly is the victim of the rule breach, who has played by the rules in not responding to the reported post but reported it in good faith is left in the dark and apparently ignored.

Under all other circumstances it is made clear that the rule breach is not acceptable. This is educational for newer users of the site.

In case number 3 it is also made clear that the rule breach is not acceptable by virtue of PMing a poster.

Sometimes in a fast moving thread it actually makes sense to PM a user rather than warn them on thread if the problem doesn't warrant an infraction/banning.

Secret PM's give the appearance of inaction, which is tacit approval of the rule breach while at the same time giving the appearance of sticking two fingers up to the person who has played by the rules and guidelines.

PMs are private messages, so the secret qualifier is redundant.

And your suggestion of "giving two fingers to the reporter" is unhelpful. The same could be said for not actioning any reported post. You're essentially saying that mods shouldn't be allowed moderate via PM under any circumstance because some posters require all action to be in public. Which puts the "offender" at a disadvantage as it's against the site-wide rules to discuss a mod action on-thread.

It makes no sense why this would be preferable.

Hopefully the examples above give you some idea of when it m,ay be preferable.

Brown Bomber · 21-11-2014 12:13am

An File wrote: »

It's preferable because Private Messages are private and none of your business.

I accept this. However they can remain private in exactly the same manner that occurs with an infraction or banning. Do you accept this? The yellow or red card becomes attached to the post along with a private message to the offender.

Do you deny that a secret process of mod intervention to rule breakers gives the false appearance of inaction and therefore gives the false appearance to the average user of tacit approval of this rule breaking?

Brown Bomber · 21-11-2014 12:21am

SW wrote: »

In case number 3 it is also made clear that the rule breach is not acceptable by virtue of PMing a poster.

Made clear to who? A solitary person, of itself not a bad thing but ought to be balanced with the baggage of making users feeling ignored for doing the right thing and giving the appearance to everyone else that the offense is acceptable which contradicts the charter and sends out mixed messages.

Insect Overlord · 21-11-2014 12:32am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I accept this. However they can remain private in exactly the same manner that occurs with an infraction or banning. Do you accept this? The yellow or red card becomes attached to the post along with a private message to the offender.

Do you deny that a secret process of mod intervention to rule breakers gives the false appearance of inaction and therefore gives the false appearance to the average user of tacit approval of this rule breaking?

It's not a "secret" process. It's called discretion. You don't need to make a spectacle of the event.

This sounds like the kid in the classroom who tells the teacher when another boy is writing with biro instead of pencil. It's petty and unnecessary and the kid takes satisfaction in seeing someone else getting given out to. There's no need for that here (for misdemeanours that aren't serious enough for cards/bans)

Delirium · 21-11-2014 12:35am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Made clear to who? A solitary person, of itself not a bad thing but ought to be balanced with the baggage of making users feeling ignored for doing the right thing and giving the appearance to everyone else that the offense is acceptable which contradicts the charter and sends out mixed messages.

And in a fast moving thread a mod action to a reported post can be missed by the reporter. Its happened on posts I've reported where the mod warning was a number of pages later.

A mod could choose a different post by the same offender that was also reported to action on. So unless all the offenders posts are marked on the thread or the reporter PM-ed, the issue of perception of inaction will still continue for some posters.

Brown Bomber · 21-11-2014 12:40am

An File wrote: »

It's not a "secret" process. It's called discretion. You don't need to make a spectacle of the event.

This sounds like the kid in the classroom who tells the teacher when another boy is writing with biro instead of pencil. It's petty and unnecessary and the kid takes satisfaction in seeing someone else getting given out to. There's no need for that here (for misdemeanours that aren't serious enough for cards/bans)

OK, it is "secret". You are using your discretion to be secretive.

ˈsiːkrɪt/Submit
adjective
1.
not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others.

you are misjudging me and leaping to conclusions. It would be more productive here if you could just answer the questions I asked you.

Dozen Wicked Words · 21-11-2014 12:46am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

you are misjudging me and leaping to conclusions. It would be more productive here if you could just answer the questions I asked you.

Your last few posts read like you are being deliberately obtuse, but I may have leaped to that conclusion.

Brown Bomber · 21-11-2014 12:51am

SW wrote: »

And in a fast moving thread a mod action to a reported post can be missed by the reporter. Its happened on posts I've reported where the mod warning was a number of pages later.

I believe there is now a system in place where mod warning locations are listed in the thread title

SW wrote: »

A mod could choose a different post by the same offender that was also reported to action on. So unless all the offenders posts are marked on the thread or the reporter PM-ed, the issue of perception of inaction will still continue for some posters.

