No feedback from the Moderators after reporting inappropriate posts

MrWalsh · 02-07-2015 8:45pm

K-9 wrote: »

?..the 2/10 times is totally unfair on normal, decent users who get cards for nothing really!

So users do get carded for nothing sometimes then? Because of the rules.

Dan_Solo · 02-07-2015 8:49pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I could be wrong but I'm not remembering a mod, cmod or admin stating that any policy is a zero tolerance and they don't apply it equally.
Can you explain a bit more?

Well you haven't looked far then. The very same thread we're discussing had a "final mod warning" with completely randomly (being generous) applied moderation afterwards which was supposed to be for anything "uncivil". And a ban for moderation discussion followed a few posts later by a "secret" moderation action for exactly the same thing.

K-9 · 02-07-2015 8:51pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

So users do get carded for nothing sometimes then? Because of the rules.

Yep, that's what zero tolerance is, it's a bitch to mod so must be worse for users.

Thems the rules though, we can't even rescind a card after a polite pm exchange with a poster, sucks tbh. Its a sinch to mod though, ticking boxes and all that.

If you can't differentiate between a troll and ordinary user, what's the point? Set up a script or something.

Tombi! · 02-07-2015 8:54pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well you haven't looked far then. The very same thread we're discussing had a "final mod warning" with completely randomly (being generous) applied moderation afterwards which was supposed to be for anything "uncivil". And a ban for moderation discussion followed a few posts later by a "secret" moderation action for exactly the same thing.

But this didn't happen in this thread.
You do realize I'm talking about this thread, yes? I didn't go through every thread created on the site

Dan_Solo · 02-07-2015 8:59pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

But this didn't happen in this thread.
You do realize I'm talking about this thread, yes? I didn't go through every thread created on the site

Nobody suggested it happened in this thread. Ever. At all. Why did you and only you assume the discussion about moderation standards was about the standards in this thread itself? If you had read anything other than the last page you might have got this, not that it makes sense even then.

Tombi! · 02-07-2015 9:04pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nobody suggested it happened in this thread. Ever. At all. Why did you and only you assume the discussion about moderation standards was about the standards in this thread itself? If you had read anything other than the last page you might have got this, not that it would make sense even then.

I'm not really sure if you're understanding me here so I'll try to explain from the start of when I posted today.
I'm a bit confused on what you want.
Are you asking that the rules be applied to the letter, to everyone with no leeway or understanding of context? was my reply to Sunflower 27
To which they ignored and instead I get a response from osarusan responding in a manner that has little to do with my original question. So, then I request clarification and then you respond instead.

So I suppose the best course of action is to ask you directly and hope you respond: Are you asking that the rules be applied to the letter, to everyone with no leeway or understanding of context?
That then somehow became you claiming that we have a forum that is zero tolerance towards moderation but that would technically mean that moderation isn't allowed.

So can we backtrack a bit and maybe you want to look at everything I've said?

Dan_Solo · 02-07-2015 9:12pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I'm not really sure if you're understanding me here so I'll try to explain from the start of when I posted today.
I'm a bit confused on what you want.
Are you asking that the rules be applied to the letter, to everyone with no leeway or understanding of context? was my reply to Sunflower 27
To which they ignored and instead I get a response from osarusan responding in a manner that has little to do with my original question. So, then I request clarification and then you respond instead.

So I suppose the best course of action is to ask you directly and hope you respond: Are you asking that the rules be applied to the letter, to everyone with no leeway or understanding of context?
That then somehow became you claiming that we have a forum that is zero tolerance towards moderation but that would technically mean that moderation isn't allowed.
So can we backtrack a bit and maybe you want to look at everything I've said?

Ah right, I didn't find it confusing. So you don't want to talk anymore about your previous insistence that we were discussing the moderation of this thread itself. Apology accepted, eh?
If spamming and legal issues are 100% enforced, then why not discussion of moderation? Isn't that what Feedback is for?

Tombi! · 02-07-2015 9:17pm

Well since I'm confused and you aren't, could you at least explain?
I'll put the posts in this thread I made before today:
You'd be surprised (and I mean on forums and well, places in general) how often people will report others just so they get into trouble.

It's like adding a "dislike/thumbs down/etc" button. It's going to cause a lot more problems.

