Should mods be able to deactivate PM's?

Magenta

I assumed no mod would do this, given they need to use PMs for dealing with posters who have been warned, infracted, banned etc, but as can be seen in this thread it does happen.

I feel that mods should not be allowed to do this.
When a user creates a thread about a dispute in Help Desk, the first thing they will be asked is if they have followed the dispute resolution procedure i.e. have they PM'd the mod. Obviously this is impossible if the mod has disabled PM's. To be honest I'm wondering if a mod would disable them for this very reason.

I am wondering if anyone agrees that mods should not be allowed to do this?
Sure, I'm sure some mods have people on Ignore alright, but outright disabling PM's from the whole (or majority) of the site is not on in my opinion.

Bonito

There are mods who stick users on their ignore list. Can't handle the heat then get outta the kitchen IMO.

Zaph

As you have mentioned, PMing a mod is the first step of the DRP, and as such it is essential for mods to have PMs enabled, although I don't believe there is an official policy regarding this. I'm going to take this to the admin forum for further discussion and we'll see if we can formulate some proper guidelines for mods regarding their PMs.

Aidric

In some instances it matters little, for some mods see fit to flatly ignore user requests for information by pm. Another broken link in the rusty chain that is the DRP.

Bonito

In the dispute resolution procedure it says 1st Pm the mod in question or if you don't feel comfortable pm'ing the mod then pm one of the co-mods. This is stupid.

Why is this stupid? It's stupid because if that mod has you on ignore you have to Pm one of their co-mods. Sure how are we to know if we're on their ignore list or if they're just actively ignoring us?

That co-mod then has to go and talk with the mod in question, which takes up their time, to see what's going on. Plus god knows what spiel the mod will spill to their co-mod. And who's the co-mod going to believe, the user or their co-mod?

From the reasons above, I'd just go straght to helpdesk. If it was over something that the mod in question could have handled then they should get a slap on the wrist off the Admins for them having to attend to something which they could have dealt with themselves.

My name is URL

Bonito wrote: »

Why is this stupid? It's stupid because if that mod has you on ignore you have to Pm one of their co-mods. Sure how are we to know if we're on their ignore list or if they're just actively ignoring us?

If a mod has users of their forum on ignore I really don't see how they could perform their modding duties effectively. Having PMs disabled is bad enough but blocking posts in a forum you're supposed to police, that's stupid

Bonito

Yes it's stupid but, it happens.

Ninja: I think mods ignore lists should be viewable by normal users. Or we should at least be able to see if we ourselves are on them.

bonkey

Bonito wrote: »

Ninja: I think mods ignore lists should be viewable by normal users. Or we should at least be able to see if we ourselves are on them.

Alternately, mods shouldn't have ignore lists.

--amadeus--

Bonito wrote: »

Yes it's stupid but, it happens.

Anything to back that up?

FWIW I agree on the PM thing but I've personally never heard of a Mod having a user who frequents thier own forums on ignore

Bonito

Yes but it's an entirely different topic and I'd probably be accused of making snide remarks and sneaky side shots so I'll leave it out.

I've been ignored over pm issues countless times. I didn't go to helpdesk. Why? Because they were small issues that could have been resolved with the mod(s) in question and unlike them, I don't like using the Admins as a safety net. Why have a DRP if the feckin mods can't even follow it properly?

I've even been ignored by c-mods would you believe after I didn't receive a reply from the mod. Whether they just ignored me or have me on their ignore list I don't know and frankly don't care, I'll still sleep well at night.

pickarooney

Bonito wrote: »

I've been ignored over pm issues countless times. I didn't go to helpdesk. Why? Because they were small issues that could have been resolved with the mod(s) in question and unlike them, I don't like using the Admins as a safety net. Why have a DRP if the feckin mods can't even follow it properly?

Personally I agree. The DRP is unnecessarily complicated and posters just can't be bothered with it. How many times have you seen someone successfully follow the procedure versus those who short-cut it to helpdesk/feedback only to be told to back to square one, thereby wasting the time of whoever responds to the feedback thread.

I don't see why an aggrieved poster can't post a thread in helpdesk and have the mod in question deal with it directly there and if he/she is not available then the co-mods should come on board. If the mod is purposely ignoring the user, this is not on (unless it's one of those cases where the same poster is continually harassing the mod) and should be more transparent, IMO.

itsallaboutheL

I think it's perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances.


I realise this his thread is as a result of the thread RE: Bossarky's modding in Fitness.

I am almost positive that i've never seen him lock a thread without stating his reason.