Surely two individual offenses warrant individual responses rendering this irrelevant to what we are discussing. In any case, while I appreciate your efforts to explain things to me I believe we are walking in the mud here.

Insect Overlord · 21-11-2014 1:02am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

you are misjudging me and leaping to conclusions. It would be more productive here if you could just answer the questions I asked you.

You have asked several leading questions, and I don't feel comfortable answering them because you designed their phrasing to achieve either a) an answer you'll be happy with which is not actually factual or b) an answer you won't be happy with which will lead to more of the same questions and the thread continuing to go around in circles. You have already set your position, and you're not budging from it no matter what response you get. Answering the questions you asked me would be an exercise in futility.

The Hill Billy · 21-11-2014 9:08am

Any PMs that are sent are private - not secret. They are no more 'secret' than the many private forums on this site.

There are some things that the general userbase are free to see. These are 'public'.

Other things are 'private'. Their visibility is restricted to certain users.

'Secret' stuff is for Hogwarts or Q's R&D facility.

Delirium · 21-11-2014 9:22am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe there is now a system in place where mod warning locations are listed in the thread title

Not unless it's serious problem in the thread. Mods definitely do not, nor would I suggest, update the OP with every warning/action that occurs in the thread.

Surely two individual offenses warrant individual responses rendering this irrelevant to what we are discussing. In any case, while I appreciate your efforts to explain things to me I believe we are walking in the mud here.

Nope. The mod could look at the two posts and possibly deem a single PM warning is fine in the scenario. Or the second reported post might warrant an infraction and the first post is ignored. Thus one reported post is "ignored" as only one post will be flagged in some fashion.

gozunda · 21-11-2014 9:59am

The_Morrigan wrote: »

I'm talking about any user, not mods. If you are reporting a post in any forum and you expect every person who reported the post to be included in a sanction pm then this place will be destroyed.

Why do you say that?

In the case of no notification of any action -

Surely transparency in moderation is essential so that it can be seen that a report has actually been considered / acted upon and if there has been no action that the reporter has that knowledge to take any such report further if they so wish.

How do those posters who report a post for breaching a forums charter etc know if such a report has ever been acted on if there is no confirmation either by the relevant mod flagging the offending post or letting the reporter know the outcome?

I can see how this particular type of mod action could very well result in posters believing that a reported matter was not even considered or looked at by the relevant moderator. And may well cause posters to lose confidence in the reporting system.

Penn · 21-11-2014 10:09am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe there is now a system in place where mod warning locations are listed in the thread title

General warnings that all posters should be made aware of, not for individual warnings or ones only concerning one or two posters.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Surely two individual offenses warrant individual responses rendering this irrelevant to what we are discussing.

The simple fact is that mod action might not always be visible. A reported post might result in a PM to the poster telling them to stop, or the mod might decide to just keep an eye on them, or inform their co-mods to keep an eye on them etc etc. Either way, if a poster hasn't seen any mod action taken and wants to query it, they can PM a mod, cmod or admin. There is a solution to this problem, and it's already there. CC'ing the person who reported a post in on a PM to the reported poster a) reveals them as having reported the post unless they were BCC'ed, b) doesn't change the fact that some mod actions are behind the scenes and don't involve a PM to the poster, and c) causes more work for the mods in the event that the reporter doesn't like or agree with the PM sent by the mod, causing even more PM's to be sent to try and deal with it.

You're trying to solve a problem for which there is already a solution, with a more complex and troublesome solution.

OldGoat · 21-11-2014 10:42am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe there is now a system in place where mod warning locations are listed in the thread title

This is not a system wide policy. It's something that some mods do in some threads. Absence of a mod-warnings edited into the OP is not license for people to have free rein and post in a dickish (infractable) mode.

The_Morrigan · 21-11-2014 11:01am

gozunda wrote: »

Why do you say that?

In the case of no notification of any action -

Surely transparency in moderation is essential so that it can be seen that a report has actually been considered / acted upon and if there has been no action that the reporter has that knowledge to take any such report further if they so wish.

How do those posters who report a post for breaching a forums charter etc know if such a report has ever been acted on if there is no confirmation either by the relevant mod flagging the offending post or letting the reporter know the outcome?

I can see how this particular type of mod action could very well result in posters believing that a reported matter was not even considered or looked at by the relevant moderator. And may well cause posters to lose confidence in the reporting system.

If we remove the privacy of reporting posts and allowing the bold poster to know who reported them then it will lead to further bad behaviour probably against the person(s) who did the reporting.