I mean if you really, really must know, you can check the post you reported and see if a card was given. If you see a yellow or red card then you know that the post was given a warning/infraction.
You could also check the person's quoted posts to see if a mod quoted them to say "stop this/behave/banned/whatever".
Of course that above sounds a bit like obsessive behaviour.
But end of the day... does it really matter?

You don't report something to see what punishment was handed out*, you do it so the place is better off.

*obviously certain things like rereg trolls or spammers are reported with the intent for them to be gone

Second post is responding to this one:

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.

Now my response to it:

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

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.

And the third is:

Don't quote me on this but I was told this a while back before I was a mod: due to technical limitations, you can't ban and display a card. A ban is one of the options we can use. It's basically an "or" thing, not an "and" thing.

Dan_Solo · 02-07-2015 9:26pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Well since I'm confused and you aren't, could you at least explain?
I'll put the posts in this thread I made before today:

Are you asking a question, answering one, or just reposting everything you've previously posted for some reason?
And you haven't acknowledged yet that we aren't discussing the moderation in this thread at all. TBH I'm not sure if I can explain anything to you if you're still stuck at that point.

Tombi! · 02-07-2015 9:31pm

Ah, I see now.
Right, you're on about a post. I'm on about a forum in general. Which I was talking to osarusan about.

So why you feel the need to bring up one post when the topic me and that poster were discussing was about a forum and not one single post is kinda odd.

Dan_Solo · 02-07-2015 9:36pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

But this didn't happen in this thread.
You do realize I'm talking about this thread, yes? I didn't go through every thread created on the site

Exactly what you said. You very very clearly stated you thought we were discussing moderation of this thread. Nobody is talking about moderation of this thread so your "But it didn't happen in this thread" and "I'm talking about this thread" are meaningless to every other poster here.

MrWalsh · 02-07-2015 9:37pm

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, that's what zero tolerance is, it's a bitch to mod so must be worse for users.

Thems the rules though, we can't even rescind a card after a polite pm exchange with a poster, sucks tbh. Its a sinch to mod though, ticking boxes and all that.

If you can't differentiate between a troll and ordinary user, what's the point? Set up a script or something.

So is it a bitch to mod or a cinch to mod? I'm confused.

Is moderation also sometimes secret and sometimes visible there?

Insect Overlord · 02-07-2015 9:39pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

So is it a bitch to mod or a cinch to mod? I'm confused.

Is moderation also sometimes secret and sometimes visible there?

The soccer forum is a bitch to read because everything has to be zero tolerance. I'd imagine modding it is even worse.

There's no secret/invisible mod tools either, unless you count PMs as "secret". Everything is recorded.

MrWalsh · 02-07-2015 9:42pm

An File wrote: »

There's no secret/invisible mod tools either, unless you count PMs as "secret". Everything is recorded.

Yes but not visible to users. That's the whole point under discussion here.

Tombi! · 02-07-2015 9:44pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

Yes but not visible to users. That's the whole point under discussion here.

Erm... what?
Every mod action is recorded by a PM at the very least. The exception being "on-thread warnings" (which are not a card). And then it's literally a post on a forum.
Example being something like: Mod - MrWalsh don't post in this thread again
That's still recorded.

If I give you a card or ban you, you get a PM about it.

Dan_Solo · 02-07-2015 9:44pm

An File wrote: »

The soccer forum is a bitch to read because everything has to be zero tolerance. I'd imagine modding it is even worse.

There's no secret/invisible mod tools either, unless you count PMs as "secret". Everything is recorded.

Why would an identical issue (debating moderation) be dealt with differently then in the same thread? One overt, the other by PM? It might even make sense if the first one was the PM, but the opposite happened.

Beasty · 02-07-2015 9:48pm

So far as I am concerned, bottom line here is posters are expected to read and abide by forum and site rules (which include the "don't be a dick" rule, not that I am mentioning that in connection with anything specifically raised in this thread, but it is a general "catch all" for poor poster behaviour)

If you follow the rules, you stay out of trouble. If you find yourself carded or banned and believe you have followed the rules, there are avenues to dispute a mod decision. If you fail to follow the rules, you cannot complain if a mod takes action. Equally you can probably consider yourself fortunate if there is no mod action taken.

