Not knowing if action was taken on a reported post?

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I'm having difficultly understanding this 'concept'.

If it's not a number, what is it? How many are too many?

And finally, surely a poster would report a post that only he/she would have an issue with, how do you expect the system to work otherwise? There is no methodology where a group of users can form a consensus and then decide that they (collective) should report it ad-nauseam. So by it's very nature a poster would only report a post that they (singular) would have an issue with, is that not the case?

Im not sure if you are deliberately misunderstanding so will persevere.

"only you have a problem with"
i.e. no one else has reported it and no action was taken, its a non event to everyone bar you.
If this is happening a lot then its likely you are reporting posts that are not a problem.

"too many posts"
If you find that you frequently dont see any reaction to your reported posts then you are probably reporting posts that are not an issue, you are reporting too many posts.

I honestly dont know how else to explain this simple concept.

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

So how should a user know if other users have reported the post that they (or thers) have had an issue with?

Not only should then not have a way of doing that, they shouldn't be doing that at all, or worrying about it. Have you not considered the case where you report some sod for something that should be reported, they see you reported them and then they decide that making your life on boards miserable (or worse, deciding to go all 4chan on it and start following you off-boards to other sites or doxxing you or whatever)? That's not something we can stop if it starts, boards.ie mods don't actually have superhuman powers

So no, we shouldn't be indicating in the forum if a post has been reported, and we certainly shouldn't be indicating in public who reported what.

If we get a hundred different people reporting one post, that's cool. The system aggregates it all (we still get the hundred emails but good email software makes that easy to manage) and we just know it's a more-urgent-than-normal problem. No mod gets annoyed by that.

And if one poster sees a string of bad posts and reports them all, that's usually fine too.

The case where it's abused - and which most mods see at one point or another - is where a poster has a post reported and gets told to stop doing that; then they turn round and start searching for any possible infringement of the charter or site rules and reporting those posts not because of any genuine problem, but because their ego's hurting.

The problem is, those cases are so common that the more process you put into the reporting of a post and the checking of that report, the worse those cases become in terms of how much volunteer time it takes to deal with them fairly.

Also, if you report a post and the mod decides that it's not breaking the rules, then what? The mod notifies the poster of that and then what? The only possible real use for that information is for an appeals process for that mod decision. Is that what people are really seeking here?

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

That would be precisely my point. SO the whole concept of reporting "that only you have a problem with" is completely moot as the user has no way of knowing if he/she is the only one who has an issue with it, or if anybody else has an issue with it, correct?

No, it's completely moot because you don't report a post 'cos it's the fashionable thing to do; you report it because it's breaking a rule. If it really is breaking a rule, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks of it; and if you're wrong about it breaking a rule you don't know that when you hit report so it still doesn't matter what anyone else thinks of it.

The idea is you do the right thing for the sake of it being the right thing, not because everyone else is doing it. That's kindof fundamental to, you know, life in general.

So again, this is all in the Reported Posts forum, and not open t the general populace, and as such no user knows if it's just them, or if it was 100 users who had an issue with a particular post.

And no user needs to know that and no user ought to be basing their actions on that information even if they had access to it.

That's not really an abuse of the report post function, that's more of a general issue, and can happen as a result of any mod intervention though.

It is a specific abuse of the report post function. Yes, we see people with hurt egos act out in other ways too; but this is the specific way that abuses the report post function.

However where I do find issue, is where a user is being told that potentially he/she is the issue, and yet has no way of knowing why this is the case.

In what scenario can this happen?

If someone is spamming the report post function because of a hurt ego, they're going to be told so very directly by a mod. If they're reporting lots of posts erroneously, mods are going to ask them if they understand the forum charter. It's done by PM not publicly because it's nobody else's business; but it's done.

You are not going to be told in some Kafkaesque fashion that you're the problem and we're doing something about it without you ever having been aware of the problem beforehand.

osarusan wrote: »

Already mentioned on this thread:

Kind of pointless to say this when

a) the report post function is designed so that a user reporting a post has no way of knowing who else, if anybody, has reported the same post

b) moderators often point out that just because there is nothing visible doesn't mean the post hasn't been actioned in some way.

