No feedback from the Moderators after reporting inappropriate posts

Beasty · 23-06-2015 9:18pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ah, maybe there is a miscommunication here - I meant that data protection, means users are entitled to all records about themselves, which would include e.g. mod discussions about them (which was the bit I was pointing out an issue with, in the post I replied to); I wasn't questioning mod discretion with that post.

No they are not. We discuss user behaviour, not personal information (which we, as mods, have no access to, as I mentioned previously). I am sure Dav or someone else from the office can confirm this when they are back in work

Sunflower 27 · 23-06-2015 9:36pm

K-9 wrote: »

You should appeal the card in the DRP, cases like yours would stand a good chance of getting over turned given what you say is correct. I know you said it doesn't really bother you, but it obviously does.

As for treating some posters differently xmfor the exact same post, somebody with a poor record could end up with a ban because they continuosky ignored cards, a newbie not.

That's pretty normal procedure in work, school, everyday life basically.Why people expect it to be different here I don't have a clue.

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying.

No one is saying a regular offender should be given continual warnings, jus that what is good for one poster should be good for any other. If you mess up, you get a warning posted on your post. It should be what all posters get. I got one. I'd expect that would be the same for every poster who 'breaks' the same rule. It should be mandatory.

Re, it bothering me. No, I have no reason to lie on both counts - what I said happened is what happened. I am well aware if I am not being truthful it would be found out quick enough; and also it is a warning and not something I am going to bother getting my knickers in a twist over. If I had a problem with it, I would have taken it up with the mod, no problem at all. It is the injustice of the way some get warnings on posts and others don't that is unfair.

This argument that it is left to the mod's discretion is frankly ridiculous and makes a mockery of having a charter. If certain offences are deemed worthy for warnings, then we should all be equally liable to getting them.

As for taking my warning to DRP, I really am not that concerned. I'm more interested in the bigger picture.

K-9 · 23-06-2015 9:56pm

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying.

No one is saying a regular offender should be given continual warnings, jus that what is good for one poster should be good for any other. If you mess up, you get a warning posted on your post. It should be what all posters get. I got one. I'd expect that would be the same for every poster who 'breaks' the same rule. It should be mandatory.

Okay, a judge should treat a previously banned drunk driver the same as a new case. With respect I don't think you are willing to see that point from a mods point of view. The exact same post could earn a ban for one user, a yellowvfor another.

If what you say is true about your card and I've obviously no reason to doubt you,drop another mod a PM, or a CMod. It seems about as straight forward a case as you'll get.

Sunflower 27 · 23-06-2015 9:59pm

K-9 wrote: »

Okay, a judge should treat a previously banned drunk driver the same as a new case. With respect I don't think you are willing to see that point from a mods point of view. The exact same post could earn a ban for one user, a yellowvfor another.

If what you say is true about your card and I've obviously no reason to doubt you,drop another mod a PM, or a CMod. It seems about as straight forward a case as you'll get.

But should a yellow warning be shown on all posts that get a warning? That is my point. And has been from the start. Not whether a repeat offender gets a ban.

I was told by the mod in my case that the other person may have got a warning from another mod and it not show on his post. It makes no sense at all.

Tombi! · 23-06-2015 10:04pm

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

But should a yellow warning be shown on all posts that get a warning? That is my point. And has been from the start. Not whether a repeat offender gets a ban.

That's automatic; it was explained already.
The confusion might be an on thread warning vs a warning which results in a yellow.
A "warning" is technically when you're given a warning.
The phrase "on thread warning" means when a mod posts and gives an instruction "stop posting, calm down with the insults, get back on topic, etc" which is confusing if you don't know the context behind the sentence.

K-9 · 23-06-2015 11:11pm

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

But should a yellow warning be shown on all posts that get a warning? That is my point. And has been from the start. Not whether a repeat offender gets a ban.

I was told by the mod in my case that the other person may have got a warning from another mod and it not show on his post. It makes no sense at all.

I don't think cards show on the mobile site.

It's important to chase it up because if a precedent gets set for a petty yellow card and isn't challenged, we could end up with consistently petty decisions which is pointless and no good to anybody.

There's no point giving the other user a yellow to be consistent if your original card was over the top.

That's me giving you the benefit if the doubt, as is often seen from feedback and the DRP we all get to see one version of events and everything seems fine,then the mod gives context and its a different scenario all together.

Often its just misunderstandings but I've had cases of downright lies stated about me in DRP, which without the right of reply don't always get addressed.

Zaph · 24-06-2015 12:17am

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think cards show on the mobile site.

They do.

K-9 · 24-06-2015 1:40am

Well not the m.boards site!

Dan_Solo · 24-06-2015 9:14am

K-9 wrote: »

Okay, a judge should treat a previously banned drunk driver the same as a new case. With respect I don't think you are willing to see that point from a mods point of view. The exact same post could earn a ban for one user, a yellowvfor another.

If what you say is true about your card and I've obviously no reason to doubt you,drop another mod a PM, or a CMod. It seems about as straight forward a case as you'll get.