IMO this covers the First step of the DRP, as any PMing done afterwards with just end with said Mod reiterating what had alll ready been said on thread.

Under these conditions, (i.e providing the mod accounts for their actions on thread) then i can't see any reason why they shouldn't be entitled to block PMS.

Saibh

Unless I'm reading the post in the other thread wrong, the procedure BossArky gave when someone is banned is

Banning someone – PM poster with reason and direct towards feedback should they have concerns over the circumstances surrounding the ban

They are not told to go through the current procedure.

K-9

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

I think it's perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances.


I realise this his thread is as a result of the thread RE: Bossarky's modding in Fitness.

I am almost positive that i've never seen him lock a thread without stating his reason.

IMO this covers the First step of the DRP, as any PMing done afterwards with just end with said Mod reiterating what had alll ready been said on thread.

Under these conditions, (i.e providing the mod accounts for their actions on thread) then i can't see any reason why they shouldn't be entitled to block PMS.

Maybe a user may want to clarify something with the mod or something like that, maybe even apologise if in the wrong?

I've heard of users having mods on ignore, sounded stupid to me, this sounds worse.

5starpool

Maybe BossArky is too busy logging to read PM's.

LoLth

Lads (and ladies) this is being discussed in the admin forum as promised by Zaph. Feel free to continue the discussion here as it is always useful to hear other opinions on a topic while it is being discussed and, contrary to popular opinion, the admins do take user input on board when discussing a matter

However, please try to keep the discussion polite and on topic (ie: whether mods should or should not be able to turn off PMs) and try to avoid arguing a particular instance (except as a means of clarification of a point).

As always, please try to keep things civil.

Daemos

I agree that mods shouldn't be able to just turn off PMs completely, but

bonkey wrote: »

Alternately, mods shouldn't have ignore lists.

I disagree with this, because as an ex-mod I got the odd abusive PM as I'm sure most have, and whenever it did happen I'd report it and add the sender to my Ignore List.

I think it should be okay to block out the idiots that send abuse, but just completely ignoring everyone is not on IMO.

Gordon

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

There's no need for that.

That's an old joke regarding BossArky, I don't think there was any malice there "Thank you for logging in, BossArky", hehe.

itsallaboutheL

Gordon wrote: »

That's an old joke regarding BossArky, I don't think there was any malice there "Thank you for logging in, BossArky", hehe.

Oh wait, i have a recolection of that.

gandalf

Should mods be able to deactivate PM's? Definitely not as they cannot moderate without a line of communication with contributors and with fellow mods.

seamus

gandalf wrote: »

Should mods be able to deactivate PM's? Definitely not as they cannot moderate without a line of communication with contributors and with fellow mods.

Seems like a no-brainer tbh.

gandalf

seamus wrote: »

Seems like a no-brainer tbh.

Thats what I thought. Anyone who has them turned off is not capable of moderating properly and in reality should be de-modded.

Dohnny Jepp

gandalf wrote: »

Thats what I thought. Anyone who has them turned off is not capable of moderating properly and in reality should be de-modded.

Or given a slap on the wrist and told to turn them on?

Magenta

Bonito wrote: »

Why is this stupid? It's stupid because if that mod has you on ignore you have to Pm one of their co-mods. Sure how are we to know if we're on their ignore list or if they're just actively ignoring us?

It also means the mod gets to pass the buck to their co-mod. They ban or infract a user and their co-mod has to deal with it.

LoLth

Magenta wrote: »

It also means the mod gets to pass the buck to their co-mod. They ban or infract a user and their co-mod has to deal with it.

While that is certainly a side effect of disabling Pms, I'd be inclined to think (hope?) thats not the primary motive.

Wibbs

Having users on ignore or not having PM's turned on may just put pressure on co mods if nothing else. If you get a dodgy PM report it. If you are on the receiving end of bullying ditto. It shouldnt ever be so much of a pain where someone feels like they need to switch off PM's or put people on ignore.

Actually thats the angle I'm thinking of. Someone trusted and well known enough to be a mod, someone well liked and respected in their community as a contributor and a moderator is getting enough static that switching off PM's is a viable alternative? IMHO its gone too far at that point. Then again if its not reported how can comods or admins know?


Still its easy to get into "I wouldnt do that" isms. Some people brush this stuff off and ignore it, some do get upset by it. Either type may feel reporting it comes across as failure. I'd be asking why someone who's a good mod felt they needed to. No need for kneejerk reactions anyway.

dr.bollocko

I don't know how much of an issue it is for the smaller forums but on the whole you got to have em turned on if you're actively banning folks and whatnot. It kinda becomes more important the more moderating you actually do.