See above:

Sparks wrote:

The case where it's abused - and which most mods see at one point or another - is where a poster has a post reported and gets told to stop doing that; then they turn round and start searching for any possible infringement of the charter or site rules and reporting those posts not because of any genuine problem, but because their ego's hurting.

Sparks wrote:

If someone is spamming the report post function because of a hurt ego, they're going to be told so very directly by a mod. If they're reporting lots of posts erroneously, mods are going to ask them if they understand the forum charter. It's done by PM not publicly because it's nobody else's business; but it's done.

You are not going to be told in some Kafkaesque fashion that you're the problem and we're doing something about it without you ever having been aware of the problem beforehand.

In other words, what you're worrying about doesn't happen. We don't have an automatic mechanism to do it for us, because that mechanism would have too many drawbacks for too few advantages.

osarusan wrote: »

My point is that it's kind of pointless to say that when there is no way to know if it is only 'my' problem, or even if it is a problem at all, as posts may have been actioned privately.

I know, and what I'm saying is that that just isn't a real worry; if you're genuinely reporting something but the mod thinks there's no real problem then you aren't doing anything wrong and there's no mark in your copybook, so to speak; and if you aren't genuinely reporting something but are spamming the report post button to be a git about some previous disagreement, then (a) you already know that, and (b) you and the mod are going to wind up talking about it before anything gets done anyway.

So the idea of someone getting banned or whatever without warning because of this is just not realistic.

Sparks wrote: »

I know, and what I'm saying is that that just isn't a real worry; if you're genuinely reporting something but the mod thinks there's no real problem then you aren't doing anything wrong and there's no mark in your copybook, so to speak; and if you aren't genuinely reporting something but are spamming the report post button to be a git about some previous disagreement, then (a) you already know that, and (b) you and the mod are going to wind up talking about it before anything gets done anyway.

So the idea of someone getting banned or whatever without warning because of this is just not realistic.

That's slightly beside the point though. If somebody is abusing the "report a post" button, that would be same as abusing any other area of the board, and would be actioned accordingly.

The previous discussion earlier in this thread, where the "too many reports" was highlighted was on the premise that if a user is (in theory) reporting more than 'x' amount of posts, that maybe he/she was reporting too many posts.

When pushed for what number constitutes too many, the waters seemed to be muddied and the "it's not the system it's you" card was trotted out.

Sparks wrote: »

To be clear, it boils down to this: Is the user genuinely reporting what they think is a problem post; or are they being an asshat and spamming the report post function?

It's not a difficult question for mods to resolve, and it's never been a problem before now. People who genuinely report stuff that isn't breaking the rules don't get into trouble for it (a mod might chat with them about it by PM but that's to ensure the charter's understood, not as some sort of negative thing). People who are being asshats get told to stop. It's a very straightforward thing in practice.

I get all of the above, and not really what I'm talking about.

Simple Question. How can a user ascertain whether he or she is the only person who has a problem with a post on a thread?

hullaballoo wrote: »

Why would someone need to know that?

Reading the last 20 posts or so would give you the answer.

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Simple Question. How can a user ascertain whether he or she is the only person who has a problem with a post on a thread?

They can't.
They also don't need to. If they have a problem with it, report it. That's the rule. The rule says nothing about how many other people have a problem with it, and it should say nothing about that because that has nothing to do with it. Mods don't count how many people complain about a post and only act if it goes over a set threshold. The only time that you get "too many" reports of a post from one user is when that one user is being an asshat, and that's not something they can drift into unknowingly.

In other words, the scenario you are so worried about just doesn't arise.

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Grand, so greebos ascertation that it's 'reporting too many posts that only you have a problem with' is actually inconsistent with the way the system works and has nothing to do with the policing of the system.

Cheers,

Glad that was clarified.

No, Greebo's statement was a summation of the system.

- If you're being an asshat and report lots of posts that only you have a problem with, we're gonna have a talk.