Sunflower has never once asked for the warning to be rescinded. Why are you so intent on insisting that is his objective here?
Besides, your theory about "previous" isn't all that useful to us in this case where Sunflower received a visible warning with an (apparent) 100 posts and a clean record while the other poster who received the PM/no warning at all later in the thread for doing the same thing has 3,500+ posts.

TherapyBoy · 24-06-2015 1:28pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sunflower has never once asked for the warning to be rescinded.

Maybe they should. If the warning is rescinded in DRP or wherever these things happen then there is no discrepancy between their post & the similar but unwarned post.

Turtwig · 24-06-2015 1:41pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sunflower has never once asked for the warning to be rescinded. Why are you so intent on insisting that is his objective here?
Besides, your theory about "previous" isn't all that useful to us in this case where Sunflower received a visible warning with an (apparent) 100 posts and a clean record while the other poster who received the PM/no warning at all later in the thread for doing the same thing has 3,500+ posts.

Sunflower has more than 8,000 posts. New accounts don't mean records get expunged. I'd expect that's why the warning was applied. Mod probably already had a high level of familiarity with sunflower.

Dan_Solo · 24-06-2015 1:47pm

Turtwig wrote: »

Sunflower has more than 8,000 posts. New accounts don't mean records get expunged. I'd expect that's why the warning was applied. Mod probably already had a high level of familiarity with sunflower.

The mods here in this thread had no idea who Sunflower was until he announced he was a rereg. I don't believe the mod who gave Sunflower that warning had any idea either.
And anyway, are you claiming 8,000 posts means an in thread warning where 3,500 posts means PM/nothing for doing exactly the same thing later in the same thread? Isn't repeating something there has been a specific mod warning about normally treated more harshly than the original infraction?

K-9 · 24-06-2015 4:36pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sunflower has never once asked for the warning to be rescinded. Why are you so intent on insisting that is his objective here?
Besides, your theory about "previous" isn't all that useful to us in this case where Sunflower received a visible warning with an (apparent) 100 posts and a clean record while the other poster who received the PM/no warning at all later in the thread for doing the same thing has 3,500+ posts.

Because if it's incorrect a note can be added when its being rescinded. Keeps the record straight for future reference for the mod and forum.

It seems a case were a compromise could be reached pretty easily.

K-9 · 24-06-2015 4:39pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The mods here in this thread had no idea who Sunflower was until he announced he was a rereg. I don't believe the mod who gave Sunflower that warning had any idea either.
And anyway, are you claiming 8,000 posts means an in thread warning where 3,500 posts means PM/nothing for doing exactly the same thing later in the same thread? Isn't repeating something there has been a specific mod warning about normally treated more harshly than the original infraction?

Well ya see, if this went to DRP, the admins could find all this out rather than me supposing stuff, which is pretty pointless really.

Sunflower 27 · 24-06-2015 5:39pm

Turtwig wrote: »

Sunflower has more than 8,000 posts. New accounts don't mean records get expunged. I'd expect that's why the warning was applied. Mod probably already had a high level of familiarity with sunflower.

I disagree. I have never heard of that mod before. I actually think I had over 8,000 posts as Sunflower27 (no space). I joined in 2010 I think and had one or maybe two infractions between 2010 and 2014.

I can guarantee that was not why the warning was given.

coffee_cake · 01-07-2015 10:50pm

I think a DRP should be raised about it if you felt it wasn't arguing with a mod decision, or PMing the mods as a group and asking what's the story here ... well, the latter first, as part of the process
Sure that's why we have the DRP forum

Dan_Solo · 01-07-2015 11:44pm

bluewolf wrote: »

I think a DRP should be raised about it if you felt it wasn't arguing with a mod decision, or PMing the mods as a group and asking what's the story here ... well, the latter first, as part of the process
Sure that's why we have the DRP forum

But he has already said quite specifically that he isn't contesting the infraction and has no interest in having it rescinded. Why does every mod who comes on here to give their opinion insist the opposite?
The question is about the random application of moderation and "secret" moderation for exactly identical posts..

TherapyBoy · 02-07-2015 1:33am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But he has already said quite specifically that he isn't contesting the infraction and has no interest in having it rescinded. Why does every mod who comes on here to give their opinion insist the opposite?
The question is about the random application of moderation and "secret" moderation for exactly identical posts..

Why not?

In case of differing mod actions in exactly identical posts, instead of asking "why were they not punished when I was?" maybe he should be asking "why was I punished incorrectly?"

I'm sure I read a Mod comment here that based on a quick look the infraction/card/warning or whatever it was would probably be overturned. If it is overturned then any randomness in the application of moderation is null & void.

Mistakes happen. Ask them if they made a mistake, and if so let them fix it.

K-9 · 02-07-2015 2:30am

I said based on what sunflower has said, I didn't look into it at all, that's for the Ah mods.