AckwelFoley

Ive made my point pretty clear in the previous thread that this one spawned from.

If you are a mod that has pm's disabled its akin to a receptionist that doesnt answer phones...

..perhaps a receptionist job in the public service is for you :pac:

bonkey

DaPoolRulz wrote: »

I agree that mods shouldn't be able to just turn off PMs completely, but I disagree with this, because as an ex-mod I got the odd abusive PM as I'm sure most have, and whenever it did happen I'd report it and add the sender to my Ignore List.

For an ex-mod, I'd have no problem with that.
For a mod, I'm not sure its the correct approach. I'd say report the PM. If you get more abuse, report that too, and mention that this is not the first time said person has given you abuse. They win a free holiday.

Consider the alternate...you get abuse, report the post, and put the poster on ignore. They learn the error of their ways, and now wish to contact you (as a moderator) for a valid reason, politely worded and all. Should they not be able to do this?

I think it should be okay to block out the idiots that send abuse

Putting them on ignore means you get them blocked out if they continue with shenanigans. Reporting them to the Admins means everyone gets them blocked out if they continue with shenanigans.

If that's not a preferable solution, then maybe the Admin team need to look at being (even) tougher on people sending abuse via PM....but I would prefer to go down that path then the one saying that abuse from a poster via PM means a mod can ignore them at will. I would, however, concede that someone with a perma-ban from a forum may be a special case.

gandalf

bonkey in the old days (as I am sure you remember ) if someone sent you an abusive PM you dealt with it one of two ways. You extended their ban and/or you engaged with an admin to take action. If the admin felt the abuse was bad that person had their posting privilages removed either temporally or pemanently depending on how bad the abuse was. I don't think that has changed much.

There is no excuse for an active moderator to have pm's turned off period.

Daemos

bonkey wrote: »

For an ex-mod, I'd have no problem with that.
For a mod, I'm not sure its the correct approach. I'd say report the PM. If you get more abuse, report that too, and mention that this is not the first time said person has given you abuse. They win a free holiday.

Consider the alternate...you get abuse, report the post, and put the poster on ignore. They learn the error of their ways, and now wish to contact you (as a moderator) for a valid reason, politely worded and all. Should they not be able to do this?


Putting them on ignore means you get them blocked out if they continue with shenanigans. Reporting them to the Admins means everyone gets them blocked out if they continue with shenanigans.

If that's not a preferable solution, then maybe the Admin team need to look at being (even) tougher on people sending abuse via PM....but I would prefer to go down that path then the one saying that abuse from a poster via PM means a mod can ignore them at will. I would, however, concede that someone with a perma-ban from a forum may be a special case.

Well to be honest you do have a fair point, because things like this work a bit different on adverts than boards (at least they did when I was mod, could be different now for all I know).

Whenever any abuse was sent to a mod, they'd be banned permanently from adverts, which simultaneously removes PM privelages on boards. So adding them to the Ignore List was basically as a pit stop until the ban was applied.

And if the user wanted to apologize they could use the Support forum or leave a visitor message

Slidey

Anytime I got abuse as a mod I just laughed at it.

I would be of the firm opinion that it is vital for all mods to have PM's turned on.

The ignore feature may be a little different. Personally whenever some tard annoys me enough to put them on ignore I continually view their posts anyway to back up my view that they are in fact a tard so it defeats the purpose.

If you have a known trouble maker who posts in a forum you mod having them on ignore is a bad situation. It means you are relying on someone reporting the post if it is actionable

bonkey

gandalf wrote: »

bonkey in the old days (as I am sure you remember ) if someone sent you an abusive PM you dealt with it one of two ways. You extended their ban and/or you engaged with an admin to take action.

Or both. I liked both.

I don't think that has changed much.

It certainly shouldn't have....

Sharpshooter

I have never turned off PM's in all my time here, being a user or a Mod.

There is no need to do it imo.

If you receive a PM that you consider to be abusive then report it.

I have, modding AH will attract PM's like that, if it's mild abuse I just read and ignore.

If it's OTT then I will hit the report button, I think I did that two maybe three times.

I don't see where you can mod a forum, ban someone who get's your auto PM and then finds themselves unable to contact you.

I have issued bans where the user has PM'd me and apologised and I have shortened the ban because of that apology, had I had my PM's turned off that could not have been settled amicably.

ivanthehunter

Is there a way to know if your PM has hit an ignore list wall?:)

If so- at least you'd know that you're flogging a dead'un and could plan another route of action or stick on the TV or give the wife a hug:rolleyes:

Magenta

Is there any update on this?