If you feel someone else has not followed the rules, report the post and let the local mods look at it. They may take action. That action may be visible, or it may be hidden (such as a PM warning). If, having reported something, you still feel strongly about something you believe should have been acted upon but you don't feel it has been, PM the local mods to discuss it. If you still are not satisfied, the CMods are here to follow it up with. If you are not satisfied with a CMod's response, start a thread in Help Desk, which is the avenue to Admin (and indeed further mod, CMod and other user) input (although that forum is pre-moderated it seems to me that most stuff raised there does get proper attention)

I think this site has put in place more than adequate procedures to deal with any concerns/complaints raised by users

MrWalsh · 02-07-2015 10:00pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Erm... what?
Every mod action is recorded by a PM at the very least. The exception being "on-thread warnings" (which are not a card). And then it's literally a post on a forum.
Example being something like: Mod - MrWalsh don't post in this thread again
That's still recorded.

If I give you a card or ban you, you get a PM about it.

If I report a post I don't know if it was ever actioned because not all mod actions are visible to all users.

I don't know if you are deliberately misunderstanding this, it's in the thread title!

It's irrelevant that it's "recorded" because that's not visible to Joe User.

Tombi! · 02-07-2015 10:02pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

If I report a post I don't know if it was ever actioned because not all mod actions are visible to all users.

I don't know if you are deliberately misunderstanding this, it's in the thread title!

It's irrelevant that it's "recorded" because that's not visible to Joe User.

Ah, now we're back on track. I thought it was made clear that users don't need to know since it adds little of value.

Can you tell me how that relates to the whole "zero tolerance" policy?

MrWalsh · 02-07-2015 10:07pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Ah, now we're back on track. I thought it was made clear that users don't need to know since it adds little of value.

Can you tell me how that relates to the whole "zero tolerance" policy?

If by "made clear" you mean, "this is how it is and if you don't like it tough" then yes, that has been the overwhelming impression here.

The zero tolerance point is obvious? Either it exists or it doesn't, so if it does it should be applied equally. There was some double speak about the rules being the same but applied differently depending on "context", but the point was, if zero tolerance exists it should be applied equally. Whether that's a bitch to mod or a cinch to mod I can't tell you.

Insect Overlord · 02-07-2015 10:12pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

The zero tolerance point is obvious? Either it exists or it doesn't, so if it does it should be applied equally. There was some double speak about the rules being the same but applied differently depending on "context", but the point was, if zero tolerance exists it should be applied equally.

Are you looking for a one-size-fits-all zero tolerance policy in one particular forum, or all over the site and its ~1000 forums?

Tombi! · 02-07-2015 10:12pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

If by "made clear" you mean, "this is how it is and if you don't like it tough" then yes, that has been the overwhelming impression here.

The zero tolerance point is obvious? Either it exists or it doesn't, so if it does it should be applied equally. There was some double speak about the rules being the same but applied differently depending on "context", but the point was, if zero tolerance exists it should be applied equally. Whether that's a bitch to mod or a cinch to mod I can't tell you.

Can you explain why you'd like to know the details of every post you reported?

I can't speak for every forum so I'm not sure of what, if any forums, have zero tolerance on certain rules.
Site wide it would be spamming or shilling off the top of my head, which I'm sure you'd agree is understandable.
With that being said, many people who "spam" here are pardoned from prison once they understand their mistake. So as you can see, having zero tolerance is both good and bad. And it's better to have context and leeway.

MrWalsh · 02-07-2015 10:13pm

An File wrote: »

Are you looking for a one-size-fits-all zero tolerance policy in one particular forum, or all over the site and its ~1000 forums?

No I was explaining the point raised to BD.

Pawwed Rig · 02-07-2015 10:16pm

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Would I have still got the warning if I suggested a sticky but did not quote the mod's comment of what we could and could not post?

My point was a general one. I have no idea why you were warned as I haven't got any insight into any warnings you have been given.

MrWalsh · 02-07-2015 10:17pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Can you explain why you'd like to know the details of every post you reported?

I'm not trying to be rude but can you read this thread please, it's discussed at length why users would like to know if something they reported has been actioned or even if the report has been seen and no action taken. There are other previous threads in Feedback explaining the same thing.

Tombi! · 02-07-2015 10:17pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

I'm not trying to be rude but can you read this thread please, it's discussed at length why users would like to know if something they reported has been actioned or even if the report has been seen and no action taken. There are other previous threads in Feedback explaining the same thing.