Unfortunately often what a poster says doesn't tally with what a mod sees.

coffee_cake · 02-07-2015 9:32am

I'm not insisting anything - i said it for the same reasons therapyboy put it
The first question *is* well, was one of these actions a mistake

Dan_Solo · 02-07-2015 10:02am

TherapyBoy wrote: »

Why not?

Because that still isn't the point? If it was the point this thread would be in DRP, not Feedback.
For those who have missed it yet again, the issue sunflower is posting about is "secret" moderation (in this case for an identical rule break later in the thread, which should incur a greater penalty) versus open moderation, and the randomness attached to which one happens. And indeed why "secret" moderation is suitable for somebody with 3,000+ posts immediately after an in thread warning when we're told it's really only for new posters who may not be aware of this rule.
Nobody has contested that discussion of moderation in thread isn't prohibited and sunflower has confirmed himself that this is not his reason for posting.

K-9 · 02-07-2015 12:14pm

Ok, well that's basically looking for a zero tolerance approach just to be consistent.

It'll be consistent all right, but a right pain in the hole for mods to administer. I can think of one zero tolerance rule in politics, 8/10 times it's great to have it but the other 2/10 times I'm actually cringing applying it, it doesn't take account of context at all.

The 8/10 times is grand for trolls and people who know better, but the 2/10 times is totally unfair on normal, decent users who get cards for nothing really!

Sunflower 27 · 02-07-2015 1:01pm

If you don't have consistency what have you got? You either have rules or you don't. Quoting a mod is 'breaking a rule' so the punishment should be consistent. I have no idea why this would be considered hard to enforce.

I am baffled as to what a mod saw when I suggested a sticky on the thread in question because people were coming in and posting things that are not 'allowed' and a mod has to come on and repeatedly say 'you can't post that, you can only post x, y and z" every 5 pages or so.

It is purely common sense. Put up a sticky so that people are not constantly fighting about what can and can't be posted.

There was nothing else to 'read' in that post. It is what it is.

Insect Overlord · 02-07-2015 1:47pm

Quoting a mod isn't against the rules.

Arguing with their decision, on-thread, does tend to be a problem. Same goes for rude/obnoxious/petty replies.

There's a difference. Tone and context are important.

That's why it's recommended you ask for a review. This thread will just keep going around in circles otherwise.

Sunflower 27 · 02-07-2015 2:10pm

An File wrote: »

Quoting a mod isn't against the rules.

Arguing with their decision, on-thread, does tend to be a problem. Same goes for rude/obnoxious/petty replies.

Cheers, the following is what I was told in PM by the mod:
You never discuss moderation in thread - if you have an issue, you PM the mod. In this thread, people agree free to discuss all aspects of this tradgedy - bur wondering why this gets all the fuss when a car crash in Donegal 4yrs ago didn't is off topic

Regarding the bit about mentioning the car crash in Donegal, which was comparable to the number of young lives lost in the Berkeley tragedy, this was only mentioned in the mod comment I quoted, so using that to justify a warning was not appropriate. No-one, myslelf included, until that point had been told what we could and could not discuss.

K-9 · 02-07-2015 3:13pm

You wouldn't be my sister by any chance? She made that exact same point to me last week and I actually agree with it.

But I can see the reasoning for the warning, but anyway.

My point about 100% zero tolerance and consistency is that it isn't consistent! Trolls and trouble makers get treated the exact same as an ordinary user, who sometimes make mistakes or get a bit heated from time to time. That's exactly what trolls want.

Beasty · 02-07-2015 5:25pm

Mod discretion is an overriding theme on the site. Some posters try to play the rules lawyer and seek to tread just inside the line. Others inadvertantly stray over onto the wrong side. Mods are not only human, but tend to have an understanding of what goes on in their forum, and will treat things differently on occasions. That's one of the biggest attributes of this site and I think a lot of people would be put off if we applied the letter of the rules consistently across the board.

Sunflower 27 · 02-07-2015 6:40pm

Beasty wrote: »

That's one of the biggest attributes of this site and I think a lot of people would be put off if we applied the letter of the rules consistently across the board.

Can I ask how you know this? Is that just your personal opinion, because I actually think if people knew that the same rules were applied to everyone, people would not only know where they stand, but it would also cut down on a lot of the grievances that people take the time to post about.

I can only speak for myself when I say I would expect any site to treat members the same. Finding out they actually don't has come as a bit of a surprise to me.

Insect Overlord · 02-07-2015 6:49pm

I think it boils down to the site evolving as something of a cross between a meritocracy and a (former) benevolent dictatorship.

It's not a democracy. It never was. The accountability, communication, transparency thing in 2010 pushed on a few important issues for the user-base in general (and that process is still evolving through Feedback and the DRP) but sometimes things are subjective rather than perfectly objective. People > robots.

That seems to be forgotten sometimes.

Pawwed Rig · 02-07-2015 6:52pm

An File wrote: »

Quoting a mod isn't against the rules.

Not sure I would agree with that. I would rather see any response to a mod action go straight to pm. I would consider quoting a mod action off topic in the vast majority of cases

No feedback from the Moderators after reporting inappropriate posts

Comments