FarmerGreen

Filed under
May cause problems>Too trickey>do later.

Other in tray names may be
Oh Jeez
Now
Next
Before dinner
Today
Tomorrow
Lets hope it goes away
Send to DeV

Sharpshooter

RopeDrink wrote: »

Alternatives:

Post a PM towards the Co-Moderator (If any - By rights there always should be for public forums). If you're unhappy with time lapsed without response, hit the Cat-Moderator upside the face with a PM and so on.

Good advice, send a Pm to all Mods of the forum and receipt it so you know if the Mod/Mods/ have read it.

Do give some time for a reply though, just because a Pm has been read doesn't mean the Mod /Cat Mod hasn't other pressing things that need attention first.

pickarooney

RopeDrink wrote: »

Again, it's a possible alternative, not a solution I know - A lot of people presume they absolutely MUST deal with the Moderator who handled whatever situation that person was in - This isn't (always) the case so do keep Co-Mods in mind.

The official dispute resolution procedure states explicitly in step 1 that the user must contact the moderator with whom he/she has a dispute. Anyone who skips any part of the DRP is immediately rebuffed from helpdesk. It's a no-win situation for the user and can only lead to increased frustration all round.

bonkey

pickarooney wrote:

The official dispute resolution procedure states explicitly in step 1 that the user must contact the moderator with whom he/she has a dispute.

Does it?

Here's the text of point 1 the Dispute resolution procedure, with a bit of emphasis added.


1. If you have a problem with a post, thread or a ban from a forum, the first step should be a PM to the moderator in question. If you are not comfortable with PM'ing that particular mod, you can PM the other mods of that forum. You will find the list of the mods at the bottom of the forum in question. If you have been banned from a forum it is still possible to enter it to see who the mods are by logging out of boards.ie first.


It seems to me that this is pretty explicitly saying that you don't have to contact the mod in question.

On a forum with one mod, if the user contacted the CMod directly or came to the Helpdesk and said they didn't want to PM the mod, but had no other mod, I'd be very surprised if they were turned away on the grounds that they didn't follow the procedure to the letter. Indeed, if that has happened, count me amongst those saying we need to change that.

Dohnny Jepp

bonkey wrote: »

Does it?

Here's the text of point 1 the Dispute resolution procedure, with a bit of emphasis added.


1. If you have a problem with a post, thread or a ban from a forum, the first step should be a PM to the moderator in question. If you are not comfortable with PM'ing that particular mod, you can PM the other mods of that forum. You will find the list of the mods at the bottom of the forum in question. If you have been banned from a forum it is still possible to enter it to see who the mods are by logging out of boards.ie first.


It seems to me that this is pretty explicitly saying that you don't have to contact the mod in question.

On a forum with one mod, if the user contacted the CMod directly or came to the Helpdesk and said they didn't want to PM the mod, but had no other mod, I'd be very surprised if they were turned away on the grounds that they didn't follow the procedure to the letter. Indeed, if that has happened, count me amongst those saying we need to change that.

Actually what it says if we want to get this specific, is that the only reason you do not contact the mod in question is "IF YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE". To me this means that the mod in question has to be available to you whether you want to discuss it with him or not.

K-9

bonkey wrote: »

Does it?

Here's the text of point 1 the Dispute resolution procedure, with a bit of emphasis added.


1. If you have a problem with a post, thread or a ban from a forum, the first step should be a PM to the moderator in question. If you are not comfortable with PM'ing that particular mod, you can PM the other mods of that forum. You will find the list of the mods at the bottom of the forum in question. If you have been banned from a forum it is still possible to enter it to see who the mods are by logging out of boards.ie first.


It seems to me that this is pretty explicitly saying that you don't have to contact the mod in question.

On a forum with one mod, if the user contacted the CMod directly or came to the Helpdesk and said they didn't want to PM the mod, but had no other mod, I'd be very surprised if they were turned away on the grounds that they didn't follow the procedure to the letter. Indeed, if that has happened, count me amongst those saying we need to change that.

Being pedantic, but that is only if you aren't comfortable pm'ing them. In this, it doesn't matter as comfortable or not, you can't pm the mod anyway.

Magenta

RopeDrink wrote: »

Forums have CoMods for a reason - If one is busy, the other can step in, or even just get onto the Mod and give them a reminder that someone is looking for a matter to be resolved (if unable to handle that situation themselves).