Yes but I'd like you, yourself, to clarify why you feel it's so important so we can have a concrete opinion that we can go on.

MrWalsh · 02-07-2015 10:19pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Yes but I'd like you, yourself, to clarify why you feel it's so important so we can have a concrete opinion that we can go on.

See my posts 10, 12 and onwards for my own words on it.

There are plenty of concrete opinions here, starting with the opening post.

Sunflower 27 · 02-07-2015 10:19pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

My point was a general one. I have no idea why you were warned as I haven't got any insight into any warnings you have been given.

Mine was a general question as well. I had never had a warning either, so this wasn't a case of "being a dick" (a phrase I personally find very juvenile, but that is just a personal opinion).

Tombi! · 02-07-2015 10:21pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

See my posts 10, 12 and onwards for my own words on it.

There are plenty of concrete opinions here, starting with the opening post.

Read 10 and 12.
So, let's go with a counter question.
Why are you reporting a post at all?
Any sort of rule-breaking post, from "insert hate speech" to someone posting porn.
Why would you report a post or do you not report any post?

MrWalsh · 02-07-2015 10:22pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Read 10 and 12.
So, let's go with a counter question.
Why are you reporting a post at all?
Any sort of rule-breaking post, from "insert hate speech" to someone posting porn.
Why would you report a post or do you not report any post?

I've largely stopped because there is no feedback on it.

Tombi! · 02-07-2015 10:23pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

I've largely stopped because there is no feedback on it.

So, when you did report posts (any post, BTW), why'd you do it?

Sunflower 27 · 02-07-2015 10:24pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Read 10 and 12.
So, let's go with a counter question.
Why are you reporting a post at all?
Any sort of rule-breaking post, from "insert hate speech" to someone posting porn.
Why would you report a post or do you not report any post?

There are many reasons a person would report a post. Surely as a mod you are privy to that information yourself.

MrWalsh · 02-07-2015 10:26pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

So, when you did report posts (any post, BTW), why'd you do it?

Many different reasons.

If you don't see the reason then why is there a reason to fill in on it?

Tombi! · 02-07-2015 10:26pm

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

There are many reasons a person would report a post. Surely as a mod you are privy to that information yourself.

Ah, no. I didn't mean the literal reason "this is personal abuse, this is spam and this is porn" etc. I meant personally, to that person, why report it.

Dan_Solo · 02-07-2015 10:27pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Read 10 and 12.
So, let's go with a counter question.
Why are you reporting a post at all?
Any sort of rule-breaking post, from "insert hate speech" to someone posting porn.
Why would you report a post or do you not report any post?

What's the point of these questions? You're now saying that the motivation behind reporting a post is what is important, not the content.
Bizarre.

Tombi! · 02-07-2015 10:28pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

Many different reasons.

If you don't see the reason then why is there a reason to fill in on it?

I am not a mind reader. If you can explain why you don't do it any more then can't you explain why you did it before or are you just purposely going to be difficult?

Insect Overlord · 02-07-2015 10:31pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What's the point of these questions? You're now saying that the motivation behind reporting a post is what is important, not the content.
Bizarre.

Not bizarre at all, really.

Sometimes people report posts for the good of the forum. They might not appreciate people causing hassle and ruining the atmosphere.

Sometimes people are petty, and report stuff the way that annoying kids in classrooms tell on each other. "Miss, he said a bad word! Sir, he's using a biro instead of a pencil!" That kind of silly stuff, reporting just to feel smug about someone else getting in trouble.

Hence the motivation questions, I'd imagine. Intent AND content.

MrWalsh · 02-07-2015 10:32pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I am not a mind reader. If you can explain why you don't do it any more then can't you explain why you did it before or are you just purposely going to be difficult?

I don't understand the point of your questions? I feel like you are trying to lead me somewhere..... But where I just don't know!

Why is the reason for me specifically reporting posts important?

Btw there isn't a record for me to consult so the best I can give you is many different reasons.

Tombi! · 02-07-2015 10:34pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

I don't understand the point of your questions? I feel like you are trying to lead me somewhere..... But where I just don't know!

Why is the reason for me specifically reporting posts important?