This system is akin to whistle blowing, if you remove that element of protection from those doing the reporting then two things will happen;
1. Those reporting the posts will become targets; and
2. People will stop using the function for fear of retaliation.

If people want to own up to reporting a post then that is there choice, but painting a big target on their back because they are trying to make the site better is just bad for everyone.

gozunda · 21-11-2014 11:15am

The_Morrigan wrote: »

If we remove the privacy of reporting posts and allowing the bold poster to know who reported them then it will lead to further bad behaviour probably against the person(s) who did the reporting.

This system is akin to whistle blowing, if you remove that element of protection from those doing the reporting then two things will happen;
1. Those reporting the posts will become targets; and
2. People will stop using the function for fear of retaliation.

If people want to own up to reporting a post then that is there choice, but painting a big target on their back because they are trying to make the site better is just bad for everyone.

No my apologies crossed wires.

There would be no need to notify the 'bold' poster imo. The call to transparency for some form of notification (eg bcc / flag on post) as to what mod action was taken if any would allow the reporter to take the matter further if they wish to do so. It would also increase posters confidence that reported matters were considered.

The_Morrigan · 21-11-2014 11:30am

gozunda wrote: »

No my apologies crossed wires.

There would be no need to notify the 'bold' poster imo. The call to transparency for some form of notification (eg bcc / flag on post) as to what mod action was taken if any would allow the reporter to take the matter further if they wish to do so. It would also increase posters confidence that reported matters were considered.

I'm not going to bcc in multiple users to a pm or send a follow up pm to every user who reports the post after action may/may not have been taken, I also can't do that via the app or touch site and I tend to mod on the go.

All reported matters are considered, they may not be actioned though. No mod has the time or resources to explain their actions to every single user who reports a post or sends a pm highlighting an issue.

My forums are relatively quiet and it takes up a lot of time when some threads kick off. I can't imagine how the busier forums manage as it is, let alone have some posters requesting more unnecessary workload on top of it.

OldGoat · 21-11-2014 12:07pm

gozunda wrote: »

No my apologies crossed wires.

There would be no need to notify the 'bold' poster imo. The call to transparency for some form of notification (eg bcc / flag on post) as to what mod action was taken if any would allow the reporter to take the matter further if they wish to do so. It would also increase posters confidence that reported matters were considered.

This puts the mod in the precarious position of having to debate their decision with either the reporter or the reportee. That is a whole heap of grief for anyone to undertake.

Nor would it make anything clearer for users. The same breach of could result in two totally different decisions by the mods.

As an example conceder a noob posting on a zombie thread and an established poster doing the same.

For the noob I would PM with reasons why we don't dig up the zombies and recommend that they start a new thread instead.

For the established user with a history of raising zombies I would see they get short shrift with a forum ban.

The reporter would see two reported posts but only one of which has been actioned.

At that point (if your above want were in place) I would probably have to engage with the reporter and explain why the noob was not infracted.

At the same time I would have to engage with the established user explaining why he's been banned but another user was let away with it.

You should also remember that if 10 people were to report the zombie threads then the mod has to deal with each of those reporters individually.

What you are asking for is simply beyond the bounds of what is feasible and all for the want of knowing that your click of the button has actually been read by one of the (minimum of) four people that receives an email directly to their phone.

Dav · 21-11-2014 12:34pm

Since it didn't seem to sink in the first time, here it is again. This time I'm closing this thread cause we're done here.

Dav wrote: »

To answer the OP's question - if you wish to report ANY post, you click the report button and that that. If you wish to report a mod's actions for review, you contact their CMod. If you wish to report a CMod, you contact an Admin, you wish to report an Admin, you contact Niamh or I. You wish to report us - close you're account, we're the top of the site's chain of command We are NEVER going to have some manner of system to tell people that something they reported is being actioned or that they have ANY sort of right to be included in any kind of moderation process. That applies equally to members and mods alike.

We've been doing this for 16 years. Believe me, we know what we're at. There is literally nothing good about a reporter being included in a discussion or review of a potential disciplinary process. It causes hostility and one-upmanship and none of that is anything we're interested in promoting.

Moderators do not work here, they help. I'd happily help a friend move house on a weekend, but I would not help them move house every weekend because he keeps getting kicked out of his flat for being an arse. The only time moderation feels like a job is when we're having to deal with constant nitpickers and trouble makers. Usually the same sorts of people who seem to think that it's a "job" whether it be voluntary or not.

Funny that...

Reporting Mods.

Comments