How do you suggest the Co-Mod gives the original mod "a reminder" when the original mod has deactivated PMs? You are relying on the assumption that the mods all speak outside of Boards.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Still - I'd also like to think that if a User had an issue with me or felt that I was being unreasonable then they could get a second opinion before taking it higher - I can't see how that would effect their HelpDesk request assuming they HAVE still kept in contact with the original Moderator on the matter as per procedure.

And how do you suggest the user "keeps in contact with the original moderator" when the original moderator has deactivated PMs?!?!

Magenta

RopeDrink wrote: »

My replies were posted on the assumption a Mod has their PM's enabled, obviously.

As said in my previous replies (Somewhere on Page 1) nobody in their right mind can honestly believe that a Moderator role can be performed competantly with PM's disabled... It's not possible and goes against simple common sense. In short, anyone with PM's disabled (or thinks it's ok to turn them off) should not be a Moderator at all.

But to give my point a little meat, a Mod/CoMod/CatMod could post a thread in the Moderators forum to get the attention of the person in question or, failing that, a member of the Admin team who could possibly fix the issue somehow.

EDIT:
Seeing as we've been given no official word on whats acceptable or not I do stick by saying that PM'ing a CoMod / CatMod is a possible alternative - If they can guage wether the official Moderator a User has to deal with definately has PM's disabled then surely the User can be given some leeway when it comes to dispute resolution, beit allowing them to deal with the matter properly through a CoMod or not having their claim snubbed in HelpDesk. Wouldn't be very nice if a User can't resolve a matter because someone higher up the chain claims they broke procedure when in reality they simply couldn't get through to the Moderator at all.

I'm not trying to answer your questions because there is no real answer at the moment, just trying to help by offering different angles. I've never been in that situation so take it for what it's worth.

I see what you're saying.

Personally I think it's incredibly lazy and selfish for a mod to disable their PMs. The mod does the banning and their co-mods and admins have to deal with the aftermath. Team playing all the way :rolleyes:

5starpool

Has there been any official discussion among admins on this?

This is probably something that should be official policy, unlike some of the other things that have been put forward.

nesf

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

Actually what it says if we want to get this specific, is that the only reason you do not contact the mod in question is "IF YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE". To me this means that the mod in question has to be available to you whether you want to discuss it with him or not.

K-9 wrote: »

Being pedantic, but that is only if you aren't comfortable pm'ing them. In this, it doesn't matter as comfortable or not, you can't pm the mod anyway.

As a Cat Mod I can confirm that it's perfectly ok to PM me if you haven't gotten a reply off the forum mods. You'd want to give them a few days to reply though, otherwise I'll just tell you to wait a while before assuming they're not going to respond!

First step, co-mods, second Cat-Mod.

Rules are applied reasonably not legalistically people, you should all know this!

Dohnny Jepp

nesf wrote: »

Rules are applied reasonably not legalistically people, you should all know this!

Tell that to the people getting turned away from help desk :P

K-9

nesf wrote: »

As a Cat Mod I can confirm that it's perfectly ok to PM me if you haven't gotten a reply off the forum mods. You'd want to give them a few days to reply though, otherwise I'll just tell you to wait a while before assuming they're not going to respond!

First step, co-mods, second Cat-Mod.

Rules are applied reasonably not legalistically people, you should all know this!

Of course, I was being pedantic!

I'd like the option to sort it out amicably with the mod involved first though. Keep it between ourselves if you will, in private. I've had a ban rescinded that way and I'd prefer to have the direct option first.

If a mod was getting hassle from a particular poster, I'd understand the specific use of the blocking pm option.

Sharpshooter

K-9 wrote: »

If a mod was getting hassle from a particular poster, I'd understand the specific use of the blocking pm option.

I wouldn't tbh.

Mods have the report button there too, as I said before if I receive a pm of abuse but I know it's just that user is letting of steam I will do nothing about it, and in After Hours that can happen a lot.

But if it's out of line and worth reporting then I will.

Mods need to keep the line of communication open.

There is no need for any mod to turn off PMs.

-Chris-

Before I became a mod I had my PMs turned off for various reasons. When I became a mod I asked in the mod forum whether I should turn them on or was it fair to leave them turned off.

I got the advice from an Admin that it would be better to have them on, and in retrospect I believe that advice was correct and that it should be official policy that all mods/cmods/admins are required to have PMs enabled.

dr.bollocko

I don't understand how this thread is going on so long.
Mods need to have PMs turned on!
End of story! Right?