Going off on what An File said. I'll explain exactly what and why I want to know.

The actual reason (ie what rule is being broken) isn't what I care about; trolling. spam, etc... it's irrelevant to this topic. What is relevant is why you would report a post in general. So, we know you stopped reporting in general since you get no feedback. Okay, I'll accept that. But why would you report a post in general?

MrWalsh · 02-07-2015 10:35pm

An File wrote: »

Not bizarre at all, really.

Sometimes people report posts for the good of the forum. They might not appreciate people causing hassle and ruining the atmosphere.

Sometimes people are petty, and report stuff the way that annoying kids in classrooms tell on each other. "Miss, he said a bad word! Sir, he's using a biro instead of a pencil!" That kind of silly stuff, reporting just to feel smug about someone else getting in trouble.

Hence the motivation questions, I'd imagine. Intent AND content.

Wouldn't they both be perfect examples of why visibility is good? So people can see standards? So the good of the forum ones increase and continue and the petty ones give up because they know no action is taken?

Your post illustrates the issue very well.

Dan_Solo · 02-07-2015 10:36pm

An File wrote: »

Not bizarre at all, really.

Sometimes people report posts for the good of the forum. They might not appreciate people causing hassle and ruining the atmosphere.

Sometimes people are petty, and report stuff the way that annoying kids in classrooms tell on each other. "Miss, he said a bad word! Sir, he's using a biro instead of a pencil!" That kind of silly stuff, reporting just to feel smug about someone else getting in trouble.

Hence the motivation questions, I'd imagine. Intent AND content.

TBH I still think that's ridiculous. Telling someone to stop reporting OK posts is one thing, but you are now admitting that the content of the reported post isn't the most important factor if you've decided you don't like the motivations of the guy reporting it.

MrWalsh · 02-07-2015 10:36pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

But why would you report a post in general?

Well I wouldn't in general, not anymore.

Insect Overlord · 02-07-2015 10:37pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

you are now admitting that the content of the reported post isn't the most important factor if you've decided you don't like the motivations of the guy reporting it.

That's not what I said at all. Good try though.

Tombi! · 02-07-2015 10:37pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

Well I wouldn't in general, not anymore.

So what was your motivation to report a post?

Dan_Solo · 02-07-2015 10:39pm

An File wrote: »

That's not what I said at all. Good try though.

Good try at a get out.
You did exactly admit that the motivation of the person reporting a post is taken into consideration.

An File wrote: »

That kind of silly stuff, reporting just to feel smug about someone else getting in trouble.

Now could you explain why this has any bearing whatsoever on whether a reported post should be actioned or not?

MrWalsh · 02-07-2015 10:41pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

So what was your motivation to report a post?

Many different reasons.

Sunflower 27 · 02-07-2015 10:43pm

Is it just me or has this thread opened anyone else's eyes up to the fact there would be a lot less reported posts and need for feedback and dispute forums and everything else if rules were consistently enforced in the same manner - all the time?

It sounds as if mod discretion is what is important when really it should be about the general posting public. They are what makes the site. Without them there would be no need for mods at all. It seems to me the site is quite misguided in this regard.

Insect Overlord · 02-07-2015 10:43pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

the content of the reported post isn't the most important factor if you've decided you don't like the motivations of the guy reporting it.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You did exactly admit that the motivation of the person reporting a post is taken into consideration.

These are not the same thing. Good man for backtracking a little bit, though.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Now could you explain why this has any bearing whatsoever on whether a reported post should be actioned or not?

It has nothing to do with the action taken on a reported post. I was explaining the rationale behind Brutal Deluxe's questions. I assume he's trying to get other posters in this thread to consider their own motivations.

Tombi! · 02-07-2015 10:43pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

Many different reasons.

Explain some, please. Because right now we're going around in circles.
Will you please explain the motivations behind why you have reported posts in the past. It's crucial to helping me understand and secondly, to helping you understand my point.

MrWalsh · 02-07-2015 10:46pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Explain some, please. Because right now we're going around in circles.
Will you please explain the motivations behind why you have reported posts in the past. It's crucial to helping me understand and secondly, to helping you understand my point.

I haven't got access to reasons I've reported posts in the past but off the top of my head I know I have reported posts that were homophobic.

No feedback from the Moderators after reporting inappropriate posts

Comments