- If you're not being an asshat and report lots of posts that only you have a problem with, we might drop you a note to point out that you've misread a charter somewhere but that's about it, you're not being out of line doing it.

- If you see a post you have a problem with, report it. <- Note the lack of references here to how many people other than yourself have a problem with the post.

At no point does an innocent party acting in good faith wind up in the slurry pit without warning for doing what they thought was right.

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

That's slightly beside the point though. If somebody is abusing the "report a post" button, that would be same as abusing any other area of the board, and would be actioned accordingly.

Yep, mods would usually differentiate between malicious reporting and maybe somebody a bit over enthusiastic, or somebody who just doesn't get the forum.

The previous discussion earlier in this thread, where the "too many reports" was highlighted was on the premise that if a user is (in theory) reporting more than 'x' amount of posts, that maybe he/she was reporting too many posts.

My point would be they might be reporting a wrong type of post, basically not getting the forum.

When pushed for what number constitutes too many, the waters seemed to be muddied and the "it's not the system it's you" card was trotted out.

I don't know where the fixation with the number comes up. A good few users report regularly, others rarely, it doesn't really matter!

That is not the 'fine example' that you expect it to be. The reason being that you do not know the full facts of the matter...

The post was reported & appropriate mod action was taken. It was just not the mod action that the reporter wanted, but it was the correct action nonetheless, & this was also explained to the reporter via PM by the mod in question. (Very decent of the mod to take time out & explain this, IMHO.)

The issue here is a matter of trust. Posters need to trust mods. Trust that their RPs are read & considered by the mods. Trust that appropriate action is being taken when necessary. As said before, ad nauseum, adding further steps to the Report Post process mods follow, or making system-level changes is not going to happen.

Trust. That's what we need to keep this working.

weisses wrote: »

This is a fine example

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057333743

No it's not

The Hill Billy wrote: »

The poster received a warning (yellow card) for the unsuitable wording in their post.

Yellow card is a visible mod action. It's not the mods fault if the poster didn't notice it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

am fully prepared to accept their judgement - I'd just like to know what it was if, as you know, there can sometimes be no visible indication.

Why?
What purpose does it serve for you to know how someone else was or was not reprimanded?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And to not be asked to not reply to a post I've reported if the mods decide the post is ok.

Again I'll ask you why?
Why would you want to reply to a post that has received moderator action ?(after all, who else would tell you not to reply to it?)

tbh it just seems nosy.

GreeBo wrote: »

Why?
What purpose does it serve for you to know how someone else was or was not reprimanded?


Again I'll ask you why?
Why would you want to reply to a post that has received moderator action ?(after all, who else would tell you not to reply to it?)

tbh it just seems nosy.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

That's when you really need to trust that the mods have done their bit in reviewing the RP & taking action if necessary. If non-visible action was taken - it could be via a PM, it could be that the mod thinks "Nope, nothing to do here" or "Let's wait & see what happens" or whatever.

To be honest, I don't have the time or the wherewithal to give feedback to every reporter of a post where there was no publicly visible action taken. And then imagine the PM convos we would have to deal with to justify ourselves to every disgruntled reported when we didn't dish out the harsh penalty that they felt was necessary? (See DRP referenced above.)

There are only so many hours in the day to give to this site. Simple as that.

Greebo - I don;t need to know if someone got reprimanded - that's NOT what I was asking (see below). I don't care - obviously, it's none of my busienss.

Hill Billy - I accept the time issue, but I want to aavoid is this:

I'm in debate with someone.
He says something I consider abusive or trolling.

Then, either:
I report the post and reply to it - Moderater says please just report it instead. Fair enough, makes sense.

I report the post and don't reply - Moderator deems the most ok, does nothing - I'm still not in a position to know whether I can continue the debate or not!

Recently I've given it 12 or 24 hours and if nothign happens I play on, but I don't even know if that's fair to the moderators or not.

Picture a football match where the ref never tells the players whether there's been a fowl or not, and then shows a yellow card to a player for playing on when there was.

(I know there's a difference in number of fouls v number of reported posts, but you get the idea: how do we know when to